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 8 

Page

Public Witnesses, April 16, 2013 ........................................... 1

Public Witnesses, April 17, 2013 ........................................... 189

American Indian and Alaska Native Witnesses, April 

24, 2013 .................................................................................... 269

American Indian and Alaska Native Witnesses, April 

25, 2013 .................................................................................... 595

Written Testimony from Individuals and 

Organizations ........................................................................ 797

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

81–745 WASHINGTON : 2013 
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)
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

PUBLIC WITNESSES 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. Good morning 

and welcome to the first of three public witness hearings this 

morning, this afternoon, and again tomorrow morning. The subcommittee will be hearing from a cross-section of individuals representing a wide variety of issues addressed by this subcommittee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table one panel 

at a time. I will screw up your names, so correct me when you get 

up here. That is okay. 

Each witness will be provided with 5 minutes to present their 

testimony. We will be using the timer to track the progress of each 

witness. When the button turns yellow, the witness will have 1 

minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. Their full statements will be included in the record. 

Members will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of our 

witnesses, but in the interest of time, the chair requests that we 

keep things moving in order to stay on schedule. And the chair also 

wants to remind those in the hearing room that committee rules 

prohibit the use of outside cameras and audio equipment during 

these hearings. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. I am going to have to leave in a short while with 

Defense Secretary Hagel, so I am not going to take up time with 

an opening statement other than to say we are glad to hear from 

the folks. The first folks are representing water in this country and 

that is a critical issue for us as well. I hope we can find the resources and the creativity to provide adequate sources of clean, safe 

drinking water and the kind of resources we need to be devoting 

to our infrastructure, which is one of the places that has been cut 

most severely in the Interior appropriations bill unfortunately. But 

let’s proceed with the hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And I appreciate the fact that you have 

the Secretary of Defense coming into the Defense Committee. Because of the shortened schedule from the time we got the Presi-
2

dent’s budget until now, all of the subcommittees have been cramming hearings together on the budget and other things which has 

made it a little bit of a time compression. So, in fact, I was supposed to have a hearing this morning with the Secretary of Labor, 

but I am just not going to make it this morning. So anyway, we 

appreciate all of you coming in to give us your perspective on the 

issues that are important to you. 

Our first panel is Pete DeMarco, Dr. Dorr Dearborn, and Bob 

Iacullo. Is that close? 

Mr. IACULLO. That is very close. 

Mr. SIMPSON. All right. Excellent. Pete, the time is yours. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND 

MECHANICAL OFFICIALS 

WITNESS

PETER DeMARCO 

Mr. DEMARCO. Thank you, sir. Chairman Simpson, Ranking 

Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor 

to be here today, although our hearts are heavy due to the events 

yesterday in Boston and our hearts certainly go out to those affected in the State of Massachusetts. 

My name is Pete DeMarco. I am a senior director for the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. And 

that is IAPMO. IAPMO was founded in 1926 when plumbing code 

officials in Southern California came together to address waterborne illnesses outbreak and a severe drought that was affecting 

the region at that time. While IAPMO has grown over the years, 

our focus on effective delivery of safe potable drinking water and 

sanitation has never wavered. 

Today, IAPMO engages in a number of activities to help state 

and local jurisdictions achieve their water and energy efficiency 

goals. These activities include the development of model construction codes, the development of product standards, the testing and 

certification of products, and the creation of educational and training programs. These efforts all work in concert to help ensure that 

the water you drink, the plumbing systems you use, and the products you buy are safe and effective. 

As an international association, IAPMO codes are adopted 

throughout the world, and on a local level, many of you on the subcommittee, your home districts have adopted and enforced the 

IAPMO codes, and this includes the great and beautiful State of 

Idaho, I might add. 

Plumbing, mechanical, and solar and swimming pool codes are 

developed employing a voluntary process that is accredited by the 

American National Standards Institute, ANSI. This commitment to 

transparency, openness, and consensus in our code development 

process is a big reason why our expertise is so widely respected. 

In 2010, IAPMO published the first-ever green construction code 

in the United States, the ‘‘IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical 

Code Supplement.’’ By adhering to the water efficiency provisions 
3

found within the Supplement, a 35 percent savings in water use 

over baseline codes and EPAct levels can be attained. 

However, as we continue to demand greater efficiencies in our 

water usage, it is critically important that we also gain a better understanding of the ramifications this has on our plumbing systems 

as water flows from plumbing fixtures, appliances, and commercial 

equipment are reduced. In 2009, IAPMO was a founding member 

of the Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition, PERC, created to 

conduct needed research to support the successful use of water efficient plumbing products. 

In 2012, PERC issued its first research report, ‘‘The Drainline 

Transport of Solid Waste in Buildings.’’ This research was conducted with the funding obtained entirely from the private sector. 

The bad news is it took 2 years to gain that funding. And it is such 

a small amount of funding to conduct this research that really is 

truly a shame. 

We all realize the importance of water, yet the Federal Government is doing so very little in terms of supporting needed research 

on the unintended consequences of water efficiency in the built environment. Therefore, we encourage the Committee to have the Department of Interior and the EPA support these research efforts in 

terms of both funding dollars and towards supplying technical resources.

Just last week, President Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal 

year 2014. In this budget, the President requested approximately 

$8.1 billion for the EPA, a decrease of nearly $300 million over fiscal year 2012. We all understand the budget constraints facing our 

country, but we would encourage the Subcommittee to recommend 

that the EPA not relay these cuts to the critically important and 

effective WaterSense program. According to the EPA, WaterSense 

has helped consumers save a cumulative 287 billion gallons of viable, energy-laden potable water and over $4.7 billion in water and 

energy bills. 

WaterSense is a great example of a federal program that truly 

delivers a ‘‘triple bottom line’’ result. In addition to supporting 

water efficiency measures that reduce the impact on our environment and help consumers save money, manufacturers of high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and other products are benefiting from this effective, voluntary labeling program. Any cuts to 

WaterSense would be shortsighted and detrimental to water efficiency.

Additionally, IAPMO is aware of critical water issues facing Indian reservations throughout the country, yet very little effort has 

been devoted to provide desperately needed training for Native 

Americans. IAPMO has full-time staff devoted to creating ANSI-accredited training programs to provide education and life-changing 

skills in the trades. Our international experience has demonstrated 

how effective these training programs are, and we certainly recommend that such programs be deployed for the beneficial use on 

Indian reservations. Therefore, we ask the Committee to encourage 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to seek accredited training programs 

that will bring much-needed skills to these remote reservations, 

skills that would remain within the community to benefit all. 
4

In closing, we understand that there are many important, valuable programs for which your committee determines funding levels. 

Therefore, I would implore this committee to look at the programs 

and potential initiatives mentioned here today and these issues are 

truly bipartisan, widely supported programs that cost so little but 

achieve so much. 

Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and members of 

the subcommittee, as you know, there is no substitute for water. 

While I recognize the ingenuity and innovation that our country 

has demonstrated time and time again over the years, the fact remains that we will never be able to find a true replacement for this 

precious resource and the time to address our Nation’s looming 

water-related concerns is now. These problems will only be compounded as our population grows. 

Again, I appreciate your time today and look forward to answering any questions you might have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Peter DeMarco follows:] 
5
6
7
8
9

Mr. SIMPSON. Dr. Dearborn. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY 

WITNESS

DORR DEARBORN 

Mr. DEARBORN. Yes. Our prayers this morning are with the victims in Boston. 

I am Dr. Dorr Dearborn, Professor of Pediatrics at Case Western 

Reserve University School of Medicine and a pediatric 

pulmonologist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland. I am testifying on behalf of the American Thoracic Society, 

the organization to virtually all lung physicians and researchers in 

the United States. 

I have three important messages that I would like to make 

today. First, air pollution is a serious health problem; second, EPA 

funding for clean air programs and should be increased; and third, 

let EPA do its job. 

As a pulmonary physician, I treat kids with serious lung diseases 

such as severe asthma and cystic fibrosis. Through a combination 

of medications, lifestyle, and home environment modifications, I am 

usually able to help my patients. But one thing my patients and 

I cannot control is air pollution. Air pollution plays a major role in 

causing and exacerbating respiratory illnesses. When Cleveland 

has a major air alert, the emergency room, our clinic, and our hospital fills up with these patients. They have not done anything 

wrong. They are just breathing bad air. 

My clinical observations are backed up by a large number of 

peer-reviewed scientific studies that show when air pollution is 

bad, healthy kids get sick and sick kids get sicker. Yes, EPA’s controls have improved air pollution, but people are still getting sick 

and dying from air pollution. Currently, over 50 percent of all 

Americans live in communities that have experienced at least one 

bad air pollution day in the past 3 years. Air pollution is still a serious health problem of the United States not just for patients with 

lung diseases but also heart patients. It is a source of acute heart 

attacks.

Fortunately, EPA programs can make a difference in air quality. 

The Administration is proposing a $1.6 million increase in the 

clean air and climate portion of the Science and Technology Program and a $7.6 million increase in the Air Research Program. The 

budget also proposes a $22 million increase in the clean air and climate portion of the environmental programs and management 

budget. These are small but very important increases in large programs. These programs include the community outreach needed to 

reduce air pollution in local communities, and I urge the Committee’s support. 

However, I am concerned by the Administration’s proposal to cut 

the Diesel Retrofit Program. This program provides support for 

local communities to replace the old diesel engines in school buses, 

transit buses, and commuter trains with newer, more efficient en-
10

gines. The Diesel Retrofit Program has already yielded immediate 

and long-term improvements in local air quality and I urge that its 

funding be restored. 

EPA is charged with developing and maintaining an air pollution 

monitoring network. The current network is inadequate. EPA 

needs technology upgrades that will give us more accurate and 

more timely air quality data. I urge the Committee to provide additional funds to expand and update the EPA monitoring system. 

The American Thoracic Society is disappointed in the direction 

Congress has been heading on climate change. There is growing research documenting the severe adverse human health effects from 

climate change. Research has documented that higher concentrations in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases lead to changes 

in our global climate with profound impacts on weather, precipitation, agriculture, and human health. The ATS has a published 

workshop report documenting the respiratory health effects of global climate change. We urge Congress to let EPA move with policy 

to address climate change. 

The last point I would like to make is let EPA do its job. In the 

past 2 years, the House of Representatives has repeatedly passed 

legislation that would block, weaken, or delay EPA’s authority to 

improve our Nation’s air quality. When implemented, standards 

like the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Rule, the Boiler Rule, and the Tier 3 standard will save thousands 

of lives by preventing heart attacks and asthma attacks. In times 

when healthcare costs are of great concern, the healthcare savings 

from these rules will far exceed the compliance costs. And yet the 

House has repeatedly voted to block these important air-quality 

rules.

I strongly urge to this committee and all the Members of the 

House of Representatives to refrain from extraneous policy-riders 

and to let the EPA do its job to protect America’s health in improving our air quality. 

Thank you for your consideration. We would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The statement of Dorr Dearborn follows:] 
11
12
13
14
15

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. We will be glad to hear that. Well, I 

suspect you probably would. 

Mr. MORAN [continuing]. A statement myself. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I thought maybe you would. 

Mr. MORAN. Right on point there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Bob. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

UNITED WATER 

WITNESS

BOB IACULLO 

Mr. IACULLO. Thank you. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member 

Moran, and the members of the Interior Subcommittee. Let me 

start by saying that we also grieve for those who were killed and 

injured in the Boston Marathon explosion. 

My name is Bob Iacullo. I am the executive vice president for 

United Water, which is the second largest water services company 

in the United States serving a population of over 5-1⁄2 million people in 21 states, including 250,000 people in Boise, Idaho. 

And I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk about the 

need for and the benefits of the federal policy that encourages investment in our aging water infrastructure. But the cities, towns, 

and communities across this country face a real major challenge in 

trying to replace aging and worn-out water and wastewater systems. The need to make significant investment in water and wastewater infrastructure is clearly there. 

In my written testimony, I have a lot of facts and figures about 

the ranges of estimates of what is needed over the next 20 to 25 

years. I am not going to repeat that but what I would add is that 

recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report 

card on the Nation’s infrastructure, and in that, they gave water 

and wastewater infrastructure a grade of D. And actually, that is 

an improvement over their grades that they gave in 2009, but it 

still means that there is a strong risk of failure, which is very 

alarming given how vital water and wastewater safe and reliable 

services are to the public health and building local economies. 

And why did the American Society of Civil Engineers give water 

and wastewater infrastructure such a low grade? It is quite simply 

due to the lack of capital funding for investment purposes. It is estimated that in 2010 this gap between what is needed and what 

is being spent is about $55 billion. If the current trend continues, 

that will grow to over $80 billion in 2020. 

The funding gap in our opinion, as well as many other professionals in the industry, could be addressed through favorable federal bonding mechanisms that would provide relatively expedient 

infusion of resources and create a sustainable model for infrastructure renewal and replacement. Now, one of the models, the mechanisms that we favor most is the elimination of the state volume cap 

on the issuance of Private Activity Bonds for water and wastewater 

projects.
16

Private Activity Bonds, or PABs as I will call them, are exempt 

facility bonds, a form of tax exempt financing, which encourages 

state and municipal governments to collaborate with sources of 

capital funding to meet a public need. This public-private partnership approach makes infrastructure replacement and renewals 

more affordable and the PABs allow private capital to cost-effectively augment or replace public debt and also shifts the risk from 

the municipality to the private partner. 

Now, I will talk about two examples of how this has worked, particularly in one example. A few years ago, United Water had embarked on a project that was a $100 million expansion of a water 

treatment plant in New Jersey, Northern New Jersey. And this 

plant serves about a million people in Bergen and Hudson Counties. We had received a $65 million PAB allocation so we were able 

to issue tax-exempt financing of slightly under 5 percent, 4.95 percent to be exact. If we had gone out for taxable financing at that 

time, it would have been 7.62 percent. So we were able to save 

about 2-1⁄2 percent or 250 basis points in interest each year over the life of that $65 million bond issue. 

Another example is that—and this is more recent—just at the 

end of last year we closed on a transaction for a 4-year public-partnership transaction with the City of Bayonne that involves a very 

innovative business model. What this business model will provide 

is $100 million investment over the 4-year period and new infrastructure for the city for their water and wastewater facility. It also 

provides $150 million upfront payment to the city, which they used 

to retire a significant amount of debt that is on their books right 

now, which in turn then creates more capacity for them to issue 

new bonds for other needed services in the city. The $150 million upfront payment was financed with private 

capital with a combination of taxable debt and equity. And when 

the debt was issued, we did benefit from the favorable interest rate 

environment right now, as well as the fact that the credit quality 

was good because of the nature of the transaction. However, had 

we gone out for PABs at the time, it would have been a more favorable transaction to the residents of Bayonne either in terms of either additional upfront payment or lower rates for water and 

wastewater service over the life of the contract. 

This business model was well-received by the rating agencies. In 

fact, Moody’s had for the first time in 5 years affirmed the city’s 

bond rating of Baa1 G.O. and also had an improved their credit 

outlook from negative to stable. 

Now, a common thread of these two examples, particularly in the 

first one is that the tax exempt financing with the lower interest 

saving completely goes to the customer’s benefit in terms of lower 

rates. The company itself does not benefit by the fact that it was 

able to use the less expensive financing mechanism. 

Now, legislation to lift the volume cap on PABs for water and 

wastewater projects has maintained broad bipartisan and bicameral support. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1802 and S.939 had 

garnered over 100 co-supporters in recognition of the need to make 

increased water infrastructure investment. 

So in summary, United Water encourages the committee members to support the EPA’s Environmental Financial Advisory 
17

Board’s recommendation to remove water and wastewater projects 

from the PAB state volume cap or perhaps initiate a 5-year PAB 

pilot program to help municipalities contain costs and provide 

much-needed access to capital. It will only be through sustainable 

capital investment programs that utilize both public and private resources that we can lessen the cost of water infrastructure renewal 

and replacement projects, minimize the number of water service 

disruptions to homes and businesses, stimulate the economy, and 

protect and preserve scarce water resources, as well as the environment.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Robert Iacullo follows:] 
18
19
20
21
22

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Thank all of you for your testimony. 

Financing water infrastructure in this country is a huge problem. 

We had a hearing earlier this year on it in this subcommittee. I 

think the backlog was something like $700 billion. And we throw 

a couple billion dollars at it a year. It means in 350 years we can 

address the backlog that currently exists. 

Mr. IACULLO. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We have got to find a different way to finance it 

and we have got to start thinking outside the box. I do not have 

the answer to it but I understand the President’s budget proposes 

to eliminate the cap on Private Activity Bonds. Unfortunately, it is 

not in our jurisdiction; it is in PNI’s jurisdiction, but we can work 

with them and see what we can do. 

Mr. IACULLO. That is good to hear. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate all of your testimony, and certainly we 

all want the EPA to do their job. We have differences of opinion 

about what that job is. Thank you. 

Mr. IACULLO. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Next panel is Florentino Gregorio. Is that close? 

Mr. GREGORIO. That is very good. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Teresa Marks and Matthew Millea. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Florentino, the floor is yours. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

FLORENTINO GREGORIO 

Mr. GREGORIO. Good morning. Thank you. 

Chairman Simpson and all the subcommittee members who are 

not here but have got the staff support, I am Florentino Gregorio, 

the chairman of National Utility Contractors Association and also 

the president of a local construction company called Anchor Construction.

NUCA is the Nation’s oldest and largest trade association representing utility and excavating contractors. NUCA is a family of 

nearly 1,300 companies from across the Nation that build, repair, 

and maintain underground water, wastewater, gas, electric, and 

telecommunications systems. I am a first-generation U.S. citizen 

and have grown my company Anchor from four to a couple hundred 

people. Unfortunately, the recession has cost our members thousands of jobs across the country. 

NUCA commends the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and 

it is my pleasure to give you a firsthand account of the infrastructure needs of this country. We need Washington, D.C., to see the 

shortfalls of our crumbling infrastructure. Anchor crews are actually not that far from the capital right here today working on some 

of the utility infrastructure around. 

Unfortunately, because of budgetary restraints, most states, including the District of Columbia, have been unable to adequately 

fund water infrastructure projects and maintenance. I understand 

that water infrastructure is not the most politically prosperous 
23

topic for lawmakers, but I also understand that water infrastructure could be politically devastating for lawmakers who do nothing 

to prevent it from failing. 

Most people do not think twice about utility infrastructures until 

there is a problem. For example, and this is just around this area, 

over the last month a water main broke on Connecticut Avenue 

shutting down the road in the morning of rush hour or a sewer line 

that was leaking into the waterways of Rock Creek Park, and 

many other ones that are happening all the time. These types of 

problems will increase in frequency without more funding for fixes 

before they break. Any activity or work we do at home, in office, 

or recreation relies on our utility infrastructure. 

By the way, from the aspects of infrastructure that we take for 

granted, there is one thing that this country needs to understand 

now more than ever about infrastructure. It also creates jobs. The 

Clean Water Council released an economic impact study on the job 

creation and economic benefits that come with water and wastewater infrastructure projects. This study was released in 2009 

called ‘‘Sudden Impact: An Assessment of Short-Term Economic 

Impacts of Water and Wastewater Construction Projects in the 

United States.’’ It takes a comprehensive look at 116 water and 

wastewater infrastructure projects in 5 states and 73 counties. 

Sudden Impact quantifies what we already know. Investment in 

underground environmental infrastructure projects result in significant construction job creation, as well as jobs outside of the construction industry. The economic benefits that come with funding 

water infrastructure are not limited to job creation such as national output, personal spending. State and tax bases also increase. 

So the Sudden Impact found that investing $1 billion could create approximately 27,000 jobs. The average earning within the construction sector were found to be more than $50,000 a year, and 

half of those jobs are outside of the water and wastewater construction illustrating a broad reach and investment in this infrastructure. So for a billion-dollar investment, the infrastructure gets fixed 

and about another $150 million is directly—economic growth occurs. You know, it goes out to the economy. 

Further, funding water infrastructure projects will have an immediate effect on jobs in the economy. The construction industry 

still faces an unemployment rate of around 17 percent, and that is 

a really high rate during a recovery. Putting them to work will not 

only pay dividends once the infrastructure projects are completed 

and businesses are able to grow as a result of utilizing a new and 

updated system, growing those businesses will have a positive ripple affect stimulating for economic growth. The message behind 

these statistics is clear: investment in water and wastewater infrastructure projects is an investment in an American asset. It creates 

countless American jobs in hundreds of American industries. 

In conclusion, America cannot function without environmental 

infrastructure. And this is necessary for the public health and good 

business. It connects nearly everything we do on a daily basis and 

is a precondition for economic renewal and growth. That is why 

NUCA strongly supports continued investment in the EPA’s water 

and drinking water state revolving fund program. 
24

There are other several funding mechanisms that are being considered, including the NIFA proposal, the Infrastructure Fund Proposal, Infrastructure Bank, the Private Activity Bonds, and other 

things. We support these ideas as part of a long-term solution. SRF 

program works well as a workhorse to get projects built. We need 

to increase SRF funding, not the other way like it is proposed in 

there right now. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony before 

the subcommittee here, and it is important that we keep investing 

in infrastructure. 

[The statement of Florentino Gregorio follows:] 
25
26
27
28
29

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GREGORIO. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Teresa. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES 

WITNESS

TERESA MARKS 

Ms. MARKS. Good morning, Chairman Simpson. And I appreciate 

the fact that you and the subcommittee members have invited us 

here to testify today on these very important issues. I am Teresa 

Marks. I am the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and I am testifying today as president of the Environmental Council of the States on behalf of the state and territorial environmental commissioners who make up its membership. 

My comments address the fiscal year 2014 appropriations for EPA, 

and more specifically, those that are the State and Tribal Assistance Grants. 

The states are co-regulators, as you know, with EPA in the implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws. The U.S. Congress included provisions in most of the major federal environmental statutes such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, and the Clean Air Act for states to assume authority 

over federal programs under the oversight of the EPA and to provide assistance to states to operate these federal programs. A state 

match is usually required under these statutes and states now, 

through general operating funds, fees, and other means, provide 

well over half of the funds needed to operate federal programs. 

In addition, states operate their own programs that address 

state-specific needs. These state programs are driven by state laws, 

and although they do not require federal funds, they contribute significantly to the public health and environmental quality of the Nation and may directly or indirectly support the federal programs. 

Congress provides assistance to states primarily through State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants, which are commonly referred to as 

STAG, which are in part composed of two programs: Categorical 

Grants, which primarily assist states with the operation of delegated programs; and the Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

Revolving Infrastructure Funds, which you have heard much about 

today, that are administered by states but used primarily by local 

governments.

The core environmental protection activities required by federal 

and state law include permitting, inspections, enforcement, monitoring, standard-setting, site cleanup, and more. The states’ role is 

paramount in these activities. It is estimated that states conduct 

97 percent of the inspections and regulated facilities, provide 94 

percent of the data in EPA’s six major databases, and conduct over 

90 percent of all enforcement actions. 

While Congress has enacted a fiscal year 2013 budget, states are 

still waiting to learn what the individual Cat Grant levels will be. 
30

Therefore, in my remarks to you today, I will use fiscal year 2012 

as a basis for comparison. 

Our Nation’s environmental laws are based on the principle of 

cooperative federalism under which EPA and states work together 

to protect human health and the environment. Since 2000, ECOS 

has affirmed the belief that early, meaningful, and substantial 

state involvement in the development and implementation of EPA’s 

work is important to ensure a productive and efficient working relationship. Continued attention to this joint governance model is 

vital moving forward. 

On average, federal funding is estimated to be less than 1⁄4 of the 

overall cost of environmental program operation in the states. 

State environmental agencies seek alternate program funding support through user fees, state general funds, and other means to 

support program implementation. While state funds and user fees 

are important, the Categorical Grant funds remain an essential resource to meet congressional requirements for protecting public 

health and the environment. 

Resource needs for new and expanding workloads in air, water, 

and waste programs cause increasing concerns for state regulators. 

For example, in water there is an increased focus on the reduction 

of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, including nonpoint sources. 

There has been an expansion of the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Program Universe as new sources are added. 

In addition, drinking water requirements that must be implemented can be extremely costly, particularly to those small water 

systems that make up the vast majority of water systems in the 

United States. 

While the 19 Categorical Grants are an essential resource, enacted levels for these resources have declined over the past 10 

years. From 2003 to 2012, levels of funding for Categorical Grants 

dropped by $54 million. Of the 19 Categorical Grants in fiscal year 

2012, five grants represent 78 percent of the total funding. These 

top five grants provide core support for the majority of state-delegated efforts, including standards setting, permitting, inspections, 

enforcement, monitoring, and support of state and national databases. The remaining grants provide important resources in areas 

such as underground injection control, underground storage tanks, 

pesticides, and brownfield programs. 

Many states have faced this declined in federal funding support 

while also dealing with their own budget reductions, resulting in 

hiring freezes, furloughs, layoffs, and other budget-reduction measures. States also face fee fatigue from the regulated community and 

local legislatures as a result of efforts to seek additional funding. 

The fiscal year 2014 President’s budget for EPA proposes 1.136 

billion for Categorical Grants, an increase of $47 million over the 

2012 enacted level. Categorical Grants support our core programs 

and are necessary for continuation of environmental protection in 

your states. We seek your support for this funding. 

States and EPA agree there is tremendous value to be gained in 

jointly pursuing an initiative grounded on the open and transparent exchange of information and data, which we refer to as EEnterprise for the Environment. The states and EPA jointly acknowledge that its success is dependent upon the development of 
31

a shared government structure that embraces cooperative federalism, delegation, and effective EPA-state collaboration while 

working within a limited amount of resources currently available 

to further this effort. 

Since August 2012, states and EPA have worked to define the 

scope of E-Enterprise and to determine how to work together on 

this large, complex, multiyear effort. States and EPA need to respect state-delegated authorities, including data access, and conversations need to continue about how to collect only data that is 

truly needed as each data point has a cost to the generator to 

produce as well as to the recipient to manage. Basically, the states’ 

position is that we should use a business model in this area. In 

other words, if you do not need it, do not ask for it. 

While issues remain, states believe this effort holds significant 

promise and have committed to working with EPA. States seek 

your support for funding in STAG for this jointly managed effort. 

States and EPA have been working to address unexpended appropriations which are comprised of both unobligated and obligated 

funds and oppose any rescissions of these funds, as has recently 

happened. States respectfully request that if Congress funds, there 

is a need to continue to resend unobligated funds from the STAG 

account of EPA’s budget, that no funds less than 3 years old be targeted.

States appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns 

and I will be happy to answer any questions I can. Thank you. 

[The statement of Teresa Marks follows:] 
32
33
34
35
36

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Matthew. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 

WITNESS

MATTHEW MILLEA 

Mr. MILLEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I think you have heard a lot of the technical points that are in my written testimony. I am representing 

the Water Environment Federation today, which is a 36,000 strong 

member organization of water professionals and utility managers. 

I am also here as a deputy county executive from Onondaga County, New York, of Syracuse. I am joined by County Legislator Mike 

Plochocki, who serves as the Chairman of the Environmental Protection Committee within our legislature. So I welcome him as 

well.

Thank you for the opportunity to present. I ask of the sentiments 

of our previous speakers on many of the technical points they raise. 

And I really want to focus on the clean water, the SRF programs 

with you and briefly on the National Water Quality Assessment 

Program.

Prior to joining Onondaga County, I was the state’s acting president of their SRF administration, the Environmental Facilities 

Corporation, and I had the honor to serve in that role during the 

federal stimulus rollout in 2009. New York State received upwards 

of $500 million from the federal stimulus program for clean water 

and drinking water infrastructure, and it was a very important and 

pivotal time, I believe, in the SRF history. It is the first time since 

1990 that Congress had authorized states to provide direct grants 

for water infrastructure. Since 1986 amendments to the Clean 

Water Act, we were restricted to strictly loans. I think it is a very 

important innovation that Congress enacted in 2009 and something 

I will encourage Congress to continue in going forward. 

Flexibility within the SRF gives states the ability on an individual basis to decide what works best in their jurisdiction. And 

WEF and myself as a former SRF administrator believe that the 

SRF should come first in the funding strategy. As you said, it may 

be very hard to address the billion dollars at a time, but the SRF 

is tremendously successful. The innovations that we had in 2009 

have been very helpful with principal forgiveness, grants, and 

guarantees. Those should be continued and I believe expanded. 

The Green Reserve in New York State, with the Green Reserve, 

we set aside a portion of our federal stimulus grant specifically for 

green projects, and we are now in our fourth round of green funding. So I think what was enacted there has proven to continue on 

and delivered fantastic results. 

In Onondaga County, we are advancing an aggressive green infrastructure program along with a great infrastructure CSL abatement program, and we have benefited from direct SRF assistance 

for our green infrastructure components. So I think it is very important for me as the vice chairman of the WEF Legislative Affairs 
37

Committee to stress a clean water SRF-first strategy, a drinking 

water SRF-first strategy. Those should be funded at 2012 levels. 

Those were historically high levels and they should be sustained. 

And then we would ask respectfully that Congress pursue WIFIA 

as an additional strategy for states to use, particularly for large, 

regional projects above $20 million. 

Last week, I was invited to go speak in Pittsburgh where they 

are dealing with a CSO issue very similar to what we are struggling with in Syracuse. Ultimately, it may cost $3.7 billion for them 

to comply with the Clean Water Act. Syracuse is spending north of 

$600 million. WIFIA will provide a backstop for the states. If we 

work through the SRF system and access WIFIA through the SRF, 

we can partner with the states and use WIFIA as an opportunity 

to bring federal funding to large projects and preserve the capital 

within the SRF for smaller projects, particularly for hardship communities that made the direct assistance at zero percent loans. So 

WIFIA will be an additional tool in the toolbox and we feel very 

strongly it should not compete with the SRF. It should support 

backstop the SRF. 

And then finally, the National Water Quality Assessment Program I believe is under the jurisdiction of this committee and we 

would respectfully request funding at the 2010 level of $66.5 million. The National Water Quality Assessment Program fits in, we 

believe, with the grander infrastructure financing scheme by providing the scientific data that we needed to show that the investments that we are making in our water infrastructure are producing significant water quality results. 

And we hear all the time from EPA that science will drive decision-making. As a member of the regulated community that constantly sees rules ratcheted up and limits ratcheted down and expensive projects increasing and costs because limits are changing, 

we believe very strongly that the National Water Quality Assessment Program helps to make the scientific argument on the effectiveness of the investments that we are making. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Matthew J. Millea follows:] 
38
39
40
41
42
43

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank all of you. This time, like the previous 

panel, it brings up a very obviously important topic. And as I said, 

we had a hearing on this earlier. I think a couple years ago, 2 or 

3 years ago, Congressman Blumenauer and I actually introduced 

some legislation to try to put some permanent funding into the 

State Revolving Loan Funds, and it did not go anywhere and it is 

not going to go anywhere. Our intent was really to start a debate 

on this. You know, I think one of the members of the previous 

panel suggested that it would take like $55 billion a year to try to 

start addressing the backlog. 

Our entire budget in the Interior Subcommittee is, what, $28.5 

billion? I do not see us getting the $55 billion anytime soon. So we 

have got to think of a different way to do this. And I do not have 

the answer to it obviously or I would be brilliant, which I am not. 

But it is going to take all of us working together to try to find the 

way to address this. So I appreciate your testimony and we will 

work with you to try to do what we can. 

Our frustration is, we are living in an environment of decreasing 

budgets, and so we have got to look for ways and places that we 

can to reduce spending. I suspect our allocation this year will be 

a couple billion below last year’s out of a $28 billion budget or $29 

billion budget. And I get frustrated in that we put 2 or $3 billion 

into the SRS, which does not address the problem that yet takes 

2 or $3 billion out of the budget where we could address the problem. And so trying to balance those is really a difficult task that 

we are facing, and until we find a better way to fund some of these 

things, it is going to be a challenge that we have. 

Mr. MILLEA. Could I respond to that question, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. MILLEA. It is a great point and I think that that is why I 

would stress again the flexibility—if the SRF just continues to be 

a strictly loan program, you do run into that situation where it just 

goes into the fund and revolves around and we are just getting 

loans. And a lot of communities do need grants. I think increasing 

the flexibility within the structure of the SRF where you could 

marry grants and loans together to make projects affordable, but 

then the Federal Government is not being asked to fund 87 percent 

of the project as used to happen in the Construction Grants Program. It is far more efficient. You are leveraging the federal dollars 

a lot more and they will go a lot farther. It is the little bit of grants 

that will make a project affordable. We do not need the 85 percent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Mr. MILLEA. We understand, I think, that by and large water infrastructure will be local funded through rates, and we do suffer 

from rate shock. Having that little bit of grant assistance makes 

a big difference for projects. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Since you are all in the water infrastructure business, we are going to have an amendment that was proposed last 

year that is going to come down. I suspect it is going to be proposed 

again this year to require Buy America provisions in the State Revolving Loan Funds and so forth. Do you guys have any position 

on that? 

Mr. GREGORIO. I think that is good. 
44

Mr. MILLEA. We would ask that it be restricted to steel and commodities of that nature and away from the technical pieces of the 

equipment. And particularly, when you are building a wastewater 

treatment plant, iron, steel, and concrete, we absolutely agree as 

a policy matter that that is applicable for a Buy American type approach. When you get involved with the complicated systems—it is 

called a SCADA system—the computer systems that run the operations, it is very hard to even find that technology in the United 

States. So that is where we ran into trouble in 2009 and 2010 with 

stimulus. So I think with iron, steel, concrete, absolutely. The other 

items we would ask that they be excluded. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Ms. MARKS. And I would have to agree with that. You know, we 

did run into some problems with the stimulus money and trying to 

get all of that out and efficiently done. So I would agree with your 

comments.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here. 

The next panel, Bill from the Federal Forest Resource Council——

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Imbergamo. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Imbergamo. Chris Topik, welcome back, Chris. It 

makes you feel like you are home? 

Mr. TOPIK. Yeah. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Tom Martin, Robert Farris, Craig. I called five 

names; I only see four of you. 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. I will take 10 minutes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Bill, you are up first. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION 

WITNESS

BILL IMBERGAMO 

Mr. IMBERGAMO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition. We are testifying on the budget for the Forest Service and 

BLM. And as you know, the FFRC represents purchasers of federal 

timber in 27 states, including more than 650 member companies 

with over 350,000 employees around the country. 

And as my written testimony notes, receiving restorations of the 

Forest Products, Hazardous Fuels, and Forest Roads accounts to 

reverse cuts imposed by the sequester and Continuing Resolution, 

cuts which the President’s budget proposes making permanent. 

While we appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown 

for forest management in the past, we must point out our serious 

concerns with the priorities established as a result of the sequester 

and CR. The Administration estimates that these will cause a 15 

percent reduction in timber offer levels, which will result in the 

loss of over 7,000 jobs in some of the poorest counties in America. 

Our member mills have weathered the worst recession since the 

Great Depression, and while forest products demand has been 

steadily increasing for the last 18 to 24 months, the loss of national 
45

forest timber volumes will stall this growth as mills struggle to find 

timber to meet demand. 

For the sequester to force unnecessary mill closures and further 

job losses in our hard-hit rural communities is unconscionable. By 

further reducing forest management and capital improvement 

spending in the CR, Congress and the President are setting exactly 

the wrong priorities for the Forest Service and BLM. The chief of 

the Forest Service has testified that the agency has between 50 

and 80 million acres in need of restoration work, including 45 billion acres being decimated by bark beetles in the Rocky Mountains 

alone. And the agency’s budget notes that they have a $6 billion 

maintenance backlog. That is up from $5.3 billion in 2012. This 

backlog does not just affect the roads that my members use to access timber, but trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers that millions of Americans use for recreation. To cut these programs further goes to the heart of the visitor experience and raises serious 

questions about the government’s continued commitment to manage these lands for the greatest good. 

We recognize the Nation’s fiscal situation demands austerity, and 

while we have engaged in a dialogue with the Forest Service to 

find ways to reduce costs and increase efficiency and this subcommittee has been extremely helpful in that regard. You have led 

the way in replacing a cumbersome administrative appeals process 

with a streamlined objection process, and last year proposed expanded authority to use more effective sale administration techniques to help reduce costs. We strongly urge you to continue these 

efforts by expanding the relief from administrative appeals to all 

projects with the agency finds are categorically excluded from further NEPA review, and we urge you to push the U.S. Senate to 

agree to provisions allowing designation by description. However, 

unless Congress prioritizes investing in timber management, hazardous fuels reduction, and the maintenance of the basic forest infrastructure, our federal lands will continue to deteriorate and our 

rural communities will remain stuck in what is becoming an alarmingly durable cycle of poverty. 

The restorations we recommend would cost the Committee 

roughly $75 million. Presently, this is far less than is being proposed for several land acquisition programs within this spending 

bill. Congress cannot ignore its responsibility to set priorities, and 

clearly, we have arrived at the point where we must prioritize the 

management of the lands and facilities already under federal ownership.

We are very thankful to the Subcommittee for including national 

direction to the Forest Service to increase timber outputs from 2.4 

billion board feet to 3 billion board feet in 2012. And as you know, 

they made 2.6 billion, although 11 percent of that was personal use 

firewood. We urge the Subcommittee to continue increasing the 

pace and scale of forest restoration and set a goal of 3.5 billion 

board feet for fiscal year 2014. 

We have specific recommendations to expedite management, reduce costs, and increase accountability, including directing the 

agency to meet their goals with commercial products such as saw 

timber and pulpwood, not personally used firewood. Encouraging 

them to use higher-yielding forest management techniques on pro-
46

ductive timberlands identified in forest plans and providing expedited authority to conduct needed forest management projects on 

lands that they have identified as being at risk to fire and forest 

health.

Mr. Chairman, our members are the survivors not only of the 

drastic downturn in the economy but in the drastic downturn in 

timber sales from the Forest Service. Our members depend on the 

Forest Service and will succeed only if the agency manages their 

lands responsibly. If the CR and sequester cuts remain in place, 

the Forest Service will lose much of their remaining infrastructure 

that Chief Tidwell has said repeatedly is needed to improve the 

health of our forests and watersheds. I implore you to help fund 

these priorities and to do so in a way that helps our rural economy 

while not increasing the federal debt or deficit. Thank you for your 

time.

[The statement of Bill Imbergamo follows:] 
47
48
49
50
51

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Chris. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

WITNESS

CHRIS TOPIK 

Mr. TOPIK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really an honor 

and a pleasure to be here, to see you here today. I am Chris Topik. 

I am the director of the Nature Conservancy’s Forest Conservation 

Program. As you know, the Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit conservation organization working all around 

the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and water 

upon which all life depends. 

We understand that this is a very challenging fiscal situation 

and we understand and support the need for fiscal austerity. However, we really want to stress that we are very concerned that conservation programs not be the area that shoulders a disproportionate share of the cuts in this entire budget. 

The Nature Conservancy supports a lot of aspects of the President’s budget and we feel it does allow for fiscal austerity and it 

does support some of the important conservation programs that we 

care about. The budget has important conservation expenditures at 

stronger levels and the dedicated funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. The request has some vitally needed funding 

for federal grant programs that leverage substantial accomplishments such as NAWCA, State Wildlife Grants, Forest Legacy, and 

Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Grant Program. 

The request also includes additional money for conservation of 

bays, coasts, and estuaries. We feel these are examples of wise investments in America’s future that will yield strong returns for 

years and years to come. And as you know, the President’s budget 

for the first time proposes establishing a dedicated source of longterm funding from the LWCF. In the proposal, the budget has $400 

million for activities through a discretionary funding through a traditional appropriations approach and then an additional $200 million in a mandatory approach. And the budget also proposes legislation that would authorize that mandatory funding. The budget 

also then proposes in the future to reach the fully authorized level 

of $900 million for LWCF by 2015. 

Mr. Chairman, the Nature Conservancy supports in this phased 

shift to mandatory funding for LWCF. Further, we support this 

balanced approach in funding for core projects selected through the 

traditional federal agency ranking process, and we also support the 

Administration’s new focus on collaborative projects. These collaborative projects emphasize community-driven conservation efforts 

that benefit agricultural, ranching, and forest-based landscapes. 

These projects support recreational and sportsmen access and leverage limited federal dollars with additional state, county, and 

private funding. 
52

For instance, the nine-state longleaf pine region in the Southeast 

will benefit tremendously from this collaborative LWCF process. 

The existing projects in the crown of the continent and new project 

sites in the California desert and trail systems nationwide would 

also benefit. We understand other areas in the southern Appalachians, Great Lakes, Colorado, New Mexico will also be teeing up 

projects soon. I also want to particularly stress the importance of the $31 million funding request for completion of the Conservancy’s multiyear 

effort with the Forest Service to shift the Montana Legacy Project 

into federal ownership. This project would ensure for years to come 

the critical areas in Montana are open to wildlife and public recreation. It is a terrific project. I have been there. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to address the wildfire issue. I especially 

want to recognize and thank you for your particular leadership in 

supporting substantial wildland fire management funding through 

the full year CR process we just went through. The Conservancy 

believes that a balanced approach emphasizing proactive hazardous 

fuels reduction and community preparedness, along with a commitment to safe and cost-effective wildfire response strategies is essential to address the tremendous fire management challenges that we 

face.

We and many others interested in forest conservation and use 

are particularly dismayed to see the President’s proposal to dramatically cut the hazardous fuels program at both Forest Service 

and Interior. And so we are urging you to fund this program at no 

less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $317 million for the 

Forest Service and $183 million for the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. Chairman, can I offer a coalition letter of over 30 groups of 

industry and others that was signed for the record? 

[The information follows:] 
53
54
55
56

Mr. TOPIK. Thank you very much. And as you know, through 

strategic placement of thinning and prescribed fire and other hazardous fuels treatments, federal land managers can reduce fire 

risks to people and ecosystems and improve forest resilience. And 

we note that fuels projects create jobs. For every $1 million invested, approximately 16 full-time jobs are created or maintained, 

along with half-a-million in wages and over $2 million in overall 

economic activity. And so when emergency wildfire suppression 

costs are consuming 40 percent of the Forest Service budget, we 

cannot afford to reduce our investment in the very program that 

might reduce the need for this tremendous public expense while 

also providing much-needed local economic benefits. 

And lastly, as I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

your continued support of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and we also encourage you to repeat instructions 

you offered in the fiscal year 2012 Conference Report regarding 

balanced allocation of funding for priority landscapes in the 

wildland urban interface and wildland settings. 

We have additional comments in our written reports, and I really 

appreciate the time here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Christopher Topik follows:] 
57
58
59
60
61

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chris. I appreciate it. You will be interested to know, I do not know if you heard that OMB suggested 

that there was no evidence that fuels reduction actually reduced 

the fire risk. 

Mr. TOPIK. We have talked to OMB and are quite startled by 

that——

Mr. SIMPSON. So am I. 

Mr. TOPIK [continuing]. And talked to a number of researchers 

that have done a substantial amount of work there—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is why they do not manage forests. 

Mr. TOPIK. If I could keep the management of forests out of OMB 

and out of the courts—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. TOPIK [continuing]. Something we share—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is exactly right. Tom. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

TOM MARTIN 

Mr. MARTIN. I support Chris getting that done, Mr. Chairman. 

I think you should hold him accountable next year. 

So first, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am from the 

American Forest Foundation. As you know, we work on the ground 

with the 20 million owners of America’s family forests in this country. You know our Tree Farm Program, you know Project Learning 

Tree and the work we do there. As I thought about today and kind 

of the challenges you have, one of the most difficult things I think 

that this committee has to deal with is the fact that the Forest 

Service is responsible not just for what is inside the green line but 

what is outside the green line as well. The Forest Service owns 20 

percent of America’s forests. Eighty percent are owned by somebody else, the biggest chunks by family forest owners, but all of us 

have a stake in what happens across all of those forests. The weakest link in the forest puts everything at risk. 

So as I thought about the challenges you have got in front of you, 

I think there are three opportunities in this budget to really help 

increase the health of all forests: first, pests and pathogens. If you 

ask a family forest owner what they are most afraid of, top of 

mind, pests and pathogens. It does not matter what part of the 

country you are in. We now have 500 pests that we have imported 

from other places in the last decade; 28 have been added to the list. 

That about matches the endemic ones that are eating away at trees 

like the mountain pine beetle and somehow have speeded up their 

consumption in an enormous amount in recent years. So addressing 

the pests and pathogens problem and that interdependent nature 

of those forests I think it is very important to both the economy 

and the ecology of our forests. 

There are a number of things I think that we can do. First, actively manage our forests. We can create resiliency by using good, 

adaptive management practices on our forests, and we need to do 
62

that in all types. Secondly, the Forest Health Management Program is certainly one that is deserving of funding at the same level 

as last year. The cooperative piece of that hit about 615,000 acres 

last year. The Fed piece was about 351,000. The bad news is that 

is not 115,000 acres from the year before. That is a place where 

I think a strong investment can be made that shows results. 

Secondly, in the research piece, it is a piece that government can 

uniquely do in helping take on things like the emerald ash borer, 

the Asian longhorn beetle, finding parasites that are aimed at 

those species, finding the lures that can more effectively do it, and 

finding treatments that allow all landowners to better protect their 

forest. I think that is an investment. Keeping that at the 2012 level 

would help all forests. 

The second place is the Forest Stewardship Program. If you take 

a look at the pests and pathogen issues, that is just part of the perfect storm landowners are hit with right now. Catastrophic fire, 

drought, flooding, all of those kinds of things are going after our 

forests, and it is at a time when family landowners have fewer supports than they ever had in the past. I am sure Robert could tell 

you what he has had to do with his outreach foresters. Across the 

country, state agencies, extension, and companies have had to do 

away with their programs that help landowners manage their forests for better resiliency. 

And I think there are some things we can do to improve the program to make it more effective. For instance, we are working with 

the Forest Service and the Wisconsin Forestry Agency at focusing 

the efforts of the Forest Stewardship Program in a landscape, 

working to intensify the results there and using modern marketing 

techniques, micro-targeting, social marketing like we use to get 

people to quit cigarettes. Get them to use it to do better things on 

their land and using peer-to-peer kinds of contacts that could help 

multiply the investments and intensify the impact. So the Forest 

Stewardship Program we think is one that has benefits not just 

outside the green line but because of the interdependency inside 

the green line. 

Finally, good management, active management is expensive. It 

takes good markets. Your continued support for Wood is a Green 

Building Material is really important. It is not only the most environmentally friendly building product, it tends to be cheaper. The 

government could save money and have a better environmental 

footprint by using wood. Some of the agencies are still wedded for 

whatever reason to the LEED-only policy. LEED has got a problem. 

It does not let you compare wood to concrete to steel and so it ends 

up discounting the positive impact that wood can have. Your help 

on that is needed. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and I appreciate everything you are doing on behalf of America’s forests. 

[The statement of Tom Martin follows:] 
63
64
65
66
67

Mr. SIMPSON. Thanks, Tom. Robert. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS 

WITNESS

ROBERT FARRIS 

Mr. FARRIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. I am Robert Farris, Georgia State Forester, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I speak with you 

all about—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. We are shocked from the West that Georgia has 

forests.

Mr. FARRIS. Georgia has more privately owned commercially 

available forest land than any state in the Nation. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It was a shock to me to find out that there are actually more forests east of the Mississippi than west of the Mississippi.

Mr. FARRIS. Privately owned forest land in Georgia. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and testify. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that a Georgia Bulldog? 

Mr. FARRIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. FARRIS. Of more than 2/3 of America’s forest and state and 

private ownership, state foresters deliver outreach, technical and financial assistance, as well as wildfire protection in partnership 

with the U.S. Forest Service state and private forestry mission. 

State foresters fully appreciate the difficult choices that come with 

spending decisions, as Tom referenced a moment ago. 

Our fiscal year 2014 funding recommendations are tied to priorities and the Forest Action Plans that each state developed that 

were an outcome of the last Farm Bill. My written statements include a complete set of priority recommendations for NASF, including programs like Forest Stewardship and Urban and Community 

Forestry, but this morning, I would like to highlight just a few 

areas.

State Forest Action Plans provide an assessment of forest conditions and trends in each state and identify priority rural and urban 

forest landscapes. These plans depend on a robust forest inventory 

and analysis program. FIA provides unbiased data for assessing 

wildfire risk, insect and disease risk, and forest resource information that traditional and emerging industries demand and need to 

invest in jobs and forestry of 72 million and supports consolidating 

the program businesses. 

NASF recommends an FIA funding level of 72 million and supports consolidating the program under the Forest Service research 

and development program. This recommended funding level is endorsed by a broad coalition of stakeholders, and with your approval, we would like to request that the letter dated April 15 to 

the Subcommittee be entered into the record. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 
68
69
70

Mr. FARRIS. The Forest Action Plans provide long-term strategies 

for state and federal and other resources. A couple of issues the 

Forest Action Plans have identified as priorities include wildfire 

preparedness and response. In fiscal year 2012 nearly 68,000 

wildfires burned and over 2,200 residences were lost. In Georgia 

alone over 4,600 wildfires burned 22,000 acres with 302 homes and 

outbuildings destroyed or damaged. State Fire Assistant Funds 

help communities prepare for, mitigate, and respond to wildfire 

threats. NASF supports funding for the program at no less than 

fiscal year 2012 enacted levels of 86 million. 

NASF also supports funding suppression efforts at no less than 

the 10 year average and to rebuild and maintain funding for the 

FLAME reserve fund. 

State Forest Action Plans have also identified forest health 

threats as a major priority. Forest Service estimates that hundreds 

of native and non-native insects and diseases damage the Nation’s 

forests each year. The Forest Action Plans utilize funding from the 

Cooperative Forest Health Management Program to maintain 

healthy and productive forests. In Georgia, we average losing over 

$7 million of timber annually from southern pine beetles. In the 

North Georgia mountain region during the 2001 southern pine beetle epidemic, we lost over $72 million of pine timber. 

The southern pine beetles are far from our only problem. It 

seems now that every few years there is a new invasive species 

that comes in and threatens our forest lands. Another great example is the hemlock wooly adelgid, which now covers and is killing 

all of the hemlocks within the Georgia range for hemlock. 

NASF supports the proposed consolidation of the Cooperative 

Forest Health Program under state and private forestry and urges 

funding that a current fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $48 million. 

Under the Landscape-Scale Restoration, the state foresters support competitively allocating a percentage of CFAA funds to encourage innovative projects to address priorities in Forest Action 

Plans. However, a competitive process is not the most effective 

means of identifying program investments that can provide the 

greatest return. The allocation of funds to states and private forestry programs cannot be expected to result in the mix of funding 

that best serves any one state’s ability to maximize implementation 

of their individual Forest Action Plan. 

In response to the fiscal year 2012 Conference Report, NASF continues to work with Forest Service to develop a process allowing 

state foresters flexibility to reallocate a percentage of the funds 

based on Forest Action Plan priorities. 

In conclusion, we recognize the difficult budget climate and are 

generally recommending fiscal year 2012 funding levels for our priority programs. The cooperative forestry programs we deliver our 

matched dollar-for-dollar at the state and local levels resulting in 

a tremendous return on federal investment. I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. I would be glad to answer any 

questions.

[The statement of Robert Farris follows:] 
71
72
73
74
75

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. FARRIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Craig. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

RECREATIONAL AVIATION FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

CRAIG McCULLOUGH 

Mr. MCCULLOUGH. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Craig McCullough, and thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on behalf of the Recreational Aviation Foundation this 

morning.

I think it is fitting after hearing the previous four testimonies 

that I have been asked to testify at this moment because you will 

see that it all ties together very well with preservation efforts and 

also a revenue generation in a time of cutting budgets. 

The Recreational Aviation Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization 

with members, volunteers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We are dedicated to preserving, maintaining, and creating 

backcountry recreational airstrips. These airstrips are present in 

most of our national forests and parks already and I come before 

you today with two distinct tasks. One is that you recognize and 

acknowledge the importance of these recreational and backcountry 

airstrips, and then to appropriate funding to inventory them so 

that we can begin protecting them. And they must be protected. 

There are many reasons that these recreational and backcountry 

airstrips are important to the Nation, to our forests, but I will go 

through three in the interest of time. 

One is that they truly do serve as trailheads to our national 

parks and forests. Frank Church wilderness in Idaho, that preserve 

has had flights into it for the past 50 years and I think they continue to this day. 

Another reason is they provide quick access for emergency responders. There was testimony just previously on forest fires, and 

these recreational and backcountry strips provide an immediate access to remote areas for emergency personnel to drop and parachute in and fight fires, protect out buildings, and the like. 

It is because of these reasons that in July 2001 Secretary of the 

Interior Gale Norton made a remark that it is important to ensure 

the legitimate uses of these backcountry strips. They must be protected. Similarly, in July 2009 the chief of the U.S. forest service, 

Abigail Kimbell, remarked that backcountry strips are an appropriate use of national Forest Service lands. 

Third, they do increase tourism and they support the local economy. Some poignant examples of that would be Ryan Field, which 

is in Montana. Ryan Field is a 2,500 foot grass strip. It is a low 

environmental impact just like all of these backcountry airstrips 

are. It is surrounded by U.S. Forest Service lands. It is a mile away 

from West Glacier National Park. Folks use it to hike into the 

park. It has brought tourism to the economy, the local economy. 

That strip would be gone if it was not for the volunteer efforts of 
76

the Recreational Aviation Foundation, members of the U.S. Forest 

Service and local people to the area going in and maintaining the 

strip, adding runway lights, pilot buildings, and areas for tourists 

to visit. And it works as a great trailhead into West Glacier. 

Another example and very fitting here is the Russian Flat airstrip. That is located in the Lewis and Clark national forests. And 

that is an example of one airstrip in the last 45 years where the 

U.S. Forest Service and the Recreational Aviation Foundation and 

volunteers worked together to create an airstrip for the reasons 

previously mentioned. 

So these airstrips add value. They add value to the local economies and to folks that want to visit our national forests. They generate revenue. How do we protect them? The best practices put 

forth by the EPA and asset management marks as one of the first 

things you do is inventory of assets. You cannot protect if you do 

not know it is there. The majority of these backcountry recreational 

airstrips are forgotten about. We do not know they are there. The 

current public landowners by and large do not understand the importance of them both to the public and to our first responders 

going in in emergency situations. So they are becoming overgrown. 

Most of these strips are grass strips, and what happens is if they 

are not maintained they will soon become inoperable. And then 

they get repurposed. And when they are lost, they are usually lost 

forever. So that is really what needs to happen from the outside 

is we need to inventory these strips. 

So in conclusion, I would just ask that, you know, we recognize 

the importance of these backcountry recreational airstrips and appropriate funding to inventory them and then we can take the next 

steps in preserving them. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The statement of Craig McCullough follows:] 
77
78
79
80
81

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Yes, back when I had a pilot’s license 

when I used to fly across Idaho, I wanted to know where every 

strip was in case my engine quit. But I appreciate you all taking 

the time to come and testify today. 

It is a challenge. It is challenging times. And I have suggested 

that at some point in time we are going to be reducing the budgets 

far enough that you are going to have to make a determination of 

whether you are going to do a lot of things not well or whether you 

are going to decide what you are going to do and do it well and 

what you are not going to do anymore. And within our budget 

there are some things that might get dropped out. I am not suggesting that the Forest Service is going to get dropped out, but 

there are going to be decisions made because you cannot continue 

to just decrease and decrease and decrease and still do the job and 

do it well. So it is challenging. 

But you bring up one of the other really interesting challenges 

we have and that is invasive species. I have had reports from people who have looked at it, and it is very little percentage of the appropriation that goes to invasive species that actually ends up on 

the ground taking care of it. A lot of it is tied up in bureaucracies 

and so forth. And so we need to re-examine how we are spending 

money to address the invasive species in our forests and streams 

and everything else. 

So I appreciate all of you being here today. 

Mr. GRAVES. Can I follow up on that? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. GRAVES. I think you are absolutely right and the tough challenges that we have that Mr. Martin and Mr. Farris both brought 

up another opportunity, and that is with the LEED side of things 

where we are compelling government buildings be built quite 

frankly at higher cost without looking at other alternatives. So I 

know in Georgia Governor Deal signed an Executive Order saying 

that we want to have a green initiative that should include as well 

domestic wood products being included in that. 

And so I want to thank you for bringing that up because, Mr. 

Chairman, I think it is another way you can save is just in how 

we apply some of the rules and regulations that are coming out of 

Washington. So thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you all. 

Mr. TOPIK. If you would offer this for the record, Forest Stewardship Programs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 

Next panel is Ed Shepard, Public Lands Foundation; Brenda 

Richards, the Public Lands Council; and Alan Rowsome, the Wilderness Society. Ed is first. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

ED SHEPARD 

Mr. SHEPARD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ed 

Shepard and I am the president of the Public Lands Foundation, 
82

and we thank you for the opportunity to present your committee 

with our reviews regarding the Bureau of Land Management budget request for fiscal year 2014. 

As a national, nonprofit organization with more than 700 members comprised principally of retired but still dedicated BLM employees, the Public Lands Foundation has a unique body of experience, expertise, and knowledge of public land management. As retirees, we believe we offer an objective and non-bureaucratic view 

of what is currently happening on the National System of Public 

Lands. The PLF support the BLM and its programs but we are 

independent in our views and our requests. 

Some of the most significant management challenges for the 

BLM stem from the rapid population and urban growth in the 

West and the accompanying increased demand for access to and 

use of the public lands and resources. The public lands provide the 

Nation with opportunities for expanding the development of renewable energy, as well as traditional needs for oil, natural gas, nonenergy minerals, grazing land, and timber. Recreation, wildlife 

habitat, wild horses, cultural resources, and special places are significant attributes of these lands as well. 

BLM management activities contribute to the vitality of state and local economies, generating revenues of over $4 for every $1 

appropriated. The multiplier effect from the use of these lands 

greatly expands the economic benefits to communities many times 

over. However, these revenues are best achieved when there is 

some balance of the programs to provide for the diversity in the use 

and maintenance of healthy landscapes. 

The PLF recognizes the difficult situation the Nation is in and 

fully appreciates the hard decisions that must be made. The PLF 

is supportive of BLM budget requests that support the wise development of energy resources. The development of these resources 

provide needed jobs in our rural communities and revenues to the 

Treasury. We support the BLM’s request for a 20 percent increase 

in this area. 

The PLF also supports a 7.1 million increase in renewable energy development and a $6 million increase to identify and designate energy transmission corridors. Locating renewable energy opportunities and associated transmission in areas best suited for the development allows for more efficient use of BLM and industry resources.

The development of energy resources, traditional and renewable, 

does not come without effects on the land, and funding other highvalue resources can help mitigate and offset some of the effects on 

the landscape. The potential listing of sage grouse as a threatened 

or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act is of great 

concern to us. We support the $50 million increase in this program 

that will allow the BLM to continue its efforts with other agencies, 

state and local governments, and state wildlife agencies to conserve 

this species. 

The PLF supports the proposed increase of $2 million in recreation programs and the 6 million for the National Landscape Conservation System. Recreation is one of the fastest-growing uses of 

our public lands and it can have a significant economic impact. And 

the National Landscape Conservation System is comprised of some 
83

of the most unique and valued landscapes and the Nation’s vast 

holdings. These areas are incredibly diverse and have been designated for their outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values. They also provide working landscapes where it can be demonstrated that multiple use can be practiced in areas with outstanding conservation values. 

The Wild Horse and Burro Program continues to be a concern to 

us. We are dismayed that despite repeated efforts by the BLM, the 

issue seems unresolvable and Bureau continues to be stymied in 

implementing acceptable solutions. The current situation is 

unsustainable but this program must continue to be funded to provide for the large and growing population of animals. The budget 

request for an additional $2 million will help BLM stay the course 

on their operating plan, which includes expanded research and development of population control. However, at some point Congress 

must step in and pass legislation that provides more specific guidance on this program. 

BLM’s vast portfolio includes programs such as Rangeland Resource Program and Public Domain and ONC Forestry Programs. 

These important programs provide management tools for the restoration and maintenance of healthy landscapes and the vegetative 

resource while at the same time providing raw materials, employment opportunities, and quality of life for many throughout the 

rural West. These programs should receive adequate funding to 

allow them to maintain their mission. The ONC program proposes 

a modest increase of 3-1⁄2 million to meet its timber commitments 

and new RMPs for western Oregon. However, the Public Domain 

Forestry Program continues to lag in funding, and despite forest 

health issues that plague the West coupled with the reduction in 

the Hazardous Fuels Program pretty much limits opportunities to 

address that problem. 

PLF is very concerned with the reduction in the Rangeland Man- agement Program. In the proposed budget is a $14 million reduction potentially offset by $6-1⁄2 million for a pilot administrative fee. Even if the fee is successful, that is over a $7 million reduction 

with impacts to management of the resources and likely an increase in litigation. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the hard choices that this subcommittee has to make and we hope our comments will help you 

as you work through the process. And thank you for your consideration.

[The statement of Edward Shepard follows:] 
84
85
86
87
88

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And when you find the solution for 

horses and burros, please let us know. We have spent a lot of years 

trying to find one. It is one of the challenges that we face for sure. 

Brenda.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL 

WITNESS

BRENDA RICHARDS 

Ms. RICHARDS. Chairman Simpson, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of public lands grazing industries, interior environment, and 

appropriations priorities. My name is Brenda Richards and today 

I am representing the Public Lands Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the Idaho Cattle Association. I currently serve as vice president of the Public Lands Council and it 

is the only national organization dedicated solely to representing 

public lands sheep and cattle ranchers. 

I am also a rancher in Owyhee County, Idaho, where my husband and my three sons, who are fifth-generation at this business, 

help run our operation together. 

Livestock grazing represents the earliest use of the land as our 

Nation expanded westward, and today, it continues to represent 

multiple use that is essential not only to the livestock industry but 

wildlife habitat, open space, and rural economies of many of our 

Western communities. 

I would like to begin by thanking you, Chairman Simpson, and 

your subcommittee for your recognition through past funding decisions of the importance of this livestock grazing to the management 

of the federal lands and to the rural economies of the West. You 

have increased funding to the range programs in fiscal year 2012 

and subsequent continuing resolutions and reduced the regulatory 

burdens stemming from federal agencies that continue to hamper 

our productivity and profitability of the Nation’s ranchers. In so 

doing, you have had a very positive influence on the business stability of the public land ranchers and consequently on the environment and the communities of the West. 

However, it cannot be said and that all is well for the Western 

ranching families like my own. In times of constant and growing 

regulatory threats and resulting environmental litigation on public 

lands, it is no wonder that in counties like my own, which is 78 

percent federal land, our AUMs have been reduced by over 30 percent in the past few decades. In our county, in Owyhee County, the 

majority of the ranchers depend upon forage from the BLM-managed land to supplement the private base, the tax base, and these 

numbers are more than statistics. We are being threatened, our 

livelihood, our families, the communities, and the generations of 

old traditions. These communities are the backbone of our economy 

and our county. 

Our industry is important not just to the people; it is crucial to 

the management of that land and the resources. The ranchers are 
89

the ones that are out there day-to-day, 24/7. We watch over the 

land and the resources and our livelihoods depend upon it. Wellmanaged grazing improves the health of the range and the resources, reduces the fine fuel loads that lead to those catastrophic 

wildfires. Our water improvements create wildlife habitat where 

none existed before, and continued grazing on public land allows 

the associated private lands to stay in ranching instead of being developed, which allows for multiple use and un-fragmented habitat. 

It is crucial we take a hard look at the laws and regulations and 

how they are playing out on the ground to the detriment of the industry. NEPA, due to a series of unfortunate court decisions, is required on the grazing permits. A lack of agency range personnel 

and the resources to carry out their jobs has contributed to a massive backlog of permits waiting to undergo the NEPA review. Because these resources are spread so thin, much of the documentation is done in an untimely fashion or is incomplete leaving it open 

to litigation by radical anti-grazing environmental groups often 

funded by taxpayer dollars, and in turn, the litigation cycle worsens.

Not only is funding to the agency’s range budget crucial, but we 

count on the writer language that your subcommittee has prudently included in every appropriations measure for more than 10 

years. This allows our grazing to continue on permits as we await 

NEPA review. And we thank you for that and we encourage you 

to consider and work towards making this language permanent. 

Another threat and definitely one of the most eminent for 

Owyhee County ranching community is the BLM’s treatment of the 

potential listing of the greater sage grouse. In a backroom settlement agreement with radical environmental groups, it called for a 

listing decision by 2015. In Owyhee County, another court order is 

already driving the BLM to reduce livestock grazing. The first of 

68 grazing permit decisions has recently come out calling for a 45 

percent reduction in AUMs and contains language indicating that 

the agency intends to continue this trend based upon faulty sage 

grouse information. This is despite the fact the bird is not yet listed 

and the grazing and sage grouse are historically and scientifically 

proven to be compatible, and that without grazing, the threat of 

wildfire is far greater than any other existing threat to the bird. 

Ranchers, with our local and state government, we are doing everything we can to prevent a listing, but with litigation-based decisions, we lose hope of having a positive influence. We are mostly 

focusing on keeping our operations afloat. We plead with you to do 

everything you can to keep ranchers in the picture on the sage 

grouse conservation effort and we need this more than ever at this 

time.

As you know, there is much more to address than grazing programs and the sage grouse. We also count on you to help rein in 

EPA’s unprecedented attempts to regulate the very elements we 

depend on, which is the water and soil. You have rightfully prevented the Wildlands Administration designation and limited the 

expansion of the federal and state Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. And when the cost of maintenance backlogs registers in the 

hundreds of millions to do this, we need the funding to go elsewhere.
90

We also would ask that you use the power to prevent the Administration’s most damaging proposal, such as imposing a crippling, 

arbitrary new grazing tax on the ranching families or using NEPA 

to drive a climate change agenda. 

I have these requests and others in my written testimony and I 

am asking you to help with the public lands ranching and families 

like mine in business. We are not looking for a handout. We are 

just looking for relief from the regulations that result in the litigation. And I speak from the heart when I say thank you for calling 

me here today, giving me the opportunity to communicate this for 

what is truly a concern for my family and our ranching communities. Thank you. 

[The statement of Brenda Richards follows:] 
91
92
93
94
95

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Alan. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

WITNESS

ALAN ROWSOME 

Mr. ROWSOME. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of The Wilderness Society and our 500,000 members and supporters, I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. I also would like to thank Congressman Graves and your staff for your commitment to our public 

lands and stewardship of our natural resources. 

Before starting, it seems important to acknowledge that the 

budget times we currently live in command creative and innovative 

problem-solving, which we know the Committee is undertaking. 

But at the same time the allocation likely to be given to the Interior Environment-related bill will be insufficient to meet many of 

the needs we all know exist on our public lands. 

Mr. Chairman, looking at the photos behind you and the iconic 

wilderness areas included there, it is not lost on me that 2014 is 

the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, a time when we should 

be celebrating the importance of wilderness and the backcountry 

experience it provides that so many Americans cherish. 

Unfortunately, rather than celebrating these crown jewels of our 

Nation such as the Frank Church wilderness area in your own 

home state, we are facing a crumbling trail system there that is in 

desperate need of repair. The Forest Service maintenance backlog 

has far surpassed annual trails budgets and now stands at $314 

million. Trails maintenance and construction budgets have increased by only 13⁄4 percent since 1980. For a comparatively small 

investment, we should be able to improve this program, provide 

greater access, avoid environmental degradation, and better highlight the iconic wilderness areas around the country. We urge the 

Committee to increase the trails maintenance and wilderness accounts of all four land management agencies as we approach the 

50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. 

In addition, it is no surprise that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is our highest priority in the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

The President’s request for the program of $600 million, including, 

for the first time, a request for mandatory funds, is prudent given 

that it will connect the iconic trail systems of our Nation while investing heavily in the purchase of conservation easements that 

keep working forests and ranches productive. 

By also restoring the UPAR program while providing robust 

funding for National Park Estate Grants, Forest Legacy, and the 

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, LWCF is providing more 

grants to states than ever before. The remaining LWCF federal acquisition dollars in the fiscal year 2014 budget will go to critical 

in-holdings in places like Glacier National Park, which will allow 

the Park Service to consolidate management and reduce costs associated with law enforcement while allowing for the removal of 

structures to return the land to its natural condition resulting in 
96

improvement of habitat and allowing NPS to manage the parcels 

more efficiently and in accordance with the surrounding parkland. 

Another high-priority program we urge the Committee to support 

is the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program. A good recent example of this program at work has occurred in the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest over the past several years. 

The Forest Service and local landowners had a serious challenge 

there to provide continued recreational and private land access 

while also addressing the needs of Fish and Wildlife. The solution 

required this cooperation of many partners and included decommissioning the most problematic part of the road, extensive stream 

and floodplain restoration on private lands, and implementation 

with both government and private contractors working together. 

The resulting partnership led to 2 miles of creek restoration, improved cover and spawning habitat for trout and salmon, better 

water flows, and enhanced capability to handle flooding without 

road damage or lost access, all while creating local jobs. It is these 

types of success stories this committee should be investing in. 

TWS is also a strong proponent of transitioning our country to 

a sustainable energy economy by developing our renewable energy 

resources quickly and responsibly. We believe renewable energy is 

an appropriate use of the public lands when sited in areas screened 

for habitat resource and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding 

these conflicts early on is essential in these fiscally constrained 

times. For example, planning for renewable energy in places like 

Southern California, where we have the Desert Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan, will help avoid costly conflict and delays. 

This budget should also include needed funding to designate 

transmission corridors in low-conflict places on public lands to ensure future lines can be sited with confidence in places like Idaho, 

Washington, and California. 

In addition to these critical priorities, we have also highlighted 

a number of conservation programs in our written testimony that 

The Wilderness Society recommends providing robust funding for. 

While Conservation represents a scarce 1-1⁄4 percent of the overall 

federal budget, according to a new study released this last week by 

Rob Southwick and Associates, the economic impact of outdoor 

recreation, natural resource conservation, and historic preservation 

in the United States is a staggering $1.7 trillion in economic activity returning $211 billion in federal, state, and local governments 

through tax revenue and supporting 12.8 million jobs annually. 

The programs in your bill are prudent investments that help 

local economies create jobs and provide livable, sustainable communities. The Wilderness Society appreciates your commitment to our 

public lands and wild places and we look forward to working with 

you now and in the future to ensure that we steward our Nation’s 

natural resources in a responsible, balanced way. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Alan Rowsome follows:] 
97
98
99
100
101

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And I appreciate all of your testimony. 

It is, as I said with every panel, a challenging time. But, you know, 

it is kind of funny that a lot of people think that we in the West 

are upset with public lands and so forth. Actually, we like public 

lands. That is why we live there because the access it gives us to 

the things we like to do. 

Mr. ROWSOME. Correct. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But you bring up some really interesting things. 

Brenda, you mentioned 30 percent reduction in AUMs over the 

last 20 years. And understand, nobody has ever been paid for one 

of those reductions in AUMs, but the fact that you graze on public 

lands is ultimately tied to the value of your private land and so 

forth and the ability to graze on these public lands. 

I have got a lot of questions I just do not have a lot of the answers. What we could do if just half of the amount of money that 

we spend in court could actually be used improving our public 

lands, and we have come to a situation where we are obviously a 

sue-happy society or there are groups that want to sue on every decision they make and judges that are willing to make determinations of how public lands should be managed regardless of whether 

Congress appropriated any money for them, sage grouse being a 

perfect example. They said you will make a determination by the 

end of next year regardless of whether Congress gives you any 

money for it or not. It is going to be a real challenge. 

And again, if you can figure out what to do with wild horses and 

burros, Erica is waiting to hear. But I appreciate all of your testimony.

Tom, did you have anything? 

Mr. GRAVES. No. No, thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate it. You bet. 

Next, we have Gary Werner, Andy Oliver, Todd Hallman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I have walked every one of these trails. Well, not 

really but I have thought about it. 

Mr. WERNER. You know what? I have, too. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Go ahead, Gary. You are up. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM 

WITNESS

GARY WERNER 

Mr. WERNER. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Graves, I am 

Gary Werner. I am with the Partnership for the National Trails 

System. I am here today representing your nonprofit partners in 

the collaborative venture to sustain, build, maintain, protect America’s 30 national scenic and historic trails. And as your partner, I 

want to thank you for the essential and consistent support you and 

your colleagues have given over the years to this grand venture in 

public lands stewardship. 

I also want to report to you that for the third consecutive year 

in 2012 citizen volunteers provided almost 1.2 million hours of volunteer labor towards these trails, and the value of that labor plus 
102

the additional financial support raised by the nonprofit organizations amounted to $33.8 million of support for the National Trails 

System, which I have to say parenthetically is more than you and 

your colleagues were able to appropriate to the Park Service, the 

Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to operate 

these trails. 

So we have several recommendations as your partners to help 

strengthen and more efficiently provide these wonderful resources 

for the American public. First, as you know, the trails are a work 

in progress. None of them are totally finished. So we ask you to increase funding for the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to administer and manage the trails, specifically $16.2 million for the Park Service, $8.7 

million for the Bureau of Land Management, and $9 million for the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

We also strongly support the Challenge Cost Share Program of 

the Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service as one of the most effective ways of leveraging 

scarce federal resources and of engaging citizens in the stewardship 

of public lands and resources. In the National Trails System we 

have consistently over the years been able to, on the average, leverage federal money 3 to 1 from the Park Service Challenge Cost 

Share Program and on some projects as much as 10 or 20 to 1. We 

recommend that you increase the funding for each of these programs and particularly for the Park Service to $4.5 million. 

We have a couple of issues that we hope you can help us with. 

One of those involved the Bureau of Land Management’s budget 

structure, which, as you know, is a programmatic structure based 

upon sub-activity accounts. However, there is no sub-activity account for all of the trails, including the National Scenic and Historic Trails or the Wild and Scenic Rivers that the Bureau administers and manages. So we ask that you direct the Bureau of Land 

Management to establish separate sub-activity accounts for the National Scenic and Historic Trails and the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

under the National Landscape Conservation System so these units 

are treated the same as the wilderness areas, the monuments, and 

the conservation areas. 

Similarly, over the last several years, as one of the cost-cutting 

measures, all of the agencies have initiated very severe travel restrictions on their staff. You can appreciate that for trails that extend for thousands of miles that involved hundreds or sometimes 

thousands of partnership relationships with state and local agencies, nonprofit groups, and others, that to be able to travel to establish partnerships, to nurture those partnerships, to sustain them, 

the people doing the work for the Federal Government the ground 

need to be able to travel. So we hope that you could provide some 

guidance to the agencies to suggest that maybe this is an essential 

part of the work that is being done at least for the National Trail 

System if not for other aspects of the agencies’ works. 

Lastly, we, too, believe that the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund is one of the key programs of the Federal Government. It has 

been highly successful and we urge you to appropriate the $900 

million authorized for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 

land acquisition projects and also within that to provide $61.6 mil-
103

lion for the National Trail System Collaborative Landscape Planning Proposal that is within the President’s budget. By allocating $25 million to the Park Service, $12.6 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service, $18 million to the Forest Service, and 

about $5.7 million to the Bureau of Land Management, you will enable those agencies to acquire 119 parcels of land from willing sellers along 11 national scenic and historic trails in 17 states, including, among others, the crossing used by the Nez Perce Indians in 

1877 to cross the Missouri River at Cow Island in Montana on the 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail and also to complete gaps in 

trails like the North Country Trail and the Continental Divide 

Trail, and others. 

This is the first time that funding has been requested for more 

than a single trail, which usually has been the Appalachian Trail 

or the Pacific Crest Trail, the first time for the Nez Perce Trail, for 

instance, the first time for the Continental Divide, first time for the 

New England, first time for the North Country, and others. We believe that this represents the true spirit of collaboration that I 

think Congress has been promoting and the Administration has 

been promoting among agencies and with the private sector. And 

we encourage you to support it robustly. 

With that, I thank you again for the consistent support. I bring 

you personal greetings from Jim Evans in Idaho. And I am happy 

to answer any questions you have. I also have—this is a highlight 

of the CLP proposal that I mentioned. 

[The statement of Gary Werner follows:] 
104
105
106
107
108

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Andy.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

THE WILDERNESS LAND TRUST 

WITNESS

ANDY OLIVER 

Ms. OLIVER. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Mr. Graves, members of the subcommittee, and I will say all the staff, because, once 

again, I just want to thank all of you for, you know, giving us the 

opportunity to come here today and talk with you. This is just a 

great opportunity and we really appreciate your time and the hard 

work of your staff to attend to bringing this all together for us. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of the Wilderness Land 

Trust, which is a very small nonprofit that is focused solely on 

working cooperatively with private landholders and the agencies to 

acquire in-holdings within designated and proposed wilderness 

areas. Completing those areas is vital to what is actually large 

landscape conservation. And we just want to thank you for your 

past support for the small, modest funding that those in-holdings 

accounts really require and ask for that support going forward. 

That amount of money really is between sort of 3 and $5 million 

depending on which one of the four land management agencies you 

are talking about. 

A couple of issues BLM, with FLTFA having expired and we just 

want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support for reauthorization of FLTFA. That is not a subject for today, but without the additional funds that come from sales through the FLTFA transactions BLM is having to leave some significant opportunities on 

the table. And that is unfortunate because, as you know, these opportunities are generally about once a generation or every 20 years, 

and just kicking the can down the road complicates things for the 

land management agencies. 

The other issue is that in the President’s budget request for the 

Forest Service, they have once again substituted a new Priority 

Recreational Access Program for the in-holdings account. We do not 

have any comment on the need for that Priority Recreational Access Program, but it should not be substituted for a program that 

has a 50-year track record of proven success and a very different 

focused mission from what the Recreational Access people are really hoping to achieve. 

The key thing with acquiring these in-holdings is that it saves 

money because it gets rid of the management inefficiencies and 

helps the private landowners who, when they are ready to sell, 

they were basically promised in the Wilderness Act that the government would step in and acquire their lands. And so it helps 

them when they are ready to do that. It just allows the agencies 

the opportunity to act when needed. 

The key thing here is consistent funding. We are not asking for 

huge bump ups. It is just that there needs to be money there to 

actually acquire these lands when they come available. 
109

I will just give you from the Wilderness Land Trust perspective. 

Over the last 20 years the Wilderness Land Trust has completed 

the acquisition of 366 parcels totaling 38,333 acres within 85 designated or proposed wilderness areas, and we have actually completed 12 wilderness areas. And that is the success of that just 

being able to acquire those things. 

I see that my time is running out, sir, so I just want to let you 

know that there are opportunities that are coming up that we are 

hoping that we will be able to take advantage of. The family that 

has long owned the last in-holding in the Hells Canyon wilderness 

area in Idaho has offered it for sale, and we are in communication 

with them on it. There are a lot of other opportunities coming our 

way and we really ask for your support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Andy Oliver follows:] 
110
111
112
113

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Todd.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

FLORIDA SPORTSMEN’S CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

TODD HALLMAN 

Mr. HALLMAN. Chairman Simpson, Congressman Graves, and 

other members. Thank you. I appreciate you having me here to testify before this House Appropriations Subcommittee. My name is 

Todd Hallman. I submit my testimony on behalf of myself and the 

Florida Sportsmen’s Conservation Association, the Future of Hunting in Florida, and the Florida Sportsman Trust Group. 

The Florida Sportsman Trust Group was put together by U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Refuge Association, Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Commission, along with about 30 leaders in sporting organizations in Florida because we had no trust in the Federal Government. The Federal Government came and said, we want to do 

this headwaters project down from Orlando south to Lake Okeechobee. So between putting this group together and all the sportsmen getting together, we are on board with the NEA, which is the 

Northern Alliance, the ranchers there. 

So I am basically here to request that you appropriate $50 mil- lion for fiscal year 2014 for the headwaters project and the $900 

million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and 

Water Conservation Fund—I know this is kind of hard when budget restraints are going on and we have got to tighten our belts and 

the sequester is going on, but the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund has really nothing to do with that. This fund was set up in 

1964 for buying lands in this country. And only twice in the last 

40 years, four decades, almost five decades, has this ever been 

funded to the full amount. So this money gets turned over into the 

general fund and it never goes to where it is supposed to go. 

So with your help we can appropriate this money to where it is 

supposed to go. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. It comes 

out of the Gulf of Mexico for gas leases and oil leases and stuff. 

But I would like to tell a little story looking at your pictures up 

there. One of the reasons the sportsmen got involved in this is lack 

of access on refuges in the State of Florida. I mean out of 28 refuges there are only about four of them that hunters actually can 

hunt on. So we have worked hard with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

and the FWC and we have come to some agreements and some 

trust. They have opened up a little bit more access. 

We have got an area down there called Lake Wales Ridge and 

there are some plants there that—there is only seven or eight of 

them that grow in the world. And it is on this ridge. So what do 

we do? Instead of just putting a fence around those plants, we 

block off the whole area. 

In looking at these pictures up here, I am looking, I said, man, 

what would happen if we blocked that off where people cannot even 

go and look at that? You know what I mean? This is the only place 
114

that we could see that in a book or on a TV show from a distance. 

We are all about access and we would like to see this land and conservation fund get funded to the full amount and use that money 

where it is supposed to go. 

So I appreciate your time. If you have any questions or anything, 

feel free. Thank you. 

[The statement of Todd Hallman follows:] 
115
116
117
118
119

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. You said in your opening statement you formed this organization because there was not any national trust. Is that a noun or a verb that you are using the word 

trust?

Mr. HALLMAN. Well, I do not know what you want to call it but 

it is trust in the Federal Government—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Trust, okay. 

Mr. HALLMAN [continuing]. But we don’t have any access to 

places, you know? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thought it was that rather than a trust that— 

Mr. HALLMAN. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON [continuing]. You know—— 

Mr. HALLMAN. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. HALLMAN. It is trusting—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. Thank you all for your testimony. Just out of curiosity, these are national trails like I assume 

on the Appalachian Trail where I could go hike, right? Is that true 

of all the trails? If I wanted to go on the Santa Fe Trail, could I 

start at the beginning and walk to the end if I wanted to do that? 

Mr. WERNER. Mr. Chairman, the scenic trails, the 11 scenic trails 

like the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide are designed to be foot paths like that that you 

could walk from end to end all the way. The Appalachian Trail is 

the only one of the 11 that you can actually walk that entire distance from Georgia to Maine—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Can I take a horse? 

Mr. WERNER [continuing]. Off road. You cannot take a horse on 

the Appalachian Trail. On the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide you can take a horse or you can hike. The Pacific 

Crest you can hike the 2,700 miles. All but about 300 miles of it 

is off road but the other connectors are on road. Continental Divide 

is projected to be about 3,100 miles long and there is something 

less than about half of that actually on the ground I think right 

now that you can walk. These are works in progress, and as you 

know, they are intended to be public-private partnerships. They are 

intended to be in the hands of citizens to do most of the work. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Mr. WERNER. But the federal funding and the federal agency administration and guidance is essential to making that happen. And 

we are dedicated to filling in those gaps that, you know, make the 

obstacles and so that if you and me did want to walk on some of 

them you would have a better walk. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Any other questions? 

Mr. GRAVES. No, sir. 

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

very much. Thanks for your testimony. 

Mr. WERNER. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Our last panel for this morning I would like to 

bring Robert Gropp and Kasey White. Mr. Gropp, White. Robert, 

you are up. 
120

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

USGS COALITION 

WITNESS

ROBERT GROPP 

Mr. GROPP. I will do like everyone else and thank you. Thank 

you, Mr. Graves, the Committee and the staff as well. My name is 

Robert Gropp and I am here on behalf of the American Institute 

of Biological Sciences for which I am director of policy but also 

chairman of the USGS Coalition to testify on behalf of funding for 

the USGS in fiscal year 2014. 

The USGS Coalition, as I know you know, is an alliance of more 

than 70 organizations representing the breadth of scientific disciplines, academic institutions, and so forth with a unified commitment to the continued vitality of the USGS and its scientific programs. And we support continued investments in the USGS that 

underpin responsible natural resource management stewardship 

and so forth. 

The President’s budget request for this year for the USGS represents a modest increase over fiscal year 2012 numbers and just 

under $100 million is what it works out to be. We are very appreciative of the President’s request and we are appreciative of your 

past efforts to provide resources for the USGS. 

Let me skip ahead a little bit. So, as you know, the USGS is a 

unique blend of scientific disciplines ranging from ecosystems to 

natural hazards and mapping geospatial data, minerals, and so 

forth. It is the only U.S. science agency dedicated to providing the 

scientific resources and information for decision-makers. The challenge that the USGS faces right now is not unlike that of any other 

federal agency, but budget sequestration is at a point now I think 

where the agency is at a crossroads. 

Over the years, you all have worked diligently in a bipartisan 

fashion to restore funding for cuts that have been proposed by administrations from both parties over the years and we are appreciative of that. Unfortunately, sequestration is now kind of causing 

some mischief with the budget. As you know, the current year sequestration has resulted in about a $60 million cut to the USGS 

programs. The agency has been working aggressively and diligently 

for a number of years to curtail excess spending and to be very 

strategic. It is our perspective that the majority of those cuts that 

can be made without starting to cut into core programs have been 

made and it is approaching a place soon where science is going to 

start to be in greater jeopardy. 

Some of the impacts of sequestration in terms of how the agency 

is currently working to try and manage that in the coming year, 

it appears that it is going to try to prevent the shutdown of 350 

stream gauges. USGS is going to stop delivering stream flow information, so this is a compromise to prevent the long-term loss of 

data but it is going to sacrifice some data to decision-makers in the 

short term. 

Maintenance of real-time status of stream gauges and seismic 

networks is likely to diminish. This has obvious implications for no-
121

tifications for everything from flooding and droughts but also for 

earthquakes and so forth. 

Decreased monitoring of volcanic eruptions is likely to occur, 

which has great implications as the FAA tends to use that data to 

try to route planes, particularly in areas like Alaska and other 

parts of the Northwest. 

Fewer early warnings are likely to be issued for wildlife diseases, 

which can obviously have an impact in terms of the amount of lead 

time that natural resource managers have to try and prevent the 

spread into either livestock populations or other natural populations or the transmission to human populations in some cases. So 

that could all result in significant costs. 

Finally, there is some expectation that there is going to be a 

delay in a lot of the energy and mineral assessments that the 

USGS tries to do, which could potentially slow some economic 

growth and hinder sort of the Nation’s move to try to exploit greater domestic energy use. 

So right now, I think the agency has done a lot to try and—they 

have made short-term cuts and tried to find ways to work through 

the short term, but it is getting to a place where there is a risk 

that some data starts being lost and that starts to hurt things in 

the long haul. 

And there are a number of other challenges that they are facing, 

so obviously the agency has cut staff travel and access to conferences. Twenty-seven conferences in February, March, and April, 

which is understandable again in the short term, but as a science 

agency and as a scientist myself, it is a challenge because a lot of 

the new ideas and the new refinement of ideas actually take place 

at scientific conferences. And so as a long-term solution that is 

going to start to jeopardize the quality of scientific work that USGS 

scientists are known for in that capacity to be able to interact with 

their colleagues and peers to find new ideas and refine them. 

The agency is obviously looking at refining its contracting and, 

you know, cutting any scoping, doing all of those sorts of things. 

And again, that is a wise move but it is also kind of slowing some 

of the science that needs to happen. Hiring freezes and potential 

employee furloughs, particularly for a science agency that does a 

lot of its work outside and into the growing season or in the summer months can be a challenge in terms of maintaining the integrity of networks or conducting and gathering data when you have 

to gather the data when it is available and controlled by external 

factors.

So these are some of the challenges that I know that you all are 

aware of and we just want to again thank you for your past support on behalf of the USGS and recognize, again, the challenges 

that you face. But any support you can offer to try to get close to 

that President’s number would be greatly, greatly appreciated. 

[The statement or Robert Gropp follows:] 
122
123
124
125
126

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Kasey. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

WITNESS

KASEY WHITE 

Ms. WHITE. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Kasey White, the director for geoscience policy for 

the Geological Society of America. We were founded in 1888 and 

are therefore celebrating our 125th anniversary this year as the 

oldest professional geo-scientific society in North America. We have 

25,000 members from academia, government, and industry in all 

50 states and more than 90 countries. 

On behalf of GSA, I would like to ask you to at least restore the 

fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the USGS and support as many 

of the increases in the President’s budget request as possible. As 

one of our Nation’s key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital 

role in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources that underpin economic growth, researching and monitoring potential natural hazards that can undermine U.S. and 

international security, and assessing water availability and quality 

necessary for society. 

Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding for the survey has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade. The cuts 

from sequestration in an agency already facing a flat budget for 

years have hampered its ability to monitor and assess resources 

upon which our society depends. And Rob highlighted a number of 

those cuts that are already there. 

And given the importance of the many activities of the survey 

that protect lives and property, stimulate innovations that fuel the 

economy, provide national security, and enhance the quality of life, 

we believe that sustained federal investment in the USGS is necessary for the well-being of our Nation. 

Most of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. This research is used by the Department of the Interior but 

also by communities around the Nation for different activities ranging from land-use planning to emergency response, natural resource management, engineering, and education. This also allows 

for partnerships that allow for the leveraging of funds across programs allowing the USGS to have a greater reach. 

Let me just highlight just a few of the important research areas. 

Natural hazards remain a major cause of fatalities and economic 

losses worldwide, and in the United States we just saw that on the 

West Coast with the landslides out in Oregon, and many other regions in the U.S. are vulnerable to damages from earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and landslides. USGS research improves our understanding of these geologic hazards and will allow for better 

planning and mitigation in these areas to reduce future losses. We 

encourage you to support USGS efforts to modernize its warning 

systems to protect communities from these devastating losses. 
127

Energy and mineral resources are critical to national security 

and economic growth. USGS is the only federal information source 

on mineral production, potential, and consumption. Therefore, we 

are really concerned about the cuts in the budget proposal and our 

Nation’s ability to safely develop these new resources. We need to 

support USGS assessments of energy resources, particularly unconventional natural gas and geothermal. We need to make informed 

decisions about the Nation’s energy future. 

In addition, many new energy technologies and manufacturing 

areas such as wind turbines and solar cells depend on rare earth 

elements and critical minerals that are overwhelmingly produced 

in China. The increases for proposed rare earth research at USGS 

can help us reduce our dependence on these foreign sources. 

The devastating droughts—I am sure you are all familiar with 

those out your way—really remind us of our dependence on water, 

and I think the proposed increases for water gauges and other 

water programs can help us with their understanding of surface 

and groundwater that we all need. 

The Landsat satellites have been a tremendous resource. They 

are the largest archive of remotely sensed data in the world and 

used for natural resource exploration, land use planning, water resource assessment, natural disaster impacts, and global agricultural production. The successful launch of Landsat 8 earlier this 

year is an important step to continue to provide these resources, 

and we support the interagency efforts to examine a path forward 

for Landsat. 

I would also like to take just a minute to talk about the impact 

of the budget on the next generation of Earth science professionals. 

The U.S. is facing a looming shortage of qualified workers in many 

of our science professions. In a report released a couple weeks ago 

by the National Research Council found that ‘‘energy and mineral 

resources are essential for the Nation’s fundamental functions, its 

economy, its security. In nonfuel and coalmining, a personnel crisis 

for professionals and workers is pending and it already exists for 

faculty.’’

We are very concerned that cuts in our science funding will cause 

students and young professionals to leave the field, that they will 

not be able to continue, and it will lead to a lost generation of professionals and particularly faculty in these areas that are already 

facing job shortages. 

Investing in the USGS can help us to grow the economy by preparing people for these positions and supporting research critical 

for national security, health, and welfare. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the 

USGS.

[The statement of Kasey White follows:] 
128
129
130
131

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. USGS is probably one of the more popular agencies within our budget actually. I think most members 

support it. And a couple of years ago the Administration tried to 

shift Landsat over to USGS. They just wanted to shift the responsibility but no money. 

Ms. WHITE. Right. Right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. No, let’s not do that. I have no problem with taking 

over Landsat; I just want the money to do it. 

But I am concerned about the reduced budget and some of the 

long-term monitoring we have done, water gauges and flows and 

that kind of stuff, that if you interrupt that information that we 

have been gathering for the last 100 years or whatever, you have 

really screwed it up. So it is something we are going to have to look 

at very closely in this budget and as every panel has been aware 

of ugly budget times frankly. But we will do what we can to maintain one of the premier science agencies and their ability to do the 

job that we ask them to do. And in fact I thought really about giving them some more responsibility. 

And then one of the concerns I have had with how we fund global 

warming in this budget is that almost every agency in the Federal 

Government gets some money to do global warming stuff. I do not 

know whether there is duplications or—in our budget we give it to 

the Forest Service, the BLM, the National Park Service, the USGS. 

Who else gets it? Fish and Wildlife Service gets it. They all get 

money to do global warming stuff. And I have no problem with 

what they are doing; I just do not know if there is any coordination. And I have thought about bringing all of the global warming 

money together in one agency, and it seems like the USGS is probably the appropriate place, and let them control what is done in 

these different areas to make sure that there is cooperation between agencies and overlaps and that kind of stuff. But I mean 

there is global warming money and the Department of Defense. 

And nobody can actually sit down and tell me how much money we 

actually spend on it because it is so spread out. 

So I know that they are probably not excited about that unless 

they were also given the money to do it. So thank you for your testimony.

Ms. Pingree, anything? 

Ms. PINGREE. No, thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for being here this morning. We look 

forward to working with you as we try to solve some of these challenges that face us in this current budget here. Thank you. 

Ms. WHITE. Right. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 
132

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Mr. SIMPSON. Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. 

Welcome to the second of three public witness hearings. This afternoon and again tomorrow morning this subcommittee will be hearing from a cross section of individuals representing a wide variety 

of issues addressed by this subcommittee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table one panel 

at a time. Each witness will be provided with 5 minutes to present 

their testimony. We will be using a timer to track the progress of 

each witness. When the button turns yellow, the witness will have 

1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. Their full 

statements will be included in the record. Members will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of our witnesses, but in the 

interest of time the chair requests that we keep these moving in 

order to stay on schedule. The chair also wants to remind those in 

the hearing room that the committee rules prohibit the use of outside cameras and audio recording during these hearings. 

I now would call the first panel, who is Kelly Keenan Aylward. 

Is that right? 

Ms. KEENAN AYLWARD. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Did I say that close? 

Ms. KEENAN AYLWARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Excellent. Dave Stricklan, Mary Beth Beetham, 

Ken Williams, and Will Gartshore. I called five, we have four. 

Okay. When Mr. Gartshore gets here, we will scoot him to the 

table.

Kelly, you are first. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

WITNESS

KELLY KEENAN AYLWARD 

Ms. KEENAN AYLWARD. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

members of the subcommittee staff. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify. It is with a little bit of a heavy heart given the circumstances that have occurred in Boston over the last 24 hours, 

but I wanted to proceed. 

My name is Kelly Keenan Aylward. I am the Washington Director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. We are headquartered up 

at the Bronx Zoo in New York, and we have been around for over 

100 years with the mission of seeding wildlife in wild places. We 

were founded with the help of Teddy Roosevelt, and we manage the 

world’s largest network of urban wildlife parks with connecting our 

Bronx Zoo to our Central Park Zoo, New York Aquarium, Queens 

and Prospect Park Zoos, and we have about four million visitors 

annually to our facilities. 

We also operate conservation programs in 67 countries around 

the world and work here in the United States in the Greater Yel-
133

lowstone Ecosystem, Arctic Alaska, and in the New England Forest 

Complex.

The American conservation tradition is based on promoting sustainable use in our natural resources in order to preserve the 

world’s species and environment for future generations. In recognition of our current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that 

effective natural resource management and conservation can have 

indirect benefits as well as contributing to local economies. The Department of the Interior reports that in 2011, 435 million people 

visited national parks, refuges, federal lands, contributing an estimated $48.7 billion in economic activity, supporting over 400,000 

jobs.

On a global level by supporting conservation the U.S. is increasing capacity in governments in developing countries and improving 

our own national security as a result. For instance, the U.S. Forest 

Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working to combat illegal trade in wildlife and plants. It is estimated that the flow 

of illegal timber into global markets results in the loss of approximately $1 billion annually to the U.S. Forest industries as American businesses are unsold by cheaper, illegal supply flooding the 

U.S. markets. 

Although difficult to calculate, the illegal wildlife trade has an 

estimated value of between $5 and $20 billion annually, and it 

ranks just behind illegal trade in drugs, humans, and arms trafficking in value. The illegal trade and wildlife product spreads diseases like SARS and Ebola to other wildlife livestock and people, 

so we are talking about serious public health concerns. 

Additionally, the criminal syndicates and rebel militias involved 

in illegal wildlife trade often participate in other illegal activities 

like terrorism and trafficking in narcotics and weapons, all of 

which pose major threats to the U.S. national security. 

The illegal trade in elephant ivory is a top threat to Africa’s elephants. Central Africa’s forest elephant populations have experienced reductions of more than 80 percent in the last 25 years, and 

at least 25,000 African elephants were killed in the year 2012, 

alone. This represents the highest annual level of elephant poaching in Africa since monitoring began in 2002, via the Wildlife Conservation Society and the CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of 

Elephants Program. 

The U.S. has a legacy of leading international wildlife conservation efforts for global priority species like elephants through the 

Fish and Wildlife Service administered Multinational Species Conservation Fund Program and the Wildlife without Borders Program. Through these programs the Fish and Wildlife Service is the 

lead U.S. technical agency working with partners on the ground to 

combat illegal wildlife trade. 

For example, in 2009, with the support of the African Elephant 

Conservation Fund, part of the Multinational Species Conservation 

Fund, WCS launched a new project in collaboration with the 

Bauchi state government to improve protection and reduce elephant poaching in the Yankari Game Reserve. Yankari contains 

the largest surviving elephant populations in Nigeria and one of 

the largest remaining in West Africa. WCS has been able to make 
134

substantial progress in building the capacity of ecoguard staff and 

empowering local authorities to manage the elephant populations. 

Despite years of extreme poaching pressure, the number of elephants killed this year has been kept to a minimum through constant surveillance and law enforcement. A strong team of 

ecoguards is now using GPS-enabled hand-held devices to detect illegal activities and reporting back to authorities with real-time 

data and illustrative maps. With 30 ecoguards having received refresher in training law enforcement skills, continuing to reinforce 

these efforts, prosecution rates have made the penalty imposed by 

courts have increased as a result of this improved law enforcement 

effort. One hundred and eighteen arrests have been made, et 

cetera.

I see my time is running out. I just wanted to hit on some of the 

key recommendations for the fiscal year 2014 appropriations. It includes robust funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State 

Wildlife and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, the Urban Waters 

Federal Partnership and the growth of that partnership in fiscal 

year 2014, and maintaining fiscal year 2013 levels for funding the 

following accounts: the Multinational Species Funds at $9.5 million, the Wildlife without Borders Program at $6.3 million, the U.S. 

Forest Service International Programs at $8 million, and the U.S. 

National Park Service of International Affairs at $886,000. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

[The statement of Kelly Keenan Aylward follows:] 
135
136
137
138
139

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Dave, you are next. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

FRIENDS OF THE CAMAS NATIONAL REFUGE 

WITNESS

DAVE STRICKLAN 

Mr. STRICKLAN. Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, there is a whole bunch of behalfs I am behalfing. On 

behalf of the newly organized Friends of Camas Wildlife National 

Refuge Group, the many hundreds of BYU-Idaho students that I 

have taken to Camas National Refuge over the years, and on behalf 

of the citizens who love Camas National Wildlife Refuges, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and over 230 similar friends 

groups across the country, I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

and the chance to participate. 

I was also sent by the students with a message for all of Congress to make it work correctly, and what I was told, many of those 

students, men and women, have jobs with various government 

agencies, and most of them got sequestered. So those folks said, 

well, I understand, but I do not understand the complexities of the 

budget, but I understand that one. It is local. 

All right. Each national refuge is set aside by the Congress or 

the President as a treasure, and Camas National Refuge was as 

well. Waterfowl stop on the way from essentially Belize and Guatemala into the northwest territories in Alaska, and they stop there 

to refuel. Waterfowl and shore birds eat invertebrates in the 

mudflats, and songbirds stop for as few as 1 to 3 days to refuel on 

insects.

Data from a banding station at Camas, which was discontinued 

in earlier budget cutbacks, indicate that these small songbirds, 

such as a Wilson’s warbler, weight about 6.5 grams, which is a 

nickel and dime. That is what they weigh, and then they refuel for 

1, 2, or 3 days, and they then weigh 7.5 grams, which does not 

sound like much, but that is 15 percent of your bodyweight, and 

then they are able to continue onto either Canada or Alaska. They 

could not do that. They have got to have that stopping station, and 

they feed up there. They do all sorts of things. They are really on 

an energetic budget that just has no wiggle room in there, and that 

is where they load up. 

The numbers of warblers that came through the banding station 

stunned experienced ornithologists there. Nobody knows how many 

Wilson’s warblers there are that come through North America, but 

a lot of them come through Camas National Refuge, and that is 

probably because of its geooffsetal location and also so much of the 

other habitat in North America is just gone. 

Funding for the banding station at Camas was cobbled together. 

It was not from Fish and Wildlife Service. It was cobbled together. 

A passionate and essentially itinerant Ph.D. camped out there and 

the used BYU-Idaho students and other students, most of whom 

were not paid, to complete the work, and without advertising, the 

work spread and the local farmers and ranchers came and school 
140

children came on buses and cub scouts and the little old ladies in 

tennis shoes with binoculars came and the retirement crowd came, 

and they helped capture birds, check nets, put bands on, and then 

released the birds into the air. 

Dr. Jay Carlisle, who ran the banding station, told me that the 

scientific data was of incredible value, but the education was a 

higher value, and I have a picture that I brought for members of 

the committee of the kids kind of for fun. I could not bring puppy 

dogs, so I brought really cute little kids for you. 

What you have there is probably first-grade-aged little girls 

peering at the warbler that one of the little girls is going to let 

loose, and Jay is kneeling down as he prepares to help release the 

bird, and it is an American image. But that is not possible anymore.

Since I prepared this testimony I understand that the President’s 

budget has come out and that the funding is nearly at or approaching the 2010, level, and we are here to ask that you go along with 

that. The numbers in the written report show the numbers have 

been going down over the years, and I just want to say some things 

that could not happen because of that. 

I talked to Brian Wehausen, and essentially what he said is they 

cannot turn on the pumps to put the water rights, to put the water 

in the wetlands, and they cannot spray the weeds. Now, in the 

west there is a weed management group, and if you do not participate in the weed management group, you are a bad neighbor, and 

the weeds come off your place to the agricultural areas. So he has 

to choose between having water or spraying his weeds. No 

seasonals and that kind of thing. 

So I would like to sum up by asking that the funding be restored 

to the 2010 levels so that they do not kind of have to choose which 

child to save, and I know that you know that that is important, but 

it has really local and meaningful impacts to those folks. 

And I appreciate that very much. 

[The statement of Dave Stricklan follows:] 
141
142
143
144

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mary Beth. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

WITNESS

MARY BETH BEETHAM 

Ms. BEETHAM. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I am Mary Beth Beetham, Legislative Director 

with Defenders of Wildlife founded in 1947. Defenders has more 

than one million members and supports, and we are dedicated to 

the conservation of wild animals and plants in their nature communities.

We share the deep concern, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Moran, 

that was voiced by you and others in last week’s Department of the 

Interior Budget Hearing with Secretary Salazar about the devastating impacts of the funding cuts from the sequester and the additional funding cuts on our Nation’s natural heritage. We want 

you to know that the environmental community tried very hard at 

the end of the last Congress and the beginning of the new Congress 

to stop the sequester and promote a larger overall deal. Obviously, 

we and others were unsuccessful with doing that. 

But we hope that once the on-the-ground impacts really become 

apparent later this summer that we will start to really have the 

information that will help us make the better case to the American 

people about all the things that they value, including our lands and 

wildlife that are going to be impacted by this, and then we can 

hopefully get you and the subcommittee more support that you 

need to fund these programs. 

Since our written testimony was submitted before the President’s 

budget was released, I am focusing my statement on what we consider to be the highest priorities for wildlife, and the request, we 

thought it was a really good request considering the circumstances. 

We support the following increases for the Fish and Wildlife Service; $9.5 million for Endangered Species Operating Accounts; 

$8.3 million in the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund to help 

protect our Nation’s most vulnerable plants and animals—$7.2 million that will help ensure that renewable energy projects can be 

cited in a way that prevents harm to species such as golden eagles, 

bats, desert tortoise, and seabirds and many other species; and $9.4 

million for the Innovative Cooperative Recovery Initiative, which 

we really like a lot. It is in its second year, and we believe it is 

promoting more efficient efforts across landscapes to recover listed 

species on national wildlife refuges and surrounding lands. 

We also support the additional increases in the request for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System for inventory and monitoring, 

Challenge Cost Share Projects, and law enforcement. Also in Fish 

and Wildlife Service, $2.1 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and $11.8 million for science support that will help to implement the recently-released National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 

Climate Adaptation Strategy, and if you recall, the development of 
145

that strategy is something that was directed by this subcommittee 

in the fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 committee reports. 

Also in the Fish and Wildlife Service, one of the downsides of the 

budget, we were disappointed to see the elimination of the Wolf 

Livestock Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners coexisting with wolves. We do a lot with coexistence in the 

northern Rockies and in the west and we hope to see this funding 

restored.

In the Forest Service request we were concerned to see that yet, 

again, the Administration has proposed consolidating many accounts, including Wildlife and Fish and the Integrated Resource 

Restoration, and we support continuing IRR as a pilot program as 

the subcommittee did in the fiscal year 2012 bill so that the agency 

has to first demonstrate its ability to adequately protect resources 

including Fish and Wildlife under the smaller pilot before it gets 

the larger program. 

In the Bureau of Land Management budget, we are extremely pleased with the $15 million increase for comprehensive sagegrouse conservation in ten western states. We know that you are 

very concerned about this issue, Mr. Chairman, and many other 

members from those states. We appreciate that the House bill did 

fully fund that request, and we want you to know that we are 

working with Representatives Horsford and Amodei on a dear colleague letter to the committee to fund it that we are trying to get 

other members from the sage-grouse states to sign. So we are 

working hard on that. In the BLM budget we also support the $7.1 million program increase for renewable energy that will help to fund regional land use 

planning studies and environmental reviews, again, to help avoid 

areas with potential wildlife and other natural resource conflicts. For the USGS we support $22.5 million increase for ecosystems that includes $1.5 million for research on White Nose Syndrome 

that is devastating bat populations and for the National Climate 

Change and Wildlife Science Center, and Climate Science Center 

is a $10 million increase, again, for research on the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. 

And finally, Defenders supports the increase in the President’s 

request for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including the 

Interior Forest Service Collaborative Program that works across 

landscapes, and we also support the Administration’s request to 

provide dedicated mandatory funding for the LWCF. That is something that we believe was always the intent of the authors of the 

LWCF, and we would hope that if that would pass, it would give 

the subcommittee some relief on your allocation in the future. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mary Beth Beetham follows:] 
146
147
148
149
150

Mr. SIMPSON. Ken, you are next. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

WITNESS

KEN WILLIAMS 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee 

members. I am Ken Williams. I am the Executive Director of the 

Wildlife Society, a non-profit scientific and educational association 

founded in 1937, representing tens of thousands of wildlife professional biologists and managers with a mission to represent and 

serve the professional community of scientists and managers and 

educators who focus on understanding and managing and conserving natural resources. 

There are a number of programs that TWS actively supports. We 

have identified many of them in our written testimony submitted 

for the record. I will highlight a few of those for you here today. 

In the interest of time I will limit the setup for each one of them, 

and I will just get right to the appropriations request. 

Starting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State 

and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, which is something that we 

very much support. It is the only federal program dedicated to supporting the states with their state wildlife actions plans, the aim 

of keeping common species common, and avoiding the need for an 

endangered species listing. We think that is a very good thing. We recommend that Congress appropriate $70 million for this 

program. We think it is a very smart investment. It has the strong 

benefit of supporting the American economy and provides 28 jobs 

for every million dollars that are spent, about twice the number of 

jobs supported by road and bridge construction. We think that is 

a good bang for the buck. 

The National Wildlife Refuge Program within the Fish and Wildlife Service badly needs additional funding for its operations and 

maintenance. This is a longstanding and common problem. It needs 

that to administer 150 million acres, all the educational programs, 

the Habitat Restoration Programs, and much more. We urge Congress to match the Presidential request and provide $499 million 

for the operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge 

Program.

TWS also supports adequate funding levels for the services, Endangered Species Program and in particular for endangered species 

recovery efforts, which is the best way to lead to delisting of endangered species. We support an increase in the emphasis on consultation and recovery, which we think is the key to success of the Endangered Species Program, and we recommend Congress match the 

Presidential request and provide $185 million for fiscal year 2014. 

Lastly, for the Fish and Wildlife Service we strongly support the 

voluntary partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides 

financial and technical assistance to private landowners across the 

country, something we are very much supportive of. This program 

engages private landowners in restoring and maintaining habitat, 
151

again, to avoid endangered species listing. Again, a good use of our 

money.

We strongly support these collaborative efforts, and we urge Con- gress to provide $60 million to partners for Fish and Wildlife to 

help fund them. 

Very quickly, the Bureau of Land Management supports over 

3,000 species of wildlife, more than 300 that are federally listed, 

more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. To relieve the chronic 

underfunding of BLM’s wildlife program and manage the tremendous expansion that is being experienced by energy development 

across the BLM landscape, we recommend that Congress appropriate $55 million for BLM wildlife management programs and an 

increase of overall funding in their Endangered Species Program to 

$33 million in fiscal year 2014. 

We support the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program in 

the Bureau of Land Management along with the National Horse 

and Burro Range Land Management Coalition of 14 wildlife conservation and sportsmen organizations with industry partnerships 

and professional involvement. We request the support for the requested $77 million that should be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess horses from the range at a reasonable rate 

and focus additional resources on habitat restoration, including an 

increase in $2 million for implementation of the National Academy 

of Sciences recommendations that were made previously. 

For the U.S. Geological Survey, I am going to run out of time 

here, so I am going to make sure that I emphasize the Cooperative 

Research Units Program. I think it is one of the biggest bangs for 

the buck that there is. It is a program that is represented in 38 

states across the United States including every state represented 

on this committee except one. The scientists in that program conduct research on natural resources, deliver graduate education, 

provide research support for their state cooperators, and since 

2001, it has not been fully funded. In order to currently fill vacancies, we recommend an increase for the research units of $22 million.

I see that my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

time.

[The statement of Ken Williams follows:] 
152
153
154
155
156

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. You have piqued my curiosity. Which 

one state? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Unhappily, it is Ohio. Now, Ohio used to have a 

coop unit. It is my firm belief and my firm hope and expectation 

that before the smoke clears Ohio will yet, again, have a coop unit. 

You have a very, very good one. You probably know that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. Appreciate it. Will. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 

WITNESS

WILL GARTSHORE 

Mr. GARTSHORE. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, 

members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity. Sorry 

for the tardy arrival. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is okay. 

Mr. GARTSHORE. I am Senior Policy Officer with World Wildlife 

Funds, and WWF is the largest private conservation organization 

working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We 

currently sponsor conservation programs in over 100 countries. We 

are supported by 1.2 million members in the U.S. and five million 

worldwide.

I want to testify today in support of a number of important international conservation programs within the Department of Interior 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in particular is providing critical support to the conservation of endangered species around the 

globe, particularly in developing countries through its Office of 

International Affairs, the Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds, and its Office of Law Enforcements. 

These international programs are particularly critical at this current moment when Africa, in particular, is facing the most severe 

poaching crisis that we have seen in a couple of decades. You have 

probably seen the news stories about elephants and rhinos being 

killed in large numbers on the continent; elephants for their ivory, 

rhinos for their horns. In the past 5 years poaching of rhinos in 

South Africa has increased by 5,000 percent. In the past 10 years 

over 60 percent of the elephants in Central Africa it is estimated 

have been slaughtered. That is nearly two-thirds of the remaining 

population. So you can expect extinction in a couple of decades at 

the current rates. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Two-thirds? 

Mr. GARTSHORE. Over 60 percent in Central Africa. Yeah. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Have been slaughtered over what period? 

Mr. GARTSHORE. A decade. This is a recent study that actually 

WCS and—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. I am sorry for the interruption. 

Mr. GARTSHORE [continuing]. That is all right. In Asia you have 

got 3,200 tigers perhaps remaining in the entire continent in the 

wild.
157

For the past year WWF has led a global campaign to tackle this 

illegal trade called Stop Wildlife Crime and is a traditional leader 

on global species conservation. The U.S. Government also has a 

critical role to play in the fight, helping developing countries to 

protect their wildlife populations and pressuring the consumer 

countries to reduce their demand. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is at the forefront of many of these 

efforts. Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds it 

makes targeted investments in conservation of several global priority species. In 1989, Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act to deal with the then poaching crisis that we were 

facing, and since then four more funds have been authorized to 

support conservation of Asian elephants, great apes, marine turtles, tigers, and rhinos. They are modest programs. Appropriated 

funds have remained roughly 30 percent or less of the authorized 

level, but the small grants that they provide have played a critical 

role in saving wild populations by controlling poaching, reducing 

human wildlife conflict, and protecting the central habitat. Over 

2,200 grants have been dispersed over 265 organizations for conservation projects in 75 countries, grants that consistently leverage 

between two to four times as much in matching funds from public 

and private partners and over 90 percent of the appropriated funding goes directly into the grants. It is minimal administrative costs. 

With support from these funds WWF has supported large-scale 

anti-poaching operations to protect elephants in Cameroon’s Campo 

Ma’an National Park, to create wildlife quarters to protect tigers 

in Sumatra’s Riau Province, to support community-based programs 

in Costa Rica that turned marine turtle poachers into marine turtle 

protectors, and anti-poaching habitat restoration and rhino monitoring efforts in the Nepal’s Chitwan Province that ensured no 

rhinos were poached there in 2011. 

In addition to my role representing WWF, I also coordinate with 

Wildlife Conservation Society, the Multinational Species Coalition, 

which is a diverse group of over 30 organizations that represent 

sportsmen, conservationists, zoos and aquariums, circuses, and animal welfare groups, all which strongly support the Multinational 

Species Conservation Funds, and we request that the subcommittee 

fund them at the Administration’s request of $9.8 million. 

We also request support for the Administration’s request for $13.5 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs, which includes both the Wildlife Without Borders 

Program and their International Wildlife Trade Programs. The 

Wildlife Without Borders Programs provide regional-level support, 

capacity building, outreach, education, training in priority areas in 

Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere to support the species funds 

such as training African wildlife professionals to deal with 

bushmeat trade, bolstering local wildlife laws, increasing enforcement to capacity in African countries, and addressing declines of 

critically-endangered species such as amphibians. They also support the international treaties that the U.S. is party to, such as 

CITES.

And the Wildlife Trade Program works to fight the $10 to $20 

billion annually illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, 

which is closely linked to other transnational organized crimes and 
158

not only threaten species but also poses security threats in places 

like Africa. 

The last couple of programs I would like to mention are the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement. We support 

the Administration’s request for $68.3 million for that office. They 

have some important work that they do on international. They are 

looking to put agents in a couple of key places like East Africa. 

They have one in Bangkok now to help deal with this international 

nexus. They also recently had this huge bust called Operation 

Crash with dozens of rhino horns and millions of dollars in assets 

found here in the U.S. It was part of a rhino horn trafficking ring. 

And they also do important work to enforce the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 2008. They have additional mandates under those 

amendments on plant and plant species that have yet to receive 

funding to carry out those mandates, so we request the committee 

support $4.2 million to support them in that work. Illegal timber 

costs the U.S. forest products industry about $1 billion annually it 

is estimated. 

Finally, support for the President’s America’s Great Outdoors 

Initiative and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, full funding 

at the $900 million by 2015, and the U.S. Forest Service International Programs at $8 million. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. The rhino horn what did you call it? 

Trade.

Mr. GARTSHORE. The rhino horn trade? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. That is weird that there are illegal trading activities. I have heard of drug cartels but rhino horn cartels? 

Mr. GARTSHORE. It is true. Yeah. It is estimated at around $10 

to $20 billion annually depending on who you talk to, and there is 

actually an assessment going on. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is amazing. 

Mr. GARTSHORE. Secretary Clinton back in November called for 

an assessment of U.S. knowledge on how this impacts U.S. security 

interests in places like Africa. I mean, the ivory trade obviously has 

security implications. So that is currently ongoing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. While this question is not really dealing with the 

budgets, I suspect all of you support the Endangered Species Act. 

You know it has not been reauthorized for 23 years now. 

Ms. BEETHAM. Yes, sir, we know. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are you out pushing to try to get the appropriate 

authorizing committees to do a reauthorization of the Endangered 

Species Act or any of the other 59 programs or whatever it is where 

the authorizations have expired in our appropriation bill? 

As you know, we have tried to put emphasis on that a couple of 

years ago when we had, I think it was called the Extinction Rider, 

that did not fund the Endangered Species Act, trying to put some 

pressure on the committee that we are not going to continue just 

to fund things when the authorizations have expired when they are 

not going to take them up and do them. Obviously that did not 

work, but somehow we have got to get everybody that is involved 

and has an interest in some of these programs and some of these 

acts like the Endangered Species Act, sitting at a table and working out a reauthorization instead of just expecting the appro-
159

priating committee to continue to fund these year after year after 

year.

So I would encourage you to do that if it is at all possible, and 

if it is, you will have better luck than I have. 

Ms. BEETHAM. Mr. Chairman, could I just say that we would 

work with the authorizers if they decided to take up a reauthorization, but I will say that Defenders of Wildlife believes that the ESA 

as it currently stands is fundamentally sound, but we understand 

your concern because you deal with House rules and everything as 

well, and, you know, we would certainly work with the authorizers 

if they were going to move a reauthorization. 

Mr. SIMPSON. My problem with the Endangered Species Act is 

the lack of species that we have actually recovered. There are, I 

cannot remember the exact numbers, numbers that have been listed and the number that we have recovered, the percentage we have 

recovered has been very, very little. I am not saying it has not done 

good work in some areas, but almost everybody I have talked to, 

including Secretary Salazar and others said, yes, there are things 

we could do to make it work better to carry out the intent of the 

Act.

But it is a discussion that Congress needs to have, members of 

Congress need to have. I mean, there are admittedly some people 

that would like to do away with it. I do not happen to be one of 

them. I just want to see it work more effectively than it currently 

does.

Any other questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you very much to both of you. 

I guess I just wanted to follow on that, and you know, I am from 

the Pacific Northwest. We are very proud of what we have and 

would like to protect it. I guess in light of your comment, though, 

that as it stands it does not seem like reforming or changing or 

adapting or bring it into the 21st century is your concern. 

I did not know if you were aware in, for example, in Gifford Pinchot National Forest in my neck of the woods, a significant amount 

of the forest has been just pretty much closed, whether it is litigation or what have you. About 20 years ago, under the Northwest 

Forest Plan, there was significant portions of land set aside to protect for a single species. 

Well, I am anxious for reform because 20 years later that same 

species has declined at 3 percent per year. Not only that, they are 

now adding other species because of the policies we have implemented, and I think Fish and Wildlife now in order to protect the 

spotted owl is literally sending people into the woods with shotguns 

to shoot the barred owl, and I just use that as an example. Does 

that not sound like something? So it has not worked to protect 

those species, and we are all concerned about them, but I think 

that single species approach is begging reform. 

Ms. BEETHAM. If I could just say, what I would say is that we 

believe that the Endangered Species Act has stopped the decline of 

many species and has prevented the extinction of species, which 

was what it was—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I am not one of those that wants to 

get completely—— 
160

Ms. BEETHAM [continuing]. Enacted to do. We do believe that, 

number one, we do believe that the recovery budget needs more 

funding. We do think that funding is an issue for things that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service could possibly do. I will also say we do 

believe that there are things that the Fish and Wildlife Service can 

already do under the current law, and we are working, Defenders 

is working on something, and we would be happy to come in, 

maybe later this year once we actually get, you know, get our plans 

straight, that we would hope would begin to bring more species to 

recovery.

So, you know, we believe the act has been successful in stopping 

extinctions, and we do want to work with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to begin to bring more species to recovery and work more 

efficiently, which we actually believe that they can already do 

under the current law. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. STRICKLAN. Mr. Chairman—sorry. If I might and I know that 

you are under time constraints, my name is Dave Stricklan and before I was a professor I was a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service, and I have written a may effect finding under the Endangered 

Species Act for grizzly bears. Been on the ground when that happened, and you get a call from the governor’s office, and you get 

a call from everywhere. 

And I am very much a supporter of the Endangered Species Act 

and maintaining it, but the key criteria is that what we are doing 

is we are approaching these species by species, and you know, we 

need a desert step, sagebrush reserve that takes care of pigmy rabbits and sage grouse and sage thrasher and sage sparrow and those 

kind of—— 

Ms. BEETHAM. More of an ecosystem approach. 

Mr. STRICKLAN. And there are fine minds that understand this, 

and we get at this slowly by things like the Random Water Conservation Fund and that kind of thing, and we put these things together, and that one for us on the ground works. But it is a big 

deal, and it is tough to do individually. I think we all agree that 

we would not want to give up what we have for those protections, 

and it does work, and it has kept us from having more problems, 

but we have got to have an ecosystem approach. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I do agree with the ecosystem approach. 

I guess I would argue it is not working as well as it should if the 

whole reason that most of our national forest was set aside was for 

the spotted owl, and in that time the spotted owl has still declined. 

So we want it to work. I just am curious. We are going to need 

some solutions, and I agree. I think ecosystem is the way to do it 

because now we have other species who are in danger because we 

managed for one species. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Jim. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, in the current legislative environment reauthorization of ESA would be an endangerment to endangered species. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not think so. 

Mr. MORAN. We will see. 
161

Mr. SIMPSON. As I said, there are people who would like to do 

away with the Endangered Species Act. I do not think that is a majority. In fact, I do not even think it is close to a majority. 

Mr. MORAN. Not on this subcommittee at least. I am not sure 

about natural resources. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not think so in Congress. 

Mr. MORAN. Anyways, I hope not. It just that I am aware of the 

interest groups that represented priorities that are very much different from the people before us today who, you know, like to 

scapegoat the endangered species for other problems they have 

anyway.

I want to thank all of you for what you do. You do a great deal 

with very little. You are asking for a relative pittance. I mean, 

compared to what we spend on entitlement programs or some of 

our weapons systems or let alone do some of the special interest 

provisions that the tax code is replete with, you are asking for very, 

very little money, and yet what you are trying to achieve has a dramatic impact upon our ecosystem, both domestically and internationally.

With regard to the international ecosystem, it is just astounding 

that Ms. Aylward’s testimony, she cites the fact that illegal trade 

in African elephants and ivory particularly resulted in the deaths 

of 25,000 African elephants just last year alone. That is just devastating to a population that they used to be tremendous assistance back in a number of cultures in terms of transportation. I 

mean, it is logistic animals that if we lost them, it would be just 

tragic.

But also just from a pragmatic standpoint, that illegal trade is 

helping criminal syndicates, international criminal syndicates, and 

in some cases even terrorist organizations, terrorist networks. 

So if we cannot win the argument in terms of just what is right 

and what is healthy for our ecosystem, I think we have a compelling argument that we have got to stop that source of revenue 

going into these international criminal networks. 

But I thank you for your testimony. You have raised issues that 

we could spend all day talking about. Unfortunately, we have very 

limited time for these outside interests, and I appreciate the fact 

that the Chairman does give us this time, so I do not want to abuse 

it, but again, thank you for all that you do. It is appreciated. 

Ms. KEENAN AYLWARD. Thank you, Congressman. If I could just 

take a minute to respond, we are really concerned about the illegal 

poaching crisis. We have put out a study recently in PLAS that indicates that where you have law enforcement entitles, figures, people near hunting areas, near roads, you actually can significantly 

reduce the elephant poaching numbers. So we know how to fix it, 

and it is simple law enforcement training, building up that capacity 

in these countries. 

So we are concerned that extinction is looming in the near future, and you know, as quickly as 5 to 10 years if the problem does 

not reverse itself, but we also know there is a solution out there, 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service has some great programs. The 

Species Funds help address this. The Office of Law Enforcement 

also addresses this, but also having some emergency funding to address this would be really useful. 
162

Mr. MORAN. Some African governments are cooperating with us. 

We have got a lot of technology that our military has developed 

that can be very helpful; night vision goggles and aerial surveillance and so I am not sure we are using enough of it, and I am 

not sure we are getting the kind of cooperation we should be getting from all of the African nations. The fact is that eco-tourism 

and safaris that are not about shooting animals but appreciating 

them in their natural habitat is a tremendous source of economic 

growth and revenue to many African nations but not all of them. 

And so if there are ways we can help in encouraging the State 

Department learn to use what leverage we have, even the Defense 

Department, I would hope you would give us an opportunity to do 

that.

Ms. KEENAN AYLWARD. We would certainly support that, and we 

see, you know, these crime syndicates. It is shocking to think that 

people would dedicate their lives to making money off of wildlife 

parts, but really the deterrence is so low, it is the same people who 

are operating, the same syndicates that are working in narcotics 

and human trafficking, and they see very little risk associated with 

diversifying their investment portfolio, if you will, into wildlife 

products. The penalties are not that high, the prosecutions do not 

happen that often, but what I like to say is it is like the Al Capone 

scenario. If you cannot get them on racketeering, go after tax evasion. You might be able to get them on wildlife trafficking, bring 

them down, prosecute them, get them out of the system, and at 

least reduce in some way the criminal syndicate activity and the 

destabilization effect and the national security interest associated 

with it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, being Republican I am just thrilled that we 

are all worried about elephant extinction, and I am glad to see the 

bipartisan effort here, even though every 2 years you try to make 

us extinct. 

Mr. MORAN. Nobody gives the donkey any respect, so I am not 

even going to try to go there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Did you have anything, Tom? 

I thank the panel for your testimony, and let me say that our 

last panel, we have votes right now, three votes, one 15, and two 

fives, and then we will be back over to do the last panel. 

So if you are waiting, you have to wait a few more minutes. So 

appreciate it. Thank you all for being here today. 

[Recess.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Dr. Jonathan Gassett. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

RESOURCES

WITNESS

JONATHAN GASSETT 

Mr. GASSETT. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and hopefully some 

members of the committee here shortly. I am John Gassett, Commissioner of Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 
163

from the great State of Kentucky. I am the past President of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which is a trade association of the 50 State Fish and Wildlife Service Agencies. I am also 

currently a member of the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Council and the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council.

And I am here today to speak briefly on the importance of several federal grant programs to states and where conservation really 

hits the ground. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and if time permits, 

the Neotropical Migratory Bird Act and Cooperative Endangered 

Species Act, all of which fall under Fish and Wildlife Services 

budget.

As you know, federal grant programs to states are vital to conservation for our Nation’s fish and wildlife, particularly for those 

species that are at risk. Since states hold principle management 

authority and responsibility for fish and wildlife, those fish and 

wildlife agencies in the states are on the frontlines for conservation, and they are critical for doing some of the things that you 

talked about earlier today, preventing species from becoming endangered and subsequently becoming listed. 

Congress recognized the important role of the States in 1980, 

when it passed the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, and in 

2000, the State Wildlife Grants Program, which was created to provide funding to conserve at-risk species through the development of 

state wildlife action plans. And the purpose of those, of course, is 

to prevent species from becoming listed and to keep common species common through proactive conservation measures. 

The vision we think laid out by Congress when it established the 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program was simple; establish a 

new partnership between the states and the Federal Government 

to create a non-regulatory alternative to prevent new endangered 

species listings, and I come here today to inform you that this innovative approach is working, and the federal investment in these 

plans through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is, indeed, preventing new federal listings. 

I am going to give you a few examples because I am one of these 

guys, I like concrete examples of how conservation is effective on 

the ground, but we do have a success story report on the wildlife 

page that is produced by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It has a comprehensive review of some of these species that 

have been conserved. 

The earlier panel brought up the pigmy rabbit. It is, of course, 

the smallest rabbit in North America. It is found in the western 

U.S. It was petitioned for federal listing in 2003. State and Tribal 

Wildlife Grant funding was used to conduct surveys, do research, 

and actually start a captive rearing program for this species, and 

in 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made a finding that federal endangered species listing was not warranted for this species. 

This determination was due in large part because of the survey 

work and the conservation actions that were funded directly by the 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. 

The Eastern hellbender, a little closer to my home, is North 

America’s largest salamander. It has been petitioned by the Fed-
164

eral Government for Endangered Species Act listing, and State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants Program dollars are being used to develop 

monitoring protocols and innovative environmental DNA techniques which will allow biologists to more efficiently find and determine the status of the species, basically a technique where you can 

sample the water and determine whether the species occurs in that 

watershed.

States are also raising hellbenders in captivity and releasing 

them into suitable habitat, which is a form of pit starting that is 

speeding recovery. In Kentucky, in my home State of Kentucky, we 

are funding with the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Programs to 

identify strains with healthy producing populations of hellbenders 

so that we can work with private landowners to maintain water 

quality at those sites. And since the range of this species covers 

more than a dozen states in the Southeast, federal listing would 

have far-reaching regulatory impacts on things like mining and 

timber harvest and other development projects. We think we can 

keep this species off the endangered species list if we continue investing in proactive versus reactive conservation. 

The mountain plover is a bird familiar to the Great Plains that 

was proposed for federal listing as well. State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grant Program is being used to conduct surveys and support research to start a cooperative nest avoidance program with farmers 

and ranchers. Through these efforts the number of known breeding 

pairs has increased from just over two to over 400 now. Conservation work funded through State and Tribal Wildlife Grants was 

cited as a factor that precluded federal listing of this species. Federal listing could have impacted ranching and other livelihoods in 

nearly a dozen western states. 

So there are three good examples, concrete examples of how this 

thing works. It is very difficult to delist a species as you pointed 

out earlier, but the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program was 

largely responsible for the delisting of the federally-threatened 

Lake Erie water snake in 2010. So it is rare when one is removed 

from the list, but it is possible to do so in a relatively short time 

through good planning, conservation, and funding through State 

and Tribal Wildlife Grants Programs. 

I want to speak briefly about the NAWCA Project or the NAWCA 

Act as it is close and personal to me, but it is the Wetlands Conservation Act that is an innovative program that is matched by 

more than three non-federal dollars for every dollar. It helps us to 

reclaim our wetlands, reclaim or recover our wetlands, and it is 

probably some of the most critical habitat that we will deal with 

in our country. Funding for that program has been reduced by 30 

percent over the last 4 years, and we are seeing losses in wetlands 

that are unprecedented now. 

So with, Mr. Chairman, in summary, these federal grant programs are important to continuing the long-established partnership 

between State and federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife, 

especially those that are at risk. The recent spending cuts to these 

programs especially are slowing the progress to conserve at-risk 

species in a time when success is actually being demonstrated. We 

have on-the-ground demonstrations that these programs work. 
165

In the area of declining budgets we understand dollars are tight, 

but it is a wise decision to invest in the preventative proactive conservation measures so that we can reduce the need for federal 

intervention and regulation that can negatively impact local economies and jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Jonathan Gassett follows:] 
166
167
168
169
170

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. Next we have Greg Knadle, Vice 

President of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and as I understand 

it the first and only former singing appropriator. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

GREG KNADLE 

Mr. KNADLE. I deny that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, 

I am the Vice President for government affairs at the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. It has been a great year for the foundation. We continue to grow on all fronts, private donations have increased, corporate donations have increased, our federal funds that 

we manage for other agencies have increased, the court settlement 

and mitigation money that we continue to run to do conservation 

have all increased. So we are really doing very well and doing a 

lot of on-the-ground conservation. I think this year we will exceed 

$120 million of on-the-ground conservation. Since we started in 1984, we have taken $576 million in federal 

funds, turned it into $2 billion in on-the-ground conservation. We 

have done it with less than 5 percent aggregate overhead to the 

government and with about 100 staff. So we try to stay lean and 

mean. One of our metrics is dollars granted per staff member, and 

we continue to stay right about $1 million per staff member granted annually. 

So I am going to do something strange and not go through and 

tell you what we are asking for. I am just going to tell you some 

of the things we are doing. 

One of the cool things we are doing right now, it is kind of exciting, is Hurricane Sandy response. So, you know, Hurricane Sandy 

was devastating to the Northeast United States, and one of the 

things it did was scour many beaches that are vital to migrating 

shorebirds. One of these shorebirds is called a red knot. It is a little 

tiny thing about that big, and these birds fly 18,000 miles 

roundtrip every year from the Arctic to the tip of Argentina and 

back. They stop at only a couple of locations. By the time they have 

stopped they have lost more than half their body weight. They feed, 

feed, feed, feed, feed, and then they pick up, and they go the rest 

of the way. One of those places is Delaware Bay. 

So we are currently, as we speak sand is being moved in Delaware Bay with a foundation grant so that when red knots come in 

here in May, that they will have hopefully enough food through the 

horseshoe crab. The horseshoe crabs lay their eggs there. There 

will hopefully be enough food so they can make it back up to the 

Arctic. If that does not happen, you are probably looking at a listing scenario because the population will crash that bad. 

You have heard, I am sure, about the BP Transocean settlement. 

Earlier this year the U.S. District Court approved two plea agreements, one for each BP in Transocean. The foundation is going to 

be $2.5 billion to manage—to do projects in the Gulf. We have set 

up the structure to do this. We are working with the states, con-
171

sulting with the feds. We will hopefully have the first projects on 

the ground before the end of the calendar year, and we will be moving steadily forward to restore the Gulf. It is a huge dollar amount. 

I want to tell you that it does not change the rest of what the foundation does. People kind of looked at us like we won the jackpot 

when we got that settlement, but it really is not a jackpot for us. 

It is a jackpot for the Gulf of Mexico. We are simply going to be 

able to manage it and coordinate it and try to make sure it does 

the best conservation possible. 

A couple other things we are doing. We continue to work in the 

Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound. We are 

bringing in more and more corporate money. We are starting to 

look at non-traditional federal agencies to do conservation. We 

signed an agreement with Department of Defense and with U.S. 

Marine Corps to do longleaf pine restoration in the Southeast. We 

are discussing other issues notationally with them to recognize that 

your bill alone cannot carry the weight and that, you know, there 

are other conservation dollars out there. 

In your neck of the woods we are working on corridor issues, 

wildlife corridor issues in what we call the crown of the continent 

area, and you know, we are looking at working with DOT to try 

to do wildlife crossings to reduce the number of wildlife vehicle 

interactions, which surprisingly costs all of us a lot of money every 

year in insurance rates and other issues. 

So there are a lot of cool things we are working on. One of the 

things we are trying to do is reach out and work more on getting 

tribal involvement in conservation and bridging the gap between 

the traditional feds and the tribal conservations. 

One thing I want to bring up, we this year commissioned a study 

that looked at the total economics of conservation spending in the 

U.S., and it turns out it is almost $100 billion annually, and when 

you take that and you combine it with the outdoor recreation and 

the historic preservation, the total economic activity that produces 

in this country is $1.7 trillion. It is enormous, and it produces 

about $211 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. About 12 million jobs, almost 13 million. It is all dependent or primarily dependent on the funding in your bill for the land management agencies, the recreation and the historic preservation pieces. If that 

goes away, then a portion of that piece of the economy goes away. 

Finally, I just want to say quickly we have our reauthorization 

bill introduced in both the House and the Senate. The House sponsors are Congressman Grimm from New York and Congressman 

Dingell, Dean of the House. So we will be probably shopping 

around for cosponsors here soon. 

So with that I will cut it short and be happy to answer any questions.

[The statement of Greg Knadle follows:] 
172
173
174
175
176

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate that. James. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

PARTNERS FOR CONSERVATION 

WITNESS

JAMES FAULSTITCH 

Mr. FAULSTITCH. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. Thank you for 

the opportunity I will say to provide testimony for the fiscal year 

2014 Interior Appropriations bill. I submit this testimony on behalf 

of the Partners for Conservation, which I will refer to as PFC in 

the future, a landowner-led, not-for-profit organization where I 

serve as Vice Chairman and also for myself, a private rancher and 

farmer from Highmore, South Dakota. 

I have to confess, in our haste with calving and the winter storm, 

when Jonathan sent the e-mail to me, I misread it. I thought he 

said 5 hours of testimony. I understand we only have 5 minutes, 

so I am going to have to really condense here. 

So, anyhow, as Vice Chair, private landowners working in partnership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we respectfully request that the subcommittee approve $75 million for the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife program, which is the full amount authorized 

for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act, as well as funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be used for conservation 

easements in priority areas that are crucial to future sustainability 

of this country. 

The PFC sincerely appreciates the opportunity to present this 

testimony, and we appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration of 

our request. 

I want to tell you briefly about PFC. PFC is landowner led and 

operates under the following principles. Collaboration gets work 

done. Local lessons have national impact. Voluntary and incentivebased programs create trust and breed success, and sustainability 

is achieved by balancing ecology and economy. 

Quite simply, PFC believes a holistic approach and communication are essential to the future of the United States of America. We 

seek to improve the quality, productivity, and economic viability of 

working landscapes in the communities that depend on them. PFC, 

although not yet at full strength, has a goal to have landowners’ 

representation in all 50 states. 

And I want to share with you that as I have gotten involved with 

the people from across the United States, I suggest the value in listening to landowners that place natural resources as a top priority. 

There are landowners out there that do not place natural resources 

as a top priority, but the ones that do you will find out it spills over 

into family, community, state, and country as well, and they are a 

very good sounding board. So I have learned that in my 60 some 

years.

PFC, with our growing membership across the country, strongly 

supports the Partners for Fish and Wildlife, and I will refer to it 

as Partners Program. This program is the most efficient and low 

redtape program in government today. The Partners Program has 
177

huge economic and environmental spinoffs that support families 

across the country as well as maintaining viable populations of fish 

and wildlife and rely on private lands for their habitat needs. 

The Partners Program is a voluntary program that has personally helped me protect my native grasslands and wetlands, keeping 

my ranch as well as ranches across the country in business, even 

in years of drought. This is very important to me as a rancher, but 

it is probably more important to your constituents and those constituents of your colleagues across the Nation. I will expand on that 

value in following comments. 

The Partners Program works extremely well for landowners. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologists work directly with the 

landowners so that the projects are a win-win for both agency and 

the landowner. The Partners Program has provided recreational 

opportunities on our ranch with pheasant and deer hunting, while 

providing good quality grass and water for my cattle operation, 

clean water and flood control, which is very important downstream, 

quality and productive crop yields on my farm ground, as well as 

preventing costly and disruptive listings of threatened and endangered species, and I really appreciate your concern of that act that 

you mentioned before. We could have another 4-hour discussion on 

that, but as a landowner I am very concerned. I would suggest that 

these programs that I am talking about today are the landowners’ 

approach to solving that problem. That list is only going to get 

longer, and I would suggest the private landowners of this country 

are the solution to that act working better. 

These indirect benefits have a huge economic and non-landscape 

value that should be expanded and should be the model for other 

government programs. It is critical during these tough times in our 

Nation that we keep working lands working. We cannot think just 

about today but instead need to think about tomorrow and the days 

ahead for our children and grandchildren, and I am running out of 

time, but I do want to share with you the value of these programs. 

I have a daughter and son-in-law also in our operation. He is 

home calving in the snow banks so that I could be here, but he was 

able to be that next generation on the land because of conservation 

easements in the Prairie Pothole region. He was able to improve 

those easements through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The family is active in church and community and is paying 

taxes, not on the Welfare Program, and so these are the kind of 

programs that keep the next generation on the land as well as I 

think are the answers to the endangered species. And I have got 

a little grandson that I think should be on the list of endangered 

species as a rancher. So it does cut deep. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of James Faulstitch follows:] 
178
179
180
181

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. Thank you. Emily. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

MARINE CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 

WITNESS

EMILY DOUCE 

Ms. DOUCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on fiscal year 2014 appropriations in regards to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. 

My name is Emily Douce, and I represent the Marine Conservation 

Institute, a non-profit organization that identifies important marine ecosystems and advocates for their protection for us and future 

generations.

Marine Conservation Institute supports the President’s 2014 request of $499 million for the Refuge Systems Operations and Maintenance Account. However, Marine Conservation Institute is particularly interested in improving conservation and management in 

the four marine monuments established by President George W. 

Bush in 2006 and 2009. Collectively Papahanaumokuakea, Marianas Trench, Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments include 12 wildlife refuges of more than 20 islands, atolls, and reefs. The monuments are co-managed by the National Wildlife Refuge System and NOAA. 

Together these monuments protect over 335,000 square miles of 

marine and terrestrial habitats for their national and cultural importance and historical significance. 

For instance, the Pacific Remote Islands, Marine National Monument contains some of the last remaining, relatively intact coral 

reef ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean, and Marianas Trench, Marine 

National Monument encompasses the Marianas Trench, the deepest ocean area on earth and virtually unexplored frontier. In 

Papahanaumokuakea, also known as the northwest Hawaiian Islands, is location of the historic battle of Midway, which changed 

the tide of World War II in the Pacific Ocean. 

The Marine Monument ecosystems are relatively intact, rich in 

biodiversity, and relatively free from the problems such as overexploitation, the servants and pollution plaguing many other marine ecosystems. Using these remarkably intact ecosystems, U.S. 

scientists are developing an understanding of what healthy and 

productive places really look like, which helps us to identify negative impacts from any ecosystems closer to home and shows us the 

benefits of restoration activities. 

Although the monuments make up 1/3 of the refuge system, they 

receive less than 1 percent of the funding, which is about $5 million. Eighty percent of that amount provides funds to keep Midway 

Atoll Airfield operational 80 percent. Federal regulations require 

twin engine planes stay within 180 minutes of an airport for landing safely in an emergency. So in 2003, Congress directed the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Federal Aviation Administration to retain the airfield at Midway as a certified airport. 
182

About 38,000 twin engine planes cross the Pacific Ocean every 

year. Without Midway these aircraft would need to alter their 

routes and would cause additional flight time and cost to the American population. 

So keeping Midway operational is very important. However, that only leaves 20 percent of that $5 million for monument resource 

management, restoration, and research, which is about $1 million. 

This is a decrease, though, of $1 million from previous years. So 

it is now down to $1 million, originally two. 

For science capabilities and visitor services to Midway, the 

public’s only window into Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument and the historic Pacific World War II battle. Unfortunately, many years after the establishment of these monuments 

continued inadequate funds have left most monument management 

plans and fishing regulations unfinished, and most islands remain 

essentially unmanaged and unmonitored. Without adequate funding to conserve, restore, and protect our Nation’s marine monuments these areas continue to be vulnerable to illegal fishing, accidental ship groundings and oil spills, and the introduction of 

invasive species. There have been several documented cases of both 

illegal foreign fishing and illegal trespass by commercial and recreational vessels. 

Additionally, a recent storm destroyed vital infrastructure at 

Tern Island located in Papahanaumokuakea. Tern Island facilities 

provided critical space for government employees and university researchers to conduct vital research and monitoring on coral, 

seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. 

Therefore, we recommend that the subcommittee allocate just a small portion, $1.8 million, of that $499 million in the present request to better manage our Nation’s marine monuments. One million of that, $1.8 dollars, could reinstate Papahanaumokuakea’s 

visitation and science capabilities at Midway Atoll and begin to 

minimally restore research capabilities at Tern Island. The remaining $800,000 could allow National Wildlife Refuge System to provide adequate management of the three newer monuments. Funding is needed to hire managers for Marianas and Pacific Remote Islands, hire one public planner position to aid in the management 

responsibilities, and pay for associated administrative costs. Additional funds could help address invasive species that are hurting 

our native wildlife populations and strengthen surveillance and enforcement capabilities, as well as the partnerships with NOAA and 

the U.S. Coast Guard. 

In summary, Marine Conservation Institute respectfully requests 

that the subcommittee augment funding to $499 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System, with just $1.8 million of that dollars 

going to the marine monuments in the Pacific. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Emily Douce follows:] 
183
184
185
186
187

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Interesting. I never really thought 

about the marine monuments, and I thought we just declared them 

and there they were. I appreciate that testimony. 

I suspect the land trusts that you talk about are similar to—because they all have different names and one is the Lemhi Valley 

Land Trust in the Lemhi Valley in Southern Idaho. I visited with 

a bunch of ranchers and others that work in this land trust that 

have done the same thing that I assume that you are doing and 

that is keeping some of the ranchers on the ground and through 

conservation easements and so forth, and they have done a great 

job because it is the spawning ground for an awful lot of salmon. 

Mr. FAULSTITCH. We are not a land trust. We are just strictly 

concerned landowners from across the Nation, and as I mentioned 

we hope to have a representative from each of the 50 states at 

some point. We are not in the land trust business, but we do rely 

on programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, programs such as Partners, to expand quality management on the private landscapes and do it as you were talking in the last session 

on a landscape basis. We feel that it can have huge effects in preventing endangered species. I live in an area where that number 

is growing daily, and it is a real concern from a landowner’s standpoint as well as a wildlife organization standpoint as these species 

disappear, and I did not used to be a birdwatcher, but I have soon 

become one because they are a tremendous indicator of what is 

happening on the land. 

And it is very critical and it is frustrating for us as landowners 

to watch the habitat destroyed, a species get listed, and then try 

to fix it. And it gets back to our thoughts on being proactive. I 

guess that is why I am here. Communication is important. We do 

have suggestions. We are proactive. We want to make a difference, 

but this business of allowing a species to even get listed in the first 

place is backwards. We need to avoid that up front with proper 

land management, a holistic approach, and it can be fixed. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Or proper ocean management. 

Mr. FAULSTITCH. As well. Yes. I come from grasslands. It is pretty easy for me to talk from a grassland, wetland perspective, but 

it does not matter whether it is the forest, the mountains, or the 

oceans.

Mr. KNADLE. I just want to interject, one of the programs that 

actually is in the President’s budget that the foundation is going 

to be advocating for is a new program in the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation to do exactly that. It is the Landscape Conservation Stewardship Program. It is proposed for $1 million in 

new money, and it is exactly to use voluntary community-based incentives and capacity so that citizens, communities, and landowners are the ones promoting conservation. It is community up, 

not fed down, because the fed down has not worked in a lot of 

places.

Mr. SIMPSON. You know, it is similar to what the birds of prey 

areas do with the Aplomado Falcon and a few of those things. They 

actually go into their range lands in Texas and stuff and help 

ranchers protect their habitat, and actually the ranchers down 

there have become pretty fond of these falcons and stuff, and it is 
188

a lot easier to do that than it is to try to recover them after you 

have listed them. 

Mr. KNADLE. Exactly. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. KNADLE. And that is exactly the goal of this new program 

that you are going to see in the President’s budget. It is to allow 

communities and landowners to have a voice in conservation and 

to promote it on private lands but most importantly you got to keep 

working landscapes working. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the things that—— 

Mr. KNADLE. If the working landscapes goes away, we are all 

done.

Mr. SIMPSON [continuing]. Has always been a challenge is endangered species is something rare, you know, there is not many of 

them left, so they are endangered. If you find something else rare 

on your property, it actually increases in the value of your property. If you find gold or oil or something like that on your property, 

it increases in value. The incentives behind the Endangered Species Act have always been that if you find something endangered 

on your land, get rid of it. Keep it quiet, you know, or whatever. 

Mr. KNADLE. Shoot, shovel, and shut up. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. Shoot, shovel, and shut up. I did not want to 

say that, but, yes. And we have got to change the incentive system 

and which is what they are doing with some of the work they are 

doing with the Aplomado Falcon and some of the other birds that 

they work with. 

So that is important. I mean, those are the kind of things that 

I think we ought to look at in reauthorization of the Endangered 

Species Act. How can we change it to make it work better for landowners to make us want to try to preserve these species and stuff? 

I just got to tell you my full committee Chairman is from Kentucky, so whatever you want you got. 

Mr. FAULSTITCH. I would like to also suggest, you know, there 

are programs out there that have shown success such as the Sage 

Grouse Initiative. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. FAULSTITCH. Very successful program but, again, single species approach and the comments, again, going back to your last session, I was wanting to run up here and go, yeah, yeah, yeah. We 

need to get on landscape, the total ecosystem, and that is why we 

refer to it as a holistic approach. 

And, yes, we do still need to eat at the end of the day, and we 

need people out there taking care of the land. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate you all being here today and for 

your testimony, and we will give it due consideration as we try to 

put together a limited budget, which is going to be kind of ugly. 

Thank you. 
(189)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS

PUBLIC WITNESSES 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. Good morning 

and welcome to the third of these three public witness hearings 

this morning. The subcommittee will be hearing from a cross-section of individuals representing a wide variety of issues addressed 

by this subcommittee. The chair will call each panel of witnesses 

to the table one panel at a time. Each witness will be provided with 

5 minutes to present their testimony. We will be using a timer to 

track the progress of each witness. When the button turns yellow, 

the witness will have 1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. Their full statements will be included in the record. 

Members will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of our 

witnesses, but in the interest of time, the chair requests that we 

keep things moving in order to stay on schedule. The chair also 

wants to remind those in the hearing room that committee rules 

prohibit the use of outside cameras and audio equipment during 

these hearings. 

Mr. Moran, do you have anything? 

Mr. MORAN. No. I am anxious to hear these witnesses, Mr. 

Chairman. They are good folks. They represent excellent activities, 

many of them in the Washington area, and I sure hope we can be 

responsive in a material way to their needs, but we will see. But 

let’s hear from them. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Our first witness is the Honorable Mike McIntyre, 

Congressman from North Carolina. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

WITNESS

HON. MIKE McINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you and 

also to Ranking Member. We appreciate both of you all being kind 

enough to allow me to come before you today. 

I wanted to speak with you about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s recently proposed rule designating a Critical Habitat for 

the loggerhead sea turtle. This proposed rule includes 740 miles of 

coastline from North Carolina to Mississippi that would be within 
190

what is called the Critical Habitat designation, and while I have 

long supported protection of this endangered species and in fact 

had worked on a program for sea turtle protection at Oak Island, 

North Carolina, which is just below the Wilmington area, I am concerned with the possible impact of yet this new proposed rule that 

would have on local economies and beach management activities. 

This proposed rule cites that both eroded coastlines and sand 

management programs that are put on eroded coastlines would be 

threats to the loggerhead habitat, so it is kind of like saying the 

coastline that is gone, they cannot build nests obviously if there is 

not a coastline, so we are concerned about the erosion, but yet the 

sand management plan where you do renourish the beaches, they 

are saying that can also create a problem for the loggerhead turtle 

to be able to lay its eggs. So it is kind of the typical catch–22 situation.

We know that if sand is placed on a shoreline, it can add protection for loggerhead nests and critical infrastructure, and so there 

is a concern about Fish and Wildlife’s proposal. I can tell you, having spoken with many of the local coastal mayors and the local 

leaders who for years and years I have worked with on beach renourishment programs, and we live on Hurricane Alley there in 

North Carolina down in the Cape Fear section, and it is given that 

name for a good reason, we have 96 miles of shoreline in North 

Carolina that would have a problem with this because as the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers itself has told us, who has done these renourishment programs and who have respected the concern about 

the loggerhead turtles and have honored the environmental rules 

for the loggerhead turtles, when they have done renourishment, 

this rule will just not work. For them to do the sand management 

program they need to do, meaning the Army Corps of Engineers, 

to protect these communities and our shoreline coastal protection 

programs and to protect the local economies and to protect against 

the horrific storms that we have had including six hurricanes the 

first two terms I was in office back in the late 1990s and of course 

several since then, we have got to be able to have a healthy sand 

management program, which is our shoreline coastal protection 

program, and it can be done in a way that still protects the loggerhead turtles because we have a history of doing that. And I know 

going on 17 years that I have been in the office, we have successfully done both. 

If the sand management program is taken away with this new 

rule that Fish and Wildlife has proposed, we are talking about 

greatly affecting roughly $225 billion annual in business and tax 

revenue that our coastline and our beach communities are able to 

produce. Tourism, of course, is huge, and the good thing about sand 

management programs is, you can do right by the environment, 

you can protect the fragile coastline, have shoreline protection, 

spend a few hundred thousand dollars on the front side for shoreline protection and save millions and millions on the back side 

after a hurricane or a storm, not to mention the fact that for every 

$1 spent on beach renourishment programs, I know of no other federal program that generates $320 in revenues. And so the investment is well worth it when we talk about sand management, and 

this rule goes far beyond what seems to make common sense. 
191

As we look at the proposed rule from Fish and Wildlife, while 

well meaning, may have unintended negative effects on coastal 

communities, local economies and storm protection programs on 

our coastline. 

I greatly appreciate the committee hearing my comments. I will 

just say that and remind the committee that in each of the sand 

management and shoreline coastal protection programs that we 

have done year after year and worked with the Corps of Engineers, 

which has a concern about this proposed rule, as I said, they have 

a thorough environmental review process that they have to go 

through before these programs can ever be implemented to begin 

with, so there is already an environmental protection in place right 

now, the renourishment going on at Carolina and Kure Beaches 

just below Wilmington, North Carolina, because of some bad 

weather we have had recently. They needed 30 more days to finish 

the renourishment program. They worked very specifically to make 

sure that they were protecting the loggerhead turtles and they did 

it in a way that they would not be harmful to that situation yet 

complete the renourishment project, which is essential not only to 

the local economy but also for storm protection. 

So I appreciate the committee looking carefully at this proposed 

rule from Fish and Wildlife that, while well meaning, may very 

well have unintended negative consequences that can be very 

harmful not only in these protection programs but also tremendously harmful in terms of the local economies of these communities. We can do both. We can protect loggerhead turtles, which 

we have done through these years, and have a reasonable and wellmanaged sand management program that protects our shorelines. 

Thank you very much for your time today. 

[The statement of Mike McIntyre follows:] 
192
193
194

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I 

have to admit, I have to learn more about beach renourishment 

and sand management. We do not have a lot of those in Idaho. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But I appreciate your testimony and we will take 

a look at it when we are marking up our bill. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. Thank you both. God bless you for 

your work. 

Mr. MORAN. Are you looking for report language, Mike? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Our next panel is Dr. Steven Knapp, Michael 

Witmore, Ann Thompson, Robin Bronk and Sheila Smith. Come 

forward. Dr. Knapp, you are first. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

WITNESS

STEVEN KNAPP 

Mr. KNAPP. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, on behalf of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the 

George Washington University, I wish to thank you for the privilege of addressing this distinguished panel. 

From the dawn of our nation to the present, the humanities have 

shaped our common identity, framed the momentous debates of the 

day, and informed our decisions about the future. We revere the 

brilliance of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. We 

return again and again to the compelling logic of the Federalist Papers written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. But those authors 

and those documents could have emerged only from a citizenry 

steeped in the study of philosophy, history, and literature: in short, 

the humanities. 

Consider the idea that most defines us as a Nation and a people: 

the idea of liberty. That concept did not arise spontaneously from 

colonial pamphlets and newspapers. It was drawn from the 

wellspring of the humanities: the philosophy of Aristotle and Locke, 

the history of Tacitus, the literature of Shakespeare, the voices of 

the biblical prophets, and even the poetry of Virgil. If we as a Nation forget that heritage, we will sooner or later lose our ability to 

understand not just the origins but the very meaning of the principles on which the Nation was founded. And no single institution 

or agency plays a greater role in preserving that heritage than the 

National Endowment for the Humanities. 

Allow me to cite just two examples from the George Washington 

University. For the past 12 years, the NEH has provided indispensable support, in partnership with many private donors, for the Eleanor Roosevelt Project. That support has enabled our scholars, 

with the help of some 130 students, to comb through millions of 

pages of records stored in archives across all 50 states, to select the 

most historically significant of those documents, and to make that 

material available to the public both in printed volumes and in digital form. Through the teaching aids the Project has created, ap-
195

proximately 6,000 teachers, 500 civil society leaders, 100 policymakers, and countless citizens have been able to study the contributions of our Nation’s longest-serving First Lady. I want to 

thank Congressman Moran for his longstanding support of this 

project.

We have also received NEH funding for the First Federal Congress Project. 

Mr. MORAN. As an aside, Mr. Knapp, that was an earmark initially, just a plug to get those back. 

Mr. KNAPP. I do not know what those are, Congressman. 

Mr. MORAN. They were well worthwhile. Go ahead. I am sorry 

for the interruption. I just wanted to score a point there. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, sir. We have also received NEH funding for the 

Congress Project. So far, this project has published 17 of projected 

22-volume documentary history of what was arguably our most important and productive Congress. The Project also assists with 

teacher training and serves as a source of information for all three 

branches of the federal government as well as scholars, teachers, 

jurists and students across the Nation. 

Without support from the NEH, universities like ours would not 

have the resources they need to sustain their role in enabling our 

citizens to understand our Nation’s history, to cherish its core values, or to strive together to realize our shared aspirations. 

In addition to their role in preserving our national identity by 

keeping alive the history and the values we share, the humanities 

yield more immediately practical benefits. They are, to begin with, 

essential to national security, and there is little doubt that the Nation’s security would be strengthened if our citizens and their leaders were better informed about the languages and beliefs of our allies as well as our adversaries. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, points out that many Americans had no knowledge whatsoever of the history, culture and body of beliefs from which Bin 

Laden shaped and spread his message. At the same time, business 

leaders are far more likely to succeed in understanding and exploiting global opportunities if they are better informed about other cultures.

Those practical benefits are not to be minimized, but the real 

utility of the humanities is better perceived in cases where practical considerations are intertwined with questions of value. As recent debates have shown, the simple act of classifying a prescription drug in one category or another not only has far-reaching market implications but can raise moral questions that cannot be answered by scientific investigation alone. As we meet this morning, 

genomic research is racing ahead, and science is making it possible 

to collect and disseminate more and more information about every 

one of us. Here again, ethical questions about when and how such 

information should be collected and used are beyond the scope of 

science per se. 

Questions of fairness, of privacy, of the definition of humanity, 

none of these can be answered without the kind of reflection that 

the study of the humanities, including the study of philosophy, religion and history, makes possible. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I submit that 

the humanities are essential to the identity of this Nation, to the 
196

defense of this Nation; and to this Nation’s ability to chart its future through reasoned debate in the light of its deepest values. The 

NEH has played a vital role in helping to ensure that the humanities continue to serve our democracy in all these ways. Yet, at a 

time when the need for what the humanities provide has never 

been more urgent, funding for the NEH has been reduced for each 

of the last 3 fiscal years. I urge the committee to reverse this trend, 

and I respectfully request that Congress consider funding the NEH 

at a level of $154 million for the next fiscal year. Thank you. 

[The statement of Steven Knapp follows:] 
197
198
199
200

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Michael. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

FOLGER SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY 

WITNESS

MICHAEL WITMORE 

Mr. WITMORE. Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran, 

good morning. I am honored to be here, and I am honored to follow 

my colleague, Dr. Knapp, also an English professor. 

I am Michael Witmore. I am the Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library. It is the largest single documentary record of the 

most widely read author in the world. I am here to testify on behalf 

of the National Humanities Alliance and the library in strong support of the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 request for the National Endowment of the Humanities. I will refer you to my written 

testimony for specific details about our request and the ways in 

which this funding will help us achieve critical national goals. 

This morning I would like to talk with you about my own experiences and what they have taught me about the value of the humanities. Early in my career, I had the privilege of teaching at a 

university renowned for its engineer and computer science programs. As a young assistant professor of English, I spent nearly a 

decade teaching Shakespeare plays to students who would eventually go on to careers at Google and Intel. Many of these students 

had mastered linear algebra by the time they were freshmen but 

they still found Shakespeare difficult. I remember, for example, trying to explain why Shakespeare chooses to have Macbeth express 

his guilt by saying that his bloody hands will incarnadine the sea. 

If you Google the word ‘‘incarnadine’’ on your smartphone, you will 

get roughly the same word Shakespeare would have found had 

there been dictionaries in 1606. The word ‘‘incarnadine’’ refers to 

the color of flesh. It is an adjective like ‘‘pink’’, ‘‘red’’ or ‘‘green.’’ But 

when Shakespeare uses the word, he uses it as a verb. Macbeth is 

going to incarnadine or make red the sea, his guilt seeping into everything around him. It is the shock of this word, its rarity and its 

odd usage that makes ‘‘incarnadine’’ a good choice. 

But just how good is it? Inspired, brilliant, pretty darn good? 

When asked this sort of questions, my students would say if it I 

cannot be expressed as an equation, it is an opinion, and this may 

be true, but it is also true that a lot of what makes us tick cannot 

be expressed as an equation. And when I think about the value of 

the humanities to our world today, I think about what writers like 

Shakespeare have done to shape the language we speak and the 

thoughts that we think in our country. Lincoln, for example, was 

a passionate reader of Shakespeare. He could recite soliloquies 

from Richard III by heart, and this reading taught him how to be 

a powerful leader. 

What would happen if you subtracted Shakespeare from our 

world, from our schools and from our culture? Without this one 

writer, America would not have produced a Lincoln, a Frederick 
201

Douglass or an Emily Dickinson. All of them were steeped in the 

words and the thoughts of this writer. 

We have immense technical skills in our society. There are equations that can guide Google to the correct pre-Shakespearean adjectival definition of ‘‘incarnadine’’ in less time than it will take me 

to finish this sentence. But it takes imagination to want to Google 

this rare word, and it takes for the humanities to know that using 

Google as a verb tells us something profound about the way network information has changed our society. 

Having worked with computers to analyze the plays of Shakespeare, I know something about the power of statistics and data 

and so have learned to see the world of English literature from the 

point of view of the engineers I once taught. Today, the NEH is 

supporting just this kind of work and it is work that brings scientists and humanists together in ways that we could not have 

imagined even a decade ago. 

Those of us who work in the humanities are straddling a moment 

in which traditional forms of reading and reflection are complicated 

by the techniques of data analysis created by engineers and mathematicians. If our economic prosperity as a country depends on our 

ability to compete in the STEM fields of science, technology and 

mathematics, our capacity for creativity, innovation and leadership 

will similarly depend on our strength in the humanities. We will 

always need people who use words well and who know what they 

mean just as we need people who understand the technologies that 

make the world go round. 

Perhaps we are living in what Shakespeare called a brave new 

world, one filled with new challenges, opportunities and ideas. 

Brave as it is, that world is ours and it is one in which the humanities must play a major role for advancing us along this future path 

for what I hope is your full funding of the NEH. I thank you. 

[The statement of Michael Witmore follows:] 
202
203
204
205
206

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Ann. 

Mr. MORAN. Boy, that is good stuff, is it not, Mr. Chairman? And 

that was such creative writing. That has never been written before. 

It really made you think. Both statements were just terrific. 

Tom Cole has joined us. This is an aside, a digression, I know. 

The chairman sometimes would come off to people who do not 

know him as kind of a gruff logger-type guy but actually he is a 

pretty sophisticated intellectual. He is extremely well read. And 

Mr. Cole, who joined us, is one of the most well-read readers of history and he is a professor in his own right that I have ever met. 

I mean, I just do not want you to think that putting that kind of 

effort into a statement is lost on this committee. That was just very 

well spoken. It was thoughtfully presented, very well written on behalf of both of you, and I know it will apply to the subsequent witnesses. But do not think we are just sitting here not taking it in. 

That is good stuff. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How do you follow that, Ann. 

Mr. COLE. It will show up in a Moran quote. 

Mr. MORAN. It will. I hope it will, and I will take all the credit 

for it myself. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I can tell after his complimentary statements to me 

and Mr. Cole that you are going to want something. 

Mr. MORAN. We are going to want full funding for the NEH. That 

is what we are going to want. Excuse me for the interruption. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ann. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

OKLAHOMA HUMANITIES COUNCIL 

WITNESS

ANN THOMPSON 

Ms. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State Humanities Councils, the state affiliates of the 

National Endowment for the Humanities. I am Ann Thompson, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Humanities Council and member 

of the board of the Federation of State Humanities Councils. I am 

here to request $154 million for the National Endowment for the 

Humanities and $44 million for the State Humanities Councils. 

As full partners of the NEH, councils receive their core funding 

through the federal-state partnership and use that funding to leverage additional funds from foundations, corporations, private individuals and state governments. In 2012, every federal dollar the 

councils awarded through grants to local institutions leveraged, on 

average, $4 in local contributions. 

Since fiscal year 2010, NEH funding for the state councils has 

been cut by nearly 19 percent, a loss of about $8.5 million or an 

average of $150,000 per council. The consequences have been devastating for the councils and the communities that they serve. In 

my own State of Oklahoma, we have been forced to cut our grants 

funding by 27 percent, seriously reducing our support for organizations in our state. We have also had to cut our council-led pro-
207

grams by 38 percent. This severely limits our ability to offer programs like our reading and discussion series that serve so many of 

our smaller communities. Because of drastic cuts in state funding 

for social services, many of our fellow nonprofits in our state are 

now our direct competitors for private dollars. Despite our intensified efforts, obtaining private funds to replace lost federal funds 

continues to be a challenge. 

This story is told in some form by nearly every state council. A 

recent survey by the Federation of State Humanities Councils 

shows that the councils have had to cut both the number of grants 

awarded and the dollar amount per grant. For example, the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities had to slash their grants to 

community organizations from $300,000 in fiscal year 2009 to 

$110,000 in fiscal year 2012, a 63 percent decrease. 

Even under these severe funding constraints, however, the reach 

and impact of council programs is impressive and crucial. The Federation’s survey also revealed that in 2012, councils served nearly 

6,000 communities, many of them many miles from any urban center. To stretch resources and strengthen the cultural and educational networks in these communities, councils worked with more 

than 10,000 partners, ranging from libraries and museums to social 

service agencies, chambers of commerce, medical institutions, religious groups, community colleges, and many others. In Oklahoma, 

as in other largely rural states, our programs often provide the 

only opportunity available for citizens to come together in their 

communities to discuss great books and current affairs, to learn of 

their neighbors’ ethnic or religious beliefs, or to be inspired by the 

history of the human experience. The Museum on Main Street program, offered through a partnership that state councils enjoy with 

the Smithsonian Institution, provides an outstanding example of 

the benefits councils provide to small towns. With the Smithsonian 

touring exhibit as a focal point, community organizations collaborate to create supplemental programming that builds community 

pride and increases economic activity. Last year in Waynoka, Oklahoma, population 993, the local historical society museum that 

hosted the exhibit realized a 100 percent increase in attendance 

during the 6-week tour as well as a 200 percent increase in gift 

store purchases and a 400 percent increase in donations. 

Council programs change lives for hundreds of thousands of citizens in their states. Immigrants improve their English and their 

employability through humanities council reading programs. Children increase their chances of success in school through family literacy programs. Teachers decide to stay in their profession after attending council-supported summer institutes. Immigrant youths 

portray their world through documentary films funded by the councils. Veterans work their way back from confusion and even despair 

to re-find their place in the civilian world after participating in 

council writing programs. Low-income adults decide to enroll in college after completing college-level humanities courses offered by 

the councils. Residents of rural communities reap the benefits of 

lifelong learning by taking part in council programs, often the only 

cultural opportunities in their area. The $44 million we are asking you to provide to councils is dollar 

for dollar one of the best investments you could make. It will en-
208

able councils to help build a richer civic life and a more civil, 

thoughtful, enlightened and active citizenry. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ann Thompson follows:] 
209
210
211
212
213

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Robin. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

THE CREATIVE COALITION 

WITNESS

ROBIN BRONK 

Ms. BRONK. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

this morning to support 2014 funding levels for the National Endowment of the Arts. 

My name is Robin Bronk. I am the CEO of The Creative Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public advocacy organization of the 

arts and entertainment community. The Creative Coalition was established in 1989 by actors Ron Silver, Christopher Reeve, Alec 

Baldwin and others. From the beginning, support for the arts and 

arts education has always been central to our mission. Our membership is comprised of actors, directors, producers, writers and 

others who make their livings in theater, film, arts, letters and television. On their behalf, it is an honor to speak with you today. 

My first question for you is, did any of you have arts in your 

schools or in your communities growing up? Chairman Moran, Congressman Simpson, Congressman Cole? 

Mr. MORAN. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Ms. BRONK. And look where you are today. 

Mr. MORAN. That is not going to help you make your case. 

Ms. BRONK. I would advise, do not quit your day job. 

I grew up in a small town in South Carolina. We proudly boasted 

that we had more cows than people. Life was swell. We had a 

weekly newspaper that gave us all the gossip. The sheriff’s patrol 

car doubled as the town taxi. It was great. But what really gave 

me my education was the local community theater. It opened up 

doors for me. It taught me history. It gave me discipline, strategic 

planning and business skills because it was so small that I would 

star in the shows but then I would also run the concession stand. 

The Creative Coalition bottom line supports funding for the 

NEA, and today I am not here to talk about the arts. I am here 

to talk about money, the economy and the fiscal fitness for our 

country.

Members of The Creative Coalition know the impact that the 

arts have. According to statistics compiled by the MPAA, the motion picture and television industry support 2.1 million jobs and 

$143 billion in wages annually. In 2010, we had $13.5 billion in 

film and television exports with a trade surplus of $11.9 billion. 

The economic impact of the entertainment industry extends far beyond those who appear on camera. A television series or movie is 

a big enterprise. In addition, filming provides huge support to local 

businesses like caterers, dry cleaners and clothing stores, and this 

economic activity is taking place all across the country, not just in 

Hollywood and New York but just as likely in Utah, Louisiana or 

North Carolina. 
214

Our entertainment industry is an American success story. It is 

a success story of fiscal fitness, but we cannot take that success for 

granted. We do not have any guarantee that we will remain the 

source of what the world wants to watch and hear, and we cannot 

afford to rest on our laurels. This is a delicate ecosystem, and the 

not-for-profit arts organizations and events supported by the National Endowment for the Arts are vital to that ecosystem, training 

and nurturing the next generation of talent and innovators. The 

community theaters, the children’s theaters, the symphonies, the 

arts centers, the dance troupes are all the R&D of America’s vibrant arts economy. 

The Sundance Film Festival brings in millions and millions of 

dollars to Utah every year for their 10-day exposure. Speak with 

any of my members, you will find individuals who were drawn into 

the arts as young people. They were acting in community theater 

productions and school plays, playing in bands, spending their 

afternoons and weekends at local dance companies. The not-forprofit arts ecosystem was nurturing them into the artists that they 

would become. And, perhaps unwittingly but absolutely critically, 

they were playing a key role in building America’s business economy.

While they may be among the most visible parts of America’s 

arts economy, professional actors, actresses, writers and directors 

are only a tiny fraction of those who rely on our arts economy for 

their livelihoods. Arts advocates have done great work in recent 

years to sift through all the data and measure the impact of the 

arts on each community economy. In their most recent analysis, 

Americans for the Arts found that nonprofit arts and culture organizations spur $135 billion in economic activity annually, supporting more than 4 million full-time jobs and generating more 

than $22 billion in revenue to local, state and the federal government.

In a move that may prove to be one of the most impactful for the 

arts over the longer term, the Department of Commerce announced 

this past October that its Bureau of Economic Analysis would work 

with the NEA to, for the first time ever, quantify arts and culture. 

In closing, I want to say we all know that it takes a village. Arts 

make a village. 

[The statement of Robin Bronk follows:] 
215
216
217
218
219

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Sheila. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

MINNESOTA CITIZENS FOR THE ARTS 

WITNESS

SHEILA SMITH 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member 

Moran and members for the opportunity to provide public comment 

on the budget request for the National Endowment for the Arts on 

behalf of arts and culture across the country. I would like to particularly thank Representative Betty McCollum of St. Paul, who 

has been a lifelong advocate for and participant in the arts in her 

home State of Minnesota. 

Minnesota Citizens for the Arts, representing 1,400 arts organizations and 38,000 artists and their audiences, are pleased to have 

a chance to testify in support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the 

National Endowment for the Arts at a level of $154.466 million. 

MCA is a proud member of Americans for the Arts. 

I flew half way across the country to be here today because I 

think it is so important to support the work of the National Endowment for the Arts, which has had a tremendous impact across the 

country and particularly in my home state. I would like to talk 

about how the NEA serves as a catalyst to increase access to the 

arts for all Americans. 

Several years ago the citizens of Minnesota took the rather extraordinary step of approving a ballot measure to add an amendment to our state constitution to create dedicated funding for the 

arts and the environment. By a wide popular vote, Minnesotans 

voted to tax themselves to increase support for the arts because 

they agreed that the arts bring benefits to their quality of life and 

the economy. We are now the only state in the country to have the 

arts as part of our constitution, although John Adams, when he 

wrote the Massachusetts state constitution, included the arts as 

one of the subject areas required to be provided as part of the 

state’s educational system. There are many polls that suggest that 

Americans support arts funding, but in Minnesota we took it to the 

ballot box and we received a very strong yes. 

What is now called the Legacy Amendment has led to an extraordinary flowering of artistic activity that is bringing together people 

from all walks of life to share in creative activities and the 

bettering of their communities through the arts. 

The National Endowment for the Arts set the stage for this extraordinary action by investing in and encouraging the arts to 

flourish in every state through its highly effective grant programs. 

The NEA serves as a catalyst for additional state, local and private 

investments in the arts such as the bipartisan Legacy Amendment 

by providing examples to the states of highly effective creative and 

cultural projects as well as organizations that promote access to 

and involvement in the arts for all citizens. 

Economists are increasingly aware that when citizens gather together to create or perform the arts, they too are a catalyst for eco-
220

nomic activity that brings people together to revitalize neighborhoods, energize businesses and bring energy to our economy. 

Through the relatively small investments made by the NEA, Congress is making possible extraordinary things all across the country, including seeding new jobs in the creative economy. In Minnesota alone, the arts have over a billion-dollar economic impact 

through the entrepreneurial work of artists starting small businesses, arts organizations producing and presenting the arts, and 

the audiences who are drawn to and who participate in the wonderful work they create. 

I would like to talk about two examples of how the NEA has 

been a catalyst for creativity and access to the arts across the country through grants to arts organizations in Minnesota. In the late 

1990s, the NEA provided seed money for a program at the American Composers Forum in Minnesota that has had a wide-ranging 

impact across the country on the music available to kids picking up 

their instruments for the first time to play in middle-school bands. 

I know if you are a parent you may have had the privilege of attending middle-school band concerts. It can be tough going, and not 

just because the instruments are making squawking noises as kids 

learn to control the sounds, but particularly because the music 

itself can be so uninteresting and sometimes just bad. 

The NEA funded a program at the American Composers Forum 

called BandQuest to commission simple but creative music for middle-school bands. Prominent living American composers, at least 

four of whom have won Pulitzer Prizes, are paired with middleschool bands around the country to create new, challenging and interesting music that is inspired by the students themselves, their 

lives, their interests, and their town. The new music then became 

available to teachers and students all across the country to play 

with their own kids. 

Over half a million kids in every state, including Idaho, Virginia, 

and Oklahoma have benefited from the ripple effect of the NEA’s 

investment, creating a lasting impact and inspiring kids across the 

country to think of music as relevant to their own lives. 

Another program funded by the NEA in St. Paul has also served 

as a catalyst for spurring entrepreneurship and small businesses in 

the arts across the country. Springboard for the Arts is an economic development agency run by and for artists, based in St. 

Paul, which develops programs that include business skills and entrepreneurship training for artists and programs that pair artists 

with small businesses to develop creative ways of attracting people 

and dollars. Support from the NEA has helped them create models 

and toolkits so that these training programs can be shared with 

communities all across the country. 

The NEA has again been a catalyst, helping to scale up Springboard’s work to a national level and allowing communities of all 

sizes and particularly rural communities to get access to programs 

and services that help artists contribute more to the economy and 

to their communities. 

Because many artists are small-business entrepreneurs, they 

make good things happen at the local level. The creation of art has 

a real economic spillover effect. Sales revenue, advertising revenue 

and jobs, improving income for individual artists through training 
221

and other opportunities allows them to better join the economic 

mainstream. As new markets develop around the arts, businesses 

benefit too, and because artists and art projects make places more 

attractive to shoppers, entrepreneurs and to home buyers, the larger community benefits. 

The National Endowment for the Arts has an important role as 

a catalyst in promoting opportunities for Americans to participate 

in the arts, spurring employment for artists and for encouraging 

economic activity made possible by the arts. 

For this reason I would like to conclude by reiterating our request that the subcommittee fund the National Endowment for the 

Arts at the President’s request of $154.466 million. The dollars provided by the National Endowment for the Arts draw other private 

and public investments that make our local economies thrive. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Sheila Smith follows:] 
222
223
224
225
226

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, thank all. Let me echo Mr. Moran’s comments about your testimony. It is very important. You will be 

happy to know, Robin, that in my local community, the sheriff’s car 

also serves as a taxi, not a voluntary taxi. Nevertheless, it transported people anyway. And one of my favorite places in Boise is the 

Shakespeare Festival that they do there annually. It is a fantastic 

place and event and it is amazing if you go to it. It is not the highbrow people that are there; it is everyday citizens that are coming 

to watch it and love it. 

Now, the problem is, as you know and as you mentioned, Dr. 

Knapp, that the budget has decreased every year for the last 3 

years. I do not know of a budget that has not decreased every year 

for the last 3 years, and trying to reverse that is going to be difficult for us because of the allocation that we are going to be given 

and stuff. It is going to make it tough to put a budget together and 

try to address all these things. 

One of the problems I have is while—I mean, I have been a 

greater supporter of the arts and the humanities—I will classify 

those together—because I think they are very important for our society. The real problem—and I get letters from those people and organizations that get grants and that type of thing all the time 

thanking me for supporting the arts. If you go out and ask the general public what the arts and humanities do and why we fund 

them, most people have no idea. They have no idea what the grants 

do to preserve a history and stuff and the humanities. They do a 

fantastic job in Idaho and the rest of the country. How do we get 

the message out to the American people about what their investment—because it is not our investment, it is the people’s investment—what their investment in the arts and humanities actually 

does for society. I have always said that the math and science is 

how we make a living but it is the arts that we live for, and that 

really is true. When you look at societies that have gone before us, 

the things you remember of them, of lost civilizations, is their art. 

It is important to us, and we will do everything we can to try to 

fund it. 

The other question I have, it has been suggested by some people 

that the requirements of the percentage of funds that go to NEH, 

that go to the states, that that percentage be increased. Is that 

something that your state humanities councils support? 

Ms. THOMPSON. That it be increased over, say, the President’s 

budget or—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Not the total amount but the percentage, the requirement of the percentage that goes to the states. 

Ms. THOMPSON. I do not think that we have an actual overall request that would address that. I think what we are asking is consistent with the President’s budget this year. But in terms of increase, I cannot give you a specific answer. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I suspect there are some that would like to see it 

increase. Who would not? 

Ms. THOMPSON. Of course. I do not mean to avoid a wonderful 

opportunity to say yes. You know, we would like increased funding 

but we are certainly—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 
227

Ms. BRONK. Chairman Simpson, to your point about educating 

Americans about the investment in the arts, I would like to formally say that The Creative Coalition is very happy to gather our 

best actors, writers, producers, and directors to create a messaging 

campaign and a public service campaign to educate our citizens 

about investment in the arts. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It would be very beneficial to do that. Rocco came 

out and visited the Shakespeare Festival and saw what they did 

in local school districts and everything else, and we had Chairman 

Leach out and did a program on PBS and a variety of things like 

that. I mean, we are politicians. We respond to our constituents. 

And when our constituents ask us to do something in large numbers, generally we do it, and somehow it is similar to—I think one 

of the great institutions in this town is the NIH, National Institutes of Health. They do incredible research at that facility. The 

problem is, nobody knows about it, and if you ask the American 

public what the NIH does, they will go, what is it, you know. There 

has not yet been a way to tell the people what they are getting for 

their investment in NIH. The same thing with the arts and humanities. And somehow we have got to change that role. When people 

understand what it means to preserve our history and what it 

means to invest in our arts, what it means to our daily lives, that 

is when you see something happen. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, we are going to try to stay on schedule, so in deference to the other folks who want to testify, I will 

leave it at that. I do think we need to think hard, though, before 

we simply pass through the money to the state humanities councils. What has been suggested is that we redistribute the money 

within the diminished pie, and I do not think that is what we are 

looking for. I think we are looking for a somewhat more robust 

funding even in a very challenging fiscal environment. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Thank you all. I appreciate it. 

Our next panel is Mark Menlove, Tom Kiernan and James 

Ogsbury. Mark, you are first. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

OUTDOOR ALLIANCE/IDAHO OUTDOOR BUSINESS 

COUNCIL

WITNESS

MARK MENLOVE 

Mr. MENLOVE. Well, thank you for the opportunity to be here, 

Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran. My name is Mark 

Menlove and I am the Executive Director with Winter Wildlands 

Alliance, which is an Idaho-based national nonprofit organization 

working on behalf of backcountry skiers, snowshoers, and other 

winter adventurers. 

Winter Wildlands is also a founding member of the Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of six national organizations which also includes 

American Hiking Society, American Canoe Association, American 

Whitewater, the Access Fund, and the International Mountain 
228

Biking Association. We represent the millions of Americans who 

hike, climb, mountain bike, paddle, ski, and snowshoe on our Nation’s public lands, waters, and snowscapes. We have a direct membership of more than 100,000 people and a local network of local 

clubs of 1,400 clubs representing every state in the country. 

Henry David Thoreau famously wrote ‘‘In wildness is the preservation of the world.’’ Indeed, entire organizations have been founded with those words as premise. Less famous is Thoreau’s impassioned admonition for actual contact with wild places wherein he 

wrote the need for ‘‘contact with rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks, 

the actual world.’’ Then he really got revved up with exclamation 

points writing ‘‘the common sense. Contact! Contact!’’ 

I am here to tell you that the Outdoor Alliance community 

shares Thoreau’s belief in the common sense of contact with wild 

places. Our community has a direct and experiential relationship 

with and stake in our Nation’s public lands and waters and the 

amazing recreation opportunities that these places afford. 

Before sharing our unique perspective, I also want to say that we 

understand the huge challenge that you face with less money to allocate and we thank you for your thoughtful approach. 

There are a number of budget items important to the outdoor 

recreation community. As my time is short, I want to leave you 

with three points. Number one, it is the economy. Outdoor recreation, which hinges on access to high-quality public lands and 

waters, is a major economic driver and source of jobs, particularly 

in the West. Americans spend $646 billion pursuing outdoor recreation each year, according to a recent study by the Outdoor Industry Association. That is twice as much as they spend on cars and 

pharmaceuticals. In my home state of Idaho, outdoor recreation 

creates more than 77,000 jobs—that is 13 percent of the total jobs 

in the state—$6.3 billion in consumer spending, $1.8 billion in 

wages and $461 million in state and local tax revenue. Incidentally, 

a 2012 statewide poll commissioned by the Idaho Outdoor Business 

Council showed that 76 percent of Idaho voters think that even 

with federal budget problems, funding for conservation and basic 

environmental protections should not be cut. That is Idaho, mind 

you.

Mr. SIMPSON. Because we love our public lands. 

Mr. MENLOVE. That is right. This spending and job creation will 

be severely dampened if the agencies that manage our public lands 

are underfunded and underresourced. We saw that happen this 

past year when a well-loved and well-used system of backcountry 

yurts was closed down for an extended period due to a Forest Service permitting backlog and some complications between state and 

federal agencies. Not only did Idaho parks and recreation lose 

much-needed revenue from an asset that is always used to full capacity but the local businesses, some of whom are my friends and 

neighbors, lost the revenue that they would normally have by renting gear and outfitting skiers and snowshoers who visit those 

yurts.

We support a commonsense approach that will adequately fund 

Forest Service, National Park Service and BLM activities essential 

to providing public recreation access to high-quality public lands 

and waters. In particular, we support a modest increase to $290 
229

million for the Forest Service Recreation Heritage and Wilderness 

program, which oversees all recreation on national forestlands. We 

support base funding of $38.3 for the BLM’s monuments and national conservation areas and $77.5 million for the National Landscape Conservation System. 

Number two, land management planning is vital. Last year the 

U.S. Forest Service issued a new forest planning rule replacing regulations going back more than 30 years. From the Outdoor Alliance 

community’s perspective, the new planning rule is a thoughtful, 

nuanced and modern approach to planning that includes a healthy 

degree of public engagement. Solid forest plans which create the 

long-term blueprint for where a specific activity can and cannot 

happen on a given forest will pay dividends not only for the ecosystems and recreational resources but also for local and regional 

economies that thrive because of their close proximity to healthy 

public lands that can be experienced and enjoyed. 

As you know, the path to arriving at a workable forest planning 

rule is long and tortured with misfires stretching back through 

three Administrations. The majority of our national forest units are 

operating on grossly outdated forest plans, and the queue for forests needing to update those plans is long. With so much at stake, 

now is not the time to cut funding to this vitally important effort. 

We recommend a minimum of $250 million for land management 

planning, assessment and monitoring. While a relatively modest 

sum, this is substantially more than the $184 million proposed by 

the Administration. 

Number three, Land and Water Conservation Fund. We like it. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF, enjoys bipartisan support, has been used to enhance access to and protect landscapes and river corridors of extraordinarily high value to the recreational community. We particularly like what we are hearing 

about the potential for mandatory funding of LWCF. We support 

the Administration’s recommended figure of $600 million for LWCF 

this year and we are delighted with plans to fully fund LWCF in 

fiscal year 2015, and while we support moving that fund out of the 

appropriations process, we believe the current funding mechanism, 

which is a pretty straightforward system that makes sense to the 

American people and to the recreation community should not be 

tampered with. 

Thanks for the opportunity to present our perspectives. 

[The statement of Mark Menlove follows:] 
230
231
232
233
234

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate it, Mark. Tom. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

TOM KIERNAN 

Mr. KIERNAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Moran, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I am Tom 

Kiernan, President of NPCA, and on behalf of our over 750,000 

members and supporters, we appreciate this opportunity. 

I want to first recognize and thank the committee for your extraordinary work to try to maintain the funding for our national 

parks. We know that you get the importance of national parks, so 

first and foremost, thank you very much for your good work. We 

also recognize the challenging environment that you are working 

within with the declining allocation and with the sequester, so we 

understand the context. 

That said, we do want to talk about the coming centennial for 

the national parks. We have got the 100th anniversary coming up, 

an extraordinarily important opportunity to reengage Americans 

with our national parks, and when we look at the budget over the 

last 10 years, the total Park Service budget has declined by 15 percent in the last 10 years, and with the sequester, an additional 6 

percent, and we are deeply concerned. That is not the way we need 

to prepare the parks to serve for a second 100 years for this country and for the world. 

A few examples that likely you know well, the result of the recent sequester up at Acadia. We are looking at delaying—the Park 

Service is looking at delaying the opening of the park a month, obviously impacting negatively so many of the businesses up there. 

Blue Ridge Parkway is looking at closing 400 of their campsites. 

Denali, which has a maintenance backlog of about $50 million, will 

have six fewer maintenance staff. And in total, we are looking at 

just shy of about 2,000 fewer staff in the parks this summer to 

both greet the visitors, help interpret the parks, help protect the 

parks during the highly active visitor season. We think this is poor 

for the parks and also for the local economies. The Park Service 

generates 250,000 jobs in gateway communities, many in both of 

your states, $30 billion of economic activity. We do have a letter 

we would ask be added to the record of so many local—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. 

[The information follows:] 
235
236
237
238
239

Mr. KIERNAN. Thank you very much—local businesses expressing 

their deep concern. One discussion we had recently with an outfitter near Delaware River Water Gap was looking at likely reduced revenues for that small outfitter by 25 percent as a result 

of a reduced number of access points into the river and so they 

were deeply concerned. 

The President’s budget request is a very small step in the right 

direction and would hope the committee would be able to build on 

it. Our priorities are the operations, as has been your priority. 

Thank you. We also believe we need to get back to funding the construction account. What we see has been happening is that it is 

like not changing the oil in our car. You can do that for a little 

while but after a while you are going to pay the price, so we think 

we need to be better funding the operations and the construction 

account.

To help come up with some additional funding, NPCA recently 

with the National Park Hospitality Association and the Bipartisan 

Policy Center did cohost a symposium where we brought together 

over 200 of our partners to analyze 16 different white papers for 

additional funding strategies to augment appropriations, and so 

those ideas are getting further refined and we very much look forward to working with you and the authorizing committee to look 

at those ideas to figure out which ones can work, get implemented, 

again, to help fund the national parks. One of the key ones is the 

fee legislation that will expire in 2014. We obviously want that reauthorized but also think there are opportunities to improve it and 

hope that this committee again with the authorizers would look at 

that.

I do want to close with a quick story, if I can, to give you a sense 

of our view of the importance of the parks. A couple years ago my 

wife and I were on vacation with our three kids, and they were at 

that point late teenagers, and we took the rather bold idea of asking them a fundamental question. We asked them as parents, what 

have we done well in rearing you and what have we done poorly. 

It was a gutsy question, and our teenage children did not miss the 

opportunity to lay out in full detail everything we did wrong. However, the first thing that they said that we did right as parents was 

take them to the national parks, and our kids then recounted for 

us all the stories as a family of us playing together in the parks, 

learning together in the parks. They remembered at Great Sand 

Dunes National Park jumping off the sand dunes together. They remembered rigging a sail over a canoe as we went across Shoshone 

Lake in Yellowstone. So our hope is by the centennial in 2016, we 

can have parks that are well funded, well protected and more families, more Americans are in the parks so that more parents can be 

told by their children or friends can be told by their colleagues the 

best thing you ever did was to take me to a national park. 

[The statement of Tom Kiernan follows:] 
240
241
242
243
244

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate it. James, you are up. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Western Governors’ Association. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

JAMES OGSBURY 

Mr. OGSBURY. Yes, sir. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member 

Moran, my name is James Ogsbury. I am the Executive Director 

of the Western Governors Association. As the former clerk of the 

House Energy and Water Subcommittee, I have sat through innumerable appropriations hearings, and I have incarnadine countless 

appropriations requests, and I always thought that I would never 

want to participate in such a hearing from this side of the table 

but here I am and I am honored to appear before you to briefly 

summarize my written testimony. 

The WGA is an independent and nonpartisan organization that 

represents the interests of the governors of the 19 westernmost 

states and three U.S.-flag islands. For the past several years, WGA 

has partnered with the federal government to develop statewide 

GIS mapping tools to identify crucial habitants and migratory corridors. The funding provided by this subcommittee has helped support development of these geospatial mapping, tools which will provide access to credible, broad-scale scientific data compiled and 

analyzed by the states for use in public land management and in 

the preplanning stages of development projects such as transmission lines and renewable-energy projects, transportation 

projects and conservation initiatives. 

Several western states, including Arizona, California, Montana, 

Washington and Wyoming have developed and deployed wildlife 

tools with federal funding assistance and the coordination of the 

Western Governors’ Association through our Western Governors’ 

Wildlife Council, an arm of WGA. WGA is currently developing a 

West-wide GIS mapping tool called, CHAT, Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool. This tool will knit together the efforts of the various 

states for presentation of wildlife data and analysis on a regional 

landscape level. The CHAT tool will be unveiled in December of 

this year. 

WGA is not appearing today to request additional funds. Rather, 

we respectfully urge the committee to exercise its oversight responsibility to ensure a maximum return on the federal investment to 

date. Specifically, we are seeking a directive from the committee to 

land management agencies within its jurisdiction to use state fish 

and wildlife data and analyses to inform the land-use land planning and related natural-resource decisions of those agencies. 

It is appropriate that federal agencies use the state tools developed in part with funding provided by this committee for several 

reasons. First, state fish and wildlife agencies possess the primary 

trust and legal obligations to manage fish and wildlife in the 

United States. Consequently, they are by necessity and tradition 
245

the most reliable compilers and analysts of data and information 

on fish and wildlife species and habitats. Second, such use would 

avoid duplication of effort, make more efficient use of limited state 

and federal resources, and ensure complementary and compatible 

end products. Third, the taxpayers will realize a significant return 

on their investment only if the tools they have purchased are put 

to good use. 

The WGA and the Western Governors’ Wildlife Council have developed strong relationships with our federal partners. We appreciate, for example, the leadership of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and sent correspondence to agency field offices to urge the use of state data. Nevertheless, the federal commitment to use statewide wildlife data is one, inconsistent 

across agencies, two, tenuous and depending on the predilections of 

individual agency officials, and three, largely based on a 2009 

memorandum of understanding, which is scheduled to expire in 

June.

Before I conclude, I want to emphasize the CHAT and the statewide tools are not intended for regulatory purposes. They do not replace the more localized site-specific information required for 

project-level approvals. Rather, they provide landscape level wildlife information across political boundaries in the West. They represent a powerful tool for the public planners and government to 

evaluate potential projects and land uses at the very earliest stages 

of planning. 

Thank you very much for your consideration and the opportunity 

to testify today. 

[The statement of James Ogsbury follows:] 
246
247
248
249
250

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I thank all of you for your testimony. 

Obviously, outdoor recreation is important not only in Idaho but all 

across the country. I mean, it is why we live in Idaho 

Mr. OGSBURY. That is right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is because we like our public lands and the ability to use our public lands, so I appreciate your testimony. 

I see that the director of the Park Service took a beating yesterday pretty much from the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and I think the genesis of that was that he was overstating—the belief that he was overstating the effects of sequestration would have. Frankly, I do not think he was. In Wyoming, as 

you know, they were not going to plow the road to open Yellowstone, and you talk about realization of how important that is, is 

the local chambers and commerce and businesses that got together 

and raised the money to plow the road at its normal time because 

they realize its importance to their businesses to get Yellowstone 

open.

I was disappointed to see the—I do not want to use the word 

‘‘abuse’’ but maybe I will—the difference of opinion that was expressed in the committee. I understand he had a pretty tough go 

of it. 

My other fear is that of the white papers that were presented. 

I think it is important to do that. I hope Congress does not look 

at it as a way to supplant funding from this committee for our national parks. It is a way to augment it, not to supplant it, but I 

am fearful that as we get in tougher and tougher budgetary times 

that that might be the effect of it, but I do think it is important 

that we look at additional ways to augment the funding of the national parks. They are obviously, you know, America’s best idea 

and crown jewels and all that has been said about them. 

Mr. KIERNAN. If I can just say, thank you very much. I fully 

agree with both points, and I appreciate you making them. I will 

just observe that we are seeing or sensing in park after park situations like Yellowstone at a smaller scale for the less known parks 

but a similar situation where the impacts are significant to a very 

small community but very real impacts throughout the country. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Jim. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I appreciate your mentioning Darrell’s performance yesterday. It was an attempt to intimidate the Park Service director. It is unfortunate. I do agree with you that these sequestered cuts are real, particularly the manner in which they are 

supposed to be effected. That is the problem. But it is neither of 

these three folks that caused the problem. Maybe we need to take 

it up with our colleagues, but we appreciate your coming forward 

and also tying the importance of the parks together for all of the 

country.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, the other thing is that Members of Congress, 

committees request information, and you got a sequestration that 

is affecting an agency’s ability to do their job because, I mean, it 

is less people and et cetera, et cetera, and then we request more 

and more information from them so they have to take people off of 

what they are supposed to be doing to answer all these requests 

for reports and information. It is a tough situation. I understand 

why Members of Congress sometimes think the Administration, 
251

whether it is Republican or Democrat, does not respond to their requests but sometimes we have to be a little more cognizant of the 

impact of what our requests are going to have on agencies and 

their ability to accomplish them and still do the job we have asked 

them to do. 

Anyway, I appreciate all of your testimony, and we will certainly 

look at the requests of the Western Governors’ Association and 

their CHAT program. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Next we have Elizabeth, Jim and Thomas. You all know who you 

are. Elizabeth, you are first. 

Ms. HUGHES. Oh, I am first? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICERS 

WITNESS

ELIZABETH HUGHES 

Ms. HUGHES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elizabeth 

Hughes, President of the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers and the Maryland Deputy State Historic 

Preservation Officer, or SHPO, for short. 

On behalf of Jan Gallimore, the Idaho SHPO, and Kathleen Kirkpatrick, the Virginia SHPO, and the SHPOs all around the country, 

I would like to thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member 

Moran and members of the subcommittee for your support of 

SHPOs and the opportunity to testify today. 

You have heard quotes from Hamlet and references to Thoreau. 

I am here to tell you, I like to shop, not just any kind of shopping. 

It is the thrill of the sales rack, the siren song of the deep discount 

that makes my heart race and my husband’s blood pressure rise. 

Based on my professional expertise as a bargain hunter, I can tell 

you that 40 percent off is a very good deal. A 40 percent discount 

is exactly what you are getting with state historic preservation offices.

We are a genuine good deal and an outstanding example of federalism. How? The National Historic Preservation Act sets policy in 

the states through the SHPOs administer the program which has 

flourished for the past 47 years. States do most of the work in administering the National Historic Preservation program for the Department of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for only 60 percent of the cost. In this area of tight finances, I am sure you can appreciate the advantages of our model 

program’s cost-sharing structure. 

One of the responsibilities of SHPO offices is to comment on federal undertakings. Each year, SHPOs are responsible for reviewing 

over 250,000 cases and meeting a 30-day review deadline. Given 

our current funding, and in order to stay aligned with the direction 

of Congress, please know that we are doing our part to increase 

federal efficiencies and encourage streamlining. At least 100,000 of 

these cases are now handled through sub-agreements with various 
252

federal agencies designed to increase efficiencies, exempt routine 

activities and allow for standard treatments without burdensome 

review.

Despite these efficiencies, it still requires resources to make 

those agreements happen. In a recent federal highway study, the 

North Carolina Department of Transportation stated, ‘‘The biggest 

problem in expanding streamlining program has been funding and 

staffing, especially at the SHPO. They do not have the staff and 

resources for digitizing records for the remainder of the state. The 

model, therefore, has not been expanded.’’ And according to the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Oregon SHPO, like most 

SHPOs across the country, is understaffed and does not have the 

resources to fulfill their National Historic Preservation Act responsibilities and fully participate in programs like Oregon’s collaborative environmental and transportation agreement for streamlining. Providing $50 million to state historic preservation offices 

would help ensure that streamlining moves full speed ahead. 

In addition to project reviews, another major responsibility of 

SHPOs is conducting 90 percent of the work of the Federal Historic 

Preservation Tax Credit program, a program that created $3.15 billion in private investment and nearly 58,000 jobs last year alone. 

I want to share with you a set of pictures, if I may. These pictures show the rehabilitation of a historic site in Raleigh, North 

Carolina, that was devastated by fire. The first picture shows everyone involved in this project. These are the faces, maybe I should 

say the incarnadine faces, of historic preservation rehabilitation 

projects all across the country. These are the faces of preservation 

projects. They include contractors, plumbers, the architect, electricians, painters, masons, and the list goes on. These are the hardworking folks that help bring history back to life. Because of your 

support of the Historic Preservation Fund, not only do we save the 

places that matter, these folks have jobs and can take care of their 

families. They contribute to the economy by buying clothes, groceries and even by going on vacation, and remember, it is still a 

great bargain at 40 percent off. 

Speaking of vacations, heritage tourism has a huge impact on 

our Nation’s economy. In 2010, a Department of Commerce survey 

of international visitors’ activities found that touring America’s historic sites was much more popular than touring America’s national 

parks. It is the SHPOs who assist these non-federal sites and work 

with local communities to help maintain, rehabilitate and use their 

historic assets and resources, and we do this on a shoestring budget of less than 50 million federal dollars, a small fraction of the 

Park Service’s $2.6 billion budget. 

SHPOs exist to serve all Americans. However, a recent review of 

the national register found that only about 10 percent of listed resources represent significant American populations such as Latino 

and Asian Americans and their histories. 

With that in mind, we also strongly support the $3 million proposed by the Administration for a focused initiative to survey and 

nominate historic sites associated with underrepresented populations to the National Register of Historic Places. 

State offices like mine are lean operations. Your 60 percent is essential to our success. In 2016, we will be celebrating the 50th an-
253

niversary of the National Historic Preservation Act. NCSHPO looks 

forward to working with you and the committee over the next several years to help recognize this landmark piece of legislation that 

has revitalized communities, created American jobs and preserved 

the irreplaceable sites and landscapes of America’s past. Thank 

you.

[The statement of Elizabeth Hughes follows:] 
254
255
256
257
258

Mr. SIMPSON. Jim. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

CIVIL WAR TRUST 

WITNESS

JIM LIGHTIZER 

Mr. LIGHTIZER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Moran, I am 

Jim Lightizer with—— 

Mr. MORAN. Great to see you again, incidentally, Jim. 

Mr. LIGHTIZER. Nice to see you, Congressman. I am Jim 

Lightizer with the Civil War Trust, and I am here in support of full 

funding for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation program. Having 

said the words ‘‘full funding’’, I recognize you guys are up against 

it, and this committee has been very generous to us over the course 

of the years, so I thank you, and I know you do right by us. 

You gentlemen are very familiar with this program. You know, 

it is a one-to-one match. It requires a dollar from outside of the federal government to match the federal government dollar. Most of 

that comes from the private sector, most of it from my organization, the Civil War Trust. 

Just one little statistic that I think you might find interesting. 

Over the 118 years that the United States government has been 

preserving Civil War battlefields, they have saved about 73,000, 

74,000 acres out of hundreds and hundreds of thousands that probably should be saved. In the last 13 years, the Civil War Trust has 

saved north of 35,000 acres. So we have done in less than a decade 

and a half nearly 50 percent of what the government did itself over 

the course of 118 years. So this program has added value. It has 

saved directly about 19,000 of that 35,000 acres. It has a huge impact on it. 

This is the sesquicentennial. This is our national heritage. You 

gentlemen know that. If we do not save it, it gets paved over, and 

it is getting paved over at an alarming rate. So we are up against 

it timewise. We appreciate the funding you give us and we could 

tell you this group will use it wisely. 

[The statement of Jim Lightizer follows:] 
259
260
261

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. LIGHTIZER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MORAN. A man of few words but great deeds. 

Mr. LIGHTIZER. Thank you, Jim. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

WITNESS

THOMAS J. CASSIDY 

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran, my name is Tom Cassidy. I am the Vice President for Government Relations at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. At a time like this in the 

hearing, I kind of feel like it must have been when Mo Udall said 

that everything has been said but not everybody has said it. So 

bear with me. 

We understand that we have got a very challenging fiscal environment. We appreciate that you guys know this much better than 

the rest of us do. One thing I would just emphasize is that as we 

look to dealing with the fiscal challenge that the Nation’s preservation, cultural and recreation programs not take a disproportionate 

hit, and I would just like to highlight a few items in our written 

testimony.

As Elizabeth said, the Historic Preservation Fund is the principal 

source of funding to implement the Nation’s historic preservation 

laws. I will not try to recast her excellent summary of what SHPOs 

do, but I would like to emphasize two things, though. One, the tribal historic preservation officers also receive funding through the 

Historic Preservation Fund, and we would recommend an increase 

just as the SHPOs are seeking, and we endorse their request for 

$50 million. The tribes should receive, we would recommend, an increase to $10 million. In part, that is simply based upon the increase of number of tribes that are participating in the program. 

Back in fiscal year 2012, there were 131 tribes. There will be an 

estimated 150 tribes in fiscal year 2014. And we would add our 

strong endorsement to the Administration’s request for this new $3 

million competitive grant program to increase the representation of 

underrepresented communities in both the national register and 

the National Historic Landmark program. It is just very, you know, 

important as a Nation that our protected places reflect the heritage 

of all of us, and we can improve how we do that. 

I would like to take my remaining time really to address the 

long-term problems of inadequate funding for the cultural resources programs both for the National Park Service and for the 

Bureau of Land Management. Three-quarters of the 401 units of 

the National Park Service were created to protect our most important and historic cultural resources. Whether it is Gettysburg, Valley Forge, Minidoka National Historic Site, the Flight 93 National 

Memorial and new sites that have been created recently at Fort 

Monroe and also to recognize the contributions of Harriet Tubman 

and Cesar Chavez through the Antiquities Act. But the funding for 

cultural resources stewardship has not received the same level of 
262

support as natural resources. In hearings back in fiscal year 2010, 

then-Acting NPS Director Dan Wing stated that the Park Service 

had been neglectful of cultural resources. When we look over the 

past 15 years, we have seen, largely due to the successful Natural 

Resource Challenge, and it is a great program. It has led to an increase of 31 percent in natural-resource funding for the parks but 

at the same time we have head a decline of 27 percent of cultural 

funding with big impacts on the FTEs who can go out there and 

do the work and interpret the resources for the American public. 

We need greater funding parity between these two sides of what 

the National Park Service does. 

Tom Kiernan mentioned these white papers that are being created. This committee in fiscal year 2012 in your report recommended increased use of historic leasing as a means to address 

the maintenance backlog, and I would really encourage the committee to continue looking at that. There are great examples of how 

leases are being used to bring private capital into a park, whether 

it is in a place like Fort Baker out in the Golden Gate National 

Recreation or Little Montessori School up at Valley Forge that has 

taken over a building that was not being utilized. 

Then with BLM, the Administration has been doing a good job 

recently of requesting increased funding for the cultural resources 

programs, and certainly BLM oversees the largest, most diverse 

and scientifically most important body of cultural resources of any 

federal land management agency and yet they only get 7 cents per 

acre and they have only surveyed about 8 percent of their resources, and without these adequate surveys, and certainly the 

SHPOs know this so well, you just cannot do the best planning to 

ensure that energy projects, transportation projects go in a way 

that can be described as streamlined, and Jim knows this too because he worked in the transportation department. 

So thank you. I guess I am supposed to stop, so I shall. 

[The statement of Thomas J. Cassidy follows:] 
263
264
265
266
267

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I appreciate your testimony. Obviously you 

all do important work. Historic preservation is important. I would 

have to go to Europe or somewhere that has had a long history 

than we have had to realize that we are still a young country in 

historical terms, and we are still in a situation where if we do our 

job right, we can preserve a lot of our history where other countries 

sometimes have destroyed because they have not preserved it. So 

there is a lot we can do, and using some of those things that Mr. 

Moran mentioned earlier, what were those, earwigs or congressionally directed spending or earmarks or whatever, we have done 

some things in Idaho where we have preserved some old theaters 

and it has been amazing. If you go to Rupert, Idaho, a small town 

of probably 2,500, 3,000 something like that, it has a beautiful 

town square park and businesses all around it and stuff. It was actually getting rundown and they had the old Wilson Theater there 

that had been there for years and years, and they decided to rebuild it. Ninety percent of it is done by people in the community, 

volunteer work, raising money, all that kind of stuff. The federal 

dollars were just kind of the kick to get it going, and the first thing 

they did is rebuild the outside of it and stuff and just made it like 

it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. It was beautiful. And all of 

a sudden all the other businesses around there said gee, maybe we 

better redo our fronts, and the whole community changed because 

of the investment they made in rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson 

Theater, and I will tell you a funny story about it before I quit. I 

was in there one day and they were taking me around showing me 

everything they have done, and they were rebuilding the stage at 

the time, and this old guy, really old guy, was showing it to me. 

He said yeah, up in the dark corner, he said, that is where I met 

my wife when we were teenagers, and he said, one day there was 

these three kids that snuck a live chicken under their jacket and 

snuck it into the theater and took it up on the balcony and we were 

watching this horror movie or whatever. He said in the middle of 

it they threw that live chicken out there and he said, it just fluttered on the screen. Everybody started screaming and everything. 

He said you know who that kid was? I said who is that? He said 

Lou Dobbs. I had LaTourette when he was on a program with 

Dobbs bring it up and say tell the story about him. 

Anyway, thanks for all you do. Historic preservation obviously is 

very important, and it is something that this committee takes very 

seriously.

Mr. MORAN. And all three are getting entrepreneurial. I mean, 

you are not just sitting back and waiting, asking for help; you are 

finding every possible way to innovate, to create, to bring in private-sector sources of funding and even to develop the capacity to 

bring in commercial revenue from some of these sites. I have been 

very much impressed. Thanks for taking the time to spend with us 

this morning. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

(269)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS

PUBLIC WITNESSES—NATIVE AMERICANS 

Mr. CALVERT [presiding]. The Committee will come to order. Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson is unable to be here today. My 

name is Ken Calvert, and I represent California’s 42nd District. I 

will be chairing this morning’s hearing, while my good friend, Tom 

Cole, will chair this afternoon. 

Let me read Chairman Simpson’s opening statement. 

Good morning, and welcome to the first of four public witness 

hearings over the next 2 days, specifically, for American Indian and 

Alaskan Native programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and 

Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. I especially want to 

welcome the distinguished tribal elders and leaders testifying 

today, and in the audience. You deserve be heard for more than 5 

minutes we have allotted today, and I want you to know that you 

have an open invitation to call me and my staff directly so we can 

schedule more time outside of these hearings. 

Despite a somewhat abbreviated hearing schedule this year, I am 

proud that this subcommittee is able to hold hearings on these very 

important programs. They have been and will continue to be a bipartisan funding priority for this committee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table, one panel 

at a time. Each witness will be provided for 5 minutes to present 

their testimony. We will be using a timer to track the progress of 

each witness. When the button turns yellow, the witness will have 

1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. Members will 

be provided an opportunity to ask questions of our witnesses, but 

in the interest of time, the chair requests that we keep these things 

moving in order to stay on schedule. The chair also wants to remind those in the hearing room that the Committee Rules prohibit 

the use of outside video cameras and audio equipment during these 

hearings.

Mr. CALVERT. So with that, thank you, and we are going to call 

up our first panel. I believe Mr. Moran will be here shortly also, 

but the first panel is Jefferson Keel, President of the National Congress of American Indians, and also—testifying twice, also for the 

Tribal Interior Budget Council, Cathy Abramson, Chairperson of 

the National Indian Health Board, Carmelita Skeeter, Executive 

Director of Indian Health Care Resource Center of Tulsa, Oklahoma. She will be speaking for the National Council of Urban Indian Health. Lloyd Benton Miller, Counsel for the National Tribal 

Contract Support Cost Coalition. Welcome. 
270

And with that, Mr. Keel, we will recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

WITNESS

JEFFERSON KEEL 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am 

honored to be here today on behalf of the National Congress of 

American Indians, and the Tribal Interior Budget Committee. I will 

make my remarks brief so that we can include all of those. 

On behalf the National Congress of American Indians, I want to 

thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran for listening to the voices of so many tribal leaders from across the Nation. 

The witness list is impressive. As we continue to fight to preserve 

treaty rights and tribal sovereignty, we urge you to continue to be 

guided by the solemn agreements made between our ancestors, and 

to take our current pleas to heart. 

As Congress develops the fiscal year 2014 budget, we call on you 

to make investments in programs that fund trust and treaty obligations, support tribal self-determination, and promote economic recovery in Indian Country. You will hear very specific recommendations from the tribal witnesses here today, and our testimony addresses many programs in this bill. 

I want to share with you the very dangerous threats to Indians 

self-determination, tribal economies, and well-being due to the reductions from the current sequester, and if the fiscal year 2014 Interior bill does not address some of those impacts. 

This subcommittee knows that the sequester reductions and 

other cuts to tribal programs undermine Indian treaty rights and 

obligations, treaties which were ratified under the Constitution and 

considered the supreme law of the land. Tribes deliver all the 

range of services that other governments provide. Federal funds 

provide much needed investments in tribal physical, human, and 

environmental capital. For many tribes, the majority of tribal governmental services is financed by federal sources. Tribes like parity 

and tax authority to raise revenue to deliver services. If federal 

funding is reduced sharply for state and local governments, they 

may choose between increasing taxes and spending for basic services, or allowing their services to take a financial hit. Half of state 

and local government revenues from their own taxes, while a quarter is federal. 

On the other hand, up to 60 to 80 percent of the revenue for Indian tribal governmental services comes from federal sources. Not 

only will reductions to our base programs and TPA, IHS, or caps 

on contract support costs violate the trust responsibility to tribes, 

but it will hurt the regional economies in which tribes are major 

players.

Economies show that federal funds in tribes represent high powered spending when they enter the local economies, and provide a 

relatively large economic impact. In Oklahoma, 38 tribal nations— 

actually, 39 tribal nations now have $10.8 billion impact on the 
271

state every year, supporting an estimated 87,000 jobs, or 5 percent 

of all jobs in the state. Interrupting tribal revenue flow will increase unemployment for the region. Federal cuts disproportionately impact Indian Country. 

Another major issue is contract support costs. NCAI opposes the 

Administration’s unilateral proposal in its fiscal year 2014 budget 

request to fundamentally alter the nature of tribal self-governance 

by implementing individual statutory tribal caps on the payment of 

contract support costs. Contract support costs funding is essential 

to the operation of contracted federal programs administered under 

federally-issued indirect cost agreements. No change of such a fundamental character should be implemented until there has been a 

thorough consultation and study process jointly undertaken by the 

Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and tribal 

leaders informed by a joint technical working group and coordinated through NCAI. Such a consultation process must be scheduled to permit opportunity for full tribal participation. 

While NCAI believes that overall statutory caps on contract support costs should be eliminated, at the very least, Congress should 

maintain a fiscal year 2014 and 2015, the status quo statutory language enacted in fiscal year 2013, so that tribally developed 

changes in contract support costs and cost funding mechanisms, if 

any, can be included in this fiscal year 2016 budget. 

Reductions to tribal trust obligations, public safety, education, 

healthcare, social services, and tribal governmental services are reductions to high-powered spending for local economies, which will 

impede economic recovery, in addition to causing increased poverty 

and hardship for Indian Country. 

The stakes are high for tribal governmental services and programs in the federal budget that support the trust responsibility, 

only some of which are highlighted here. The trust obligations 

should be protected from further reductions. 

[The information follows:] 
272
273
274
275
276

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

TRIBAL INTERIOR BUDGET COUNCIL 

WITNESS

JEFFERSON KEEL 

Mr. KEEL. Next, I will share some remarks from the Tribal Interior Budget Committee. I thank you for that. 

As Tribal Co-Chair of the Tribal Interior Budget Council, I am 

honored to present this testimony. 

The Tribal Caucus passed a motion that the tribal co-chair would 

share recommendations of the council with this subcommittee. The 

Tribal Interior Budget Council was established to facilitate tribal 

government participation in the planning of the BIA budget, and 

includes two tribal representatives from each of the 12 BIA regions. 

The tribes have presented testimony over the years on the importance of increases for public safety and justice, trust natural resources, economic development, education programs, and with overarching requests for full funding for contract support costs and 

tribal priority allocations, or TPA. 

The tribes have also passed unanimous motions saying that their 

requests for these investments do not mean that other parts of the 

BIA budget should be reduced. They also asked that programs benefitting American Indians and Alaskan Natives be protected from 

the cuts called for under the Budget Control Act, its sequester, and 

caps.

Tribal nations are well prepared to take on additional responsibilities for the management of their resources, but they need the 

United States to seek to fulfill its trust responsibilities on order to 

do so. We appreciate recent support for some tribal programs over 

the last few years, especially for contract support costs and law enforcement. However, we must mention that comparing budget increases for the six largest Interior agencies between fiscal year 

2004 enacted to the fiscal year 2014 President’s request shows that 

BIA has received the smallest percentage increase. Just for fiscal 

year 2014, $134 million increase to BIA funding would be needed 

to be equitable to overall fiscal year 2014 increases. 

We have a few specific recommendations on the President’s budg- et. Yesterday, the Council made a motion to oppose the $15 million 

pilot project based on the Department of Education Turn Around 

Schools model and concepts until further study is done and tribes 

are consulted. The motion was made based on the fact that the initiative was not vetted with the tribes at all. The money for such 

a pilot project should be funded from the Department of Education, 

not the Bureau of Indian Education, and not come out of the Indian 

Schools Education Project form of funding. 

The President’s budget does not include funding for BIA replacement school or replacement facility construction. We would urge 

Congress to restore funding for this program. The fiscal year 2013 

Continuing Resolution increased the Department of Defense school 

replacement by $30 million above fiscal year 2012 levels, while zeroing our funding for new BIA schools. We ask Congress to ensure 

that dilapidated BIE schools receive much-needed attention. There 

must be parity between the two federally funded school systems. 
277

Providing safe and secure schools for native students is a matter 

of basic equity, and a fundamental element of the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to tribes. 

The President’s budget eliminates funding for the Housing Improvement Program. The tribes have opposed HIP elimination because the program serves the neediest of the needy in Indian Country, and losing the program altogether would be difficult for tribes 

to absorb or cover in other ways. 

Language for a Carcieri fix is also important. It would provide 

a no-cost economic development and jobs creation solution for restoring land to tribal governments impacted by the Carcieri Supreme Court decision. The budget states it includes increases of 

$32.5 million for trust natural resources management. The tribes 

have supported much-needed increases for this area, such as for 

rights protection implementation, forestry, and tribal management 

and development. Federal investment and tribal natural resources 

management helps to sustain tribal land and people, grow economies, and support continued prosperity. The President’s budget includes a $19 million increase for BIA public safety and justice. The 

tribes have long called for continued increases to address the severe lack of public safety resources to address a centuries old failure by the Federal Government to fulfill its public safety obligations. I would note that the President requested a million dollar increase for tribal courts, which is a good first step, but it is far 

below the amount needed, especially with the historic passage of 

the Violence Against Women Act, and other initiatives. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony, and we look 

forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure that the 

agreements made between our forefathers are honored in the federal budget. 

[The statement of Jefferson Keel follows:] 
278
279
280
281
282

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. 

Jim, do you have an opening statement you would like to make? 

Mr. MORAN. No, I will pass on the opening statement. Thank 

you, Ken. Thank you, Mr. Keel, and we thank you on behalf of all 

of the organizations of American Indians that you represent. This 

is a gentleman with a historically heroic military career, and now 

you have devoted your life to leadership in a very important area. 

So we thank you, as well as all of the people who will be testifying, 

but I think it is best at this point that we listen and then try to 

rectify some of this stuff. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman and we will just go through 

the panel, then we will ask questions of the entire panel. 

Next, Cathy Abramson, Chairperson of the National Indian 

Health Board. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD 

WITNESS

CATHY ABRAMSON 

Ms. ABRAMSON. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Moran, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding today’s hearing. [Speaking native language.] Cathy Abramson, I am member of 

the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Tribal Council, and 

I serve as the Chair of the National Indian Health Board. 

The NIHB offers the following comments regarding the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget. 

First, I would like to thank this committee for the increases in 

Indian health that members have provided over the last several 

years. You have been awesome. As you know, American Indian and 

Alaskan Native populations suffer disproportionately from a variety of health disparities, including diabetes, heart disease, tuberculosis, alcoholism, and suicide. In the comments that this committee—commitments that this committee has made in improving 

Indian health in the last several years, these are starting to turn 

around, these figures are. 

There is still much more that can be done for Indian Country’s 

access to healthcare. In my written comments, you will see that detailed budget priorities at NIHB has for 2014 including contract 

support costs, contract health services, and behavioral health programs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. However, today, 

I would like to focus my remarks on the biggest immediate threat 

to tribal health, sequestration. 

I thank the chairman and the members of the committee for 

their public acknowledgment of the injustice done to the tribal communities by including IHS in the 5.1 percent sequester for fiscal 

year 2013. Because these cuts were achieved over 7 months instead 

of 12, the affected percentage of reductions is approximately 9 percent. IHS will lose $220 million in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, 

the 2 percent rescission further reduces IHS budget in the amount 

of $8 million, for a total cut of $228 million from the IHS 2013 

budget. This, combined with government rescissions since fiscal 
283

year 2011, means that IHS has lost $240 million in the last 3 years 

alone. As the chart next to me—it is over there—demonstrates, this 

almost completely erases the gains to IHS since fiscal year 2009. 

But these figures do not tell the human consequences of the 

story. The sequestration cuts are literally a matter of life and death 

for American Indian and Alaskan Native people. For example, my 

tribe, our tribal membership is over 44,000, and we provide services in seven eastern counties of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, 

which represent part of our tribe’s original lands. In 2012, our 

health division provided 43,500 primary care visits. This includes 

medical, dental, and optical treatment. Our tribe also provided 

11,000 behavioral health visits. This equals 54,500 visits for tribal 

members. A 9 percent sequestration cut would be about $1.5 million for our tribe. This means elimination of two dentists, four dental technicians, three family practice physicians, and three registered nurses. The amount of people we could actually treat would 

be reduced by 12,400, or 23 percent of primary care visits. It also 

would decrease third party billing by over $700,000. 

Currently, we are only funded at 46 percent of identified level 

need. Nine percent cut will increase the unfunded portion to 37.8 

percent of need and be detrimental to the tribal members whose 

services are needed to survive. 

Alaskan Native Tribal Health Consortium announced that it will 

discontinue the Tribal Health Aide Training Program as a result 

of the sequester, and they will close the Bilbray Healing Center 

that provides alcohol and drug treatment to Alaskan Natives. The 

Pine Ridge Reservation has told NIHB that it will likely severely 

cut back behavioral health services, which will be devastating in a 

community that suffers regularly from suicide, alcoholism, and 

other substance abuse issues. There have been 100 suicide attempts in 110 days in Pine Ridge. Because of sequestration, they 

will not be able to hire two mental health service providers. As one 

tribal health official put it, NIHB, we just cannot take anymore 

cuts.

Across Indian Country, our tribal leaders and our health administrators are having to make tough decisions on how to cut, and 

they should not have to. NIHB asks you to work with your colleagues in Congress and restore the $240 million in IHS funding 

eliminated due to sequestration and rescission since fiscal year 

2011, and enact legislation that permanently exempts IHS from sequestration.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I will answer any questions. 

[The statement of Cathy Abramson follows:] 
284
285
286
287
288

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Next, Carmelita Skeeter, Executive Director, Indian Health Care Resource Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

the National Council of Urban Indian Health. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF URBAN INDIAN HEALTH 

WITNESS

CARMELITA SKEETER 

Ms. SKEETER. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak 

this morning. Good morning, Congressman Cole. I am here testifying on behalf of the National Council on Urban Indians. We serve 

over 100,000 Native Americans in 40 urban programs across the 

United States. I will just highlight some of the issues that we have. 

The Urban Indians funding is now at the lowest it has ever been, 

and the programs are going into 36 years of age. They have been 

cut by the Administration, even though the tribes have come together and supported increases for the urban programs. We serve 

71 percent of the Native American population in our urban programs, but only received 1 percent of Indian Health Service budget 

funding. We only received money out of one line item, and that is 

urban Indians. So the money that you put into the other line items 

for hospitals and clinics, for contract healthcare, for public health 

nursing, urban programs do not share in that. They only share in 

the one line item for urban Indians, and that is 1 percent of the 

total budget. 

So the programs are extremely underfunded to serve the 71 percent of the Native Americans in the urban areas, and they increase 

every day, and as major companies in urban areas are dropping insurance, then there is more need for urban Indian clinics to serve 

the people. 

I have two suggestions that would help with the budget cuts, and 

it would help with the bottom dollar. If the urban programs could 

be given federal tort claim coverage—the tribes have it, Indian 

Health Service has it, community health centers have it, urban Indian health centers do not have federal tort. My program specifically, it costs us $200,000 a year for malpractice for our physicians. 

That is money that could go to direct services. It would take a legislative change, but the Council would be more than happy to work 

with the committee to make that change. We have been working 

with Congressman Cole this past year trying to make that change. 

That would not add to the bottom dollar of the budget. 

The other issue is if the urban Indian programs could be included in the 100 percent FMAP that Indian Health Service and 

the tribes receive, that would help with their Medicaid coverage. 

Right now, they only receive a percentage of what the state negotiates with the urban programs, which is a much smaller percentage than what the need is. If they could receive 100 percent of 

FMAP and participate in the OMB agreement with IHS and the 

tribes and Indian Health Service, that would increase their resources tremendously. 
289

So you have my written testimony. Those are my highlights, so 

I will be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Carmelita Skeeter follows:] 
290
291
292
293

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentlelady, and your full statement will 

be entered into the record. 

Next, Lloyd Benton Miller, Counsel for the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST 

COALITION

WITNESS

LLOYD BENTON MILLER 

Mr. LLOYD MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Cole, Ranking Member Moran, Congresswoman McCollum. My 

name is Lloyd Miller. I am with the Sonosky, Chambers Law Firm. 

I represent today the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition. The Coalition represents the interests of 250 tribes in 11 

states, administering $400 million in BIA and IHS contracts. It includes the Riverside/San Bernardino Country Indian Health, includes Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Citizen Potawatomi 

band, and tribes in 10 other states—nine other states. 

The Administration is asking this committee to surrender its 

lawmaking function, in particular, its Article 1 appropriations 

power, to the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I say this because the Administration’s proposal is this: once 

Congress enacts a final bulk appropriation for contract support 

costs, the agencies would then submit tables to the committee identifying how much the agencies would pay each tribe, and those tables would then have the force of law, even though this committee 

had never seen the tables before, even though no member of Congress will have ever seen the tables they would be asked to vote 

upon. That, in my opinion, is surrendering this committee’s appropriations power to the Executive Branch. It is an unprecedented, 

I believe unconstitutional reaction to a Supreme Court decision, 

Salazar v. Ramah. I know this because I was co-class counsel in 

the Salazar v. Ramah decision, which was issued by the Supreme 

Court last June. In that case, the Supreme Court said something 

very simple. ‘‘Consistent with longstanding principles of government contract law, we hold that the government must pay each 

tribe’s contract support costs in full.’’ Now, one of those longstanding principles of government contract law is this: when a contractor, any contractor, even an Indian contractor, does work for 

the government, it is entitled to be paid. If it is not paid, it is entitled to sue. That is a basic rule of federal contract law. The Administration’s proposal is really an extraordinary overreaction to that 

simple rule of law. Rather than figuring out how to pay for the contracts, they are trying to figure out how to change the law. 

Worse yet, it was developed under a veil of complete secrecy. We 

had no idea until the budget was published that the Administration was proposing to impose legal caps on each individual contract 

so that there would be no remedy available through the courts or 

the Contract Disputes Act or the kind ordinarily available to any 

government contractor. The Administration would never do this if 
294

they were contracting with Sisters of Providence to run an IHS 

hospital. They would never do this if they were contracting with a 

Corrections Corporation of America to run our detention facilities. 

They would never underpay the administrative costs of the contract 

that are set by a federal agency, and yet, when it comes to Indian 

tribes, they think it is perfectly fine to do this. 

We have five recommendations we would offer to the committee, 

and I detail these in my testimony. First, we ask that the committee reject the Administration’s proposed rewrite of the appropriations bill and not break out contract support costs as a separate activity, and not adopt by reference tables to be submitted 

sometime in the future. 

Second, we respectfully request that the committee eliminate the 

earmark which was put into the bill starting in 1997, and which 

the agencies frankly believed would get them off the hook. The Supreme Court has said that the earmarking language does not get 

the agencies off the hook, that the contracts are real contracts, and 

we think it is time to go back to the ordinary routine of having a 

lump sum appropriation to the agency. Now, the agency does not 

have to pay the contract. That is its right. Many contractors are 

fully paid, some are accidentally overpaid, some are only a little 

underpaid, many are deeply underpaid. The ones that are deeply 

underpaid will have a day in court if they choose to go there. 

The third proposal is that the committee urge the Administration, although they have already started on their own, to engage 

in meaningful government-to-government consultation. There has 

been no consultation on this issue. I adopt by reference the remarks of President Keel on this issue, very well considered. We 

join in those recommendations. 

Fourth, the committee has a problem. It cannot perform its oversight function if you do not have data from the agencies, and the 

Indian Health Service in particular has failed to disclose data to 

this committee which it is required to disclose by May 15 every 

year. Where is the 2011 data? It was due in May, 2012. It is not 

here. It is not coming. And the committee should either instruct 

the Administration to produce the data, or waive any privilege 

against disclosure of the data. We tried to get the data, and the 

agency said no, there is a dilutive process privilege that bars you 

from getting it. Well, the committee has the power to waive that 

privilege.

And finally, we ask that the committee insist that the budget 

every year that you receive inform the committee just how much 

these contracts cost. Simple information used to be in the budget 

until 2010. Since 2010, it has not been included in the budget. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Lloyd Benton Miller follows:] 
295
296
297
298
299

Mr. MORAN. That was important testimony particularly. Thank 

you. It is something that we are going to have to be directly involved in. 

Mr. Chairman, could I just ask some questions? 

Mr. CALVERT. Gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. MORAN. So what you would like is for us to retain the prior 

language that we had, which—and basically ignore the President’s 

request, but the status quo that we have put in this subcommittee 

was acceptable? 

Mr. LLOYD MILLER. I think there are two options. That would be 

option two, if you will. 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LLOYD MILLER. Option one would be to go back to the language the committee had prior to fiscal year 1998 appropriations. 

Just a simple, clean appropriation, if it is $4 billion to the Indian 

Health Service, it is $4 billion. 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. 

Mr. LLOYD MILLER. And that money would be available to pay 

or not to pay the contracts. I respect the agency’s judgment. They 

might not choose to pay all the contracts, and that is their right. 

That is their right. But then the tribes that are underpaid would 

have the right to file—— 

Mr. MORAN. We are going back 6 years of appropriation bill—— 

Mr. LLOYD MILLER. Well, not to do anything retroactively. 

Mr. MORAN. No, I know that, but—okay. We are going to have 

to discuss this, and Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cole—— 

Mr. CALVERT. That is another reason we need to get back to regular order. I think we all agree to that. 

Mr. MORAN. That is for sure. 

Mr. CALVERT. President Keel, that begs a question. Do you believe that the President’s fiscal year 2014 BIA budget fairly and 

reasonably reflects the input from the Tribal Budget Council, and 

to add to that, do you think the budget process is worth the Tribal 

Budget Council’s time? 

Mr. KEEL. Well, the first answer is the budget, the 2014 budget—let me go back to some previous meetings of the Budget Council. We met and talked about information that was requested by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be included in the budget. Many 

of those recommendations were not seen in the budget formulation 

itself.

Being as a matter of a waste of time, I do not believe so. I believe 

that it is critical that the Council continue to work with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, but there has to be a more concerted effort in 

consulting with the tribes and listening to the tribal leaders prior 

to submitting the budget. 

It appears that the budget was or the President’s budget was 

given to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or to the agencies and said 

here it is. This is your budget and live with it, and many of the 

people, in their defense, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs or federal 

agencies across the Federal Government do not have any say in 

how to consult with tribal leaders or to consider those requests. 

They are simply given a document, and it comes back to the old 

announce and defend policy of the Federal Government. This is our 

budget, and I will defend it. And it is contrary to the President’s 
300

Executive Order for consultation. President Obama directed all federal agencies to develop and implement a consultation policy 

whereby the tribal leaders would be involved in the process of developing not only budgets, but any action that affects tribal leaders, 

tribal governments, and tribal people. Tribal leaders should be involved in that process, and they have not been. 

Mr. CALVERT. All right, I thank the gentleman. 

Any other questions? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, more of a comment maybe for some 

follow-up on healthcare, and first, you know, it is devastating to so 

many of us. I mean, we had a false impression and it was a very 

false face of what was going to happen with Indian health, and 

shame on all of us collectively for not doing our due diligence and 

drilling deeper and asking more questions about that. And so many 

people are suffering because of that, so my apologies. 

But on the healthcare issue, I think there are many of us who 

would like to see us try to put as many dollars back in as possible, 

so I think the more specifics that you are able to gather, the more 

helpful it would be. 

And then for some background information maybe in further discussions, in Minnesota—and I do not have all the information in 

front of me, so I might be misspeaking. I hope that I am not. I am 

trying to remember without all my notes in front of me. Our urban 

health clinic also serves as a federal community health clinic, so it 

is a combination. 

Ms. SKEETER. Some of them, yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Some of them are. So my question to you, and 

not that that is a trend that they should all go to, I mean, maybe 

that is what works best with the community, but if you have within those facilities—and my staff is going to look into it, or maybe 

you have some information—do we have one community clinic that 

is two halves, and if you enter in through, basically, one door, you 

do not have to worry about what is going to happen with contract 

support. If you enter on the other door because you are coming in 

as a community member qualifying, then you do not have to worry 

about caps. And so my point is, I mean, here we have people literally sitting next to each other in a waiting room—— 

Ms. SKEETER. Right. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM [continuing]. With a community health clinic 

that started out as an Indian health clinic that now other people 

are using, so if there are some examples that you could help this 

committee with that in making our point about how this is not only 

morally wrong, wrong legally to our obligations, but how we literally have families sitting next together in the same waiting room 

in the United States of America being treated radically different by 

Indian urban health care. 

Ms. SKEETER. Yes, I would be more than happy to get you that 

information. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, and if there is no additional questions——

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could. I just want to underscore 

the point that has been made with regard to sequestration. The 

states and localities, as difficult as it is to do with the sequestra-
301

tion, only a quarter of their revenue is coming from the Federal 

Government. Three-quarters of the revenue that Indian tribes depend upon is coming from the Federal Government. So you could 

make a strong case—and it is strong because it is accurate, that 

the sequestration is three times more devastating to Indian tribal 

operations than it is to any other—you know, than it is to the rest 

of the American people. 

So I mean, I wish that the authorizing committee had fought for 

that and this—the members of this subcommittee, I think, were 

pretty consistently opposed to it, but that point needs to be made, 

and I appreciate the fact that our witnesses today have made it. 

It is now up to us, but you know, the ideal thing, of course, is to 

get rid of the damn sequestration, but other than that, at least to 

make that point when we are talking about further exemptions. 

The other thing, in terms of housing, we put extra money, I be- lieve $30 million in for school replacements for the Department of 

Defense military bases, and did not do anything, in fact, for Indian 

school replacement, which are in a more deteriorated condition 

than our military schools, under sequestration. So this was important testimony, and we thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank this panel. 

Ms. SKEETER. Thank you. 

Ms. ABRAMSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. Nice to see you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay, next panel will be Aurene Martin, Board 

Member of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, speaking for the National Indian Child Welfare Association; Dr. Rick 

Niederman, Director, the National Indian Education Association— 

excuse me, the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry and the 

Forsyth Institute; Dr. Heather Shotton, President of the National 

Indian Education Association; Quinton Roman Nose, Director of the 

Tribal Education Departments National Assembly; and D. Bambi 

Cross, President of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. 

I think first is Aurene. How are you doing? Welcome. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. We will get everybody up here. Great. 

Ms. MARTIN. Should I go ahead and start? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. Aurene, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

AURENE MARTIN 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name 

is Aurene Martin, and I am a member of the National Indian Child 

Welfare Association Board of Directors. I am their newest member, 

having been appointed last month. 

The National Indian Child Welfare Association, or NICWA, is a 

national American Indian and Alaskan Native organization with 
302

over 25 years’ experience in public policy development, focused on 

native children and families. We work closely with tribal governments and tribal organizations like NCAI to further our goals. 

Our mission is two-fold. First, we address issues of child abuse 

and neglect through research, public policy, training, and grass 

roots community development. Our other goal is to support enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

Our primary focus today is going to be on the BIA budget as it 

relates to native children and families. 

It is important to note that where abuse and neglect has been 

reported, native children are twice as likely to be investigated. 

They are two times more likely to have been found that these 

abuse allegations are substantiated, and they are four times more 

likely to be placed out of their homes than the national average. 

This has led to overrepresentation of native children and placed in 

foster care at twice the national average, and in several states, this 

average—they are placed at a rate far higher, more than 10 times 

the national average. 

Nevertheless, tribal governments have some of the most limited 

access to federal child welfare funding, and in many cases, do not 

have access to funding at all. This is specifically true of the Social 

Services Block Grant, Medicaid, and the Mental Healthcare Block 

Grant.

But the surest way to stem the flow of native children into foster 

care is to protect their children and families, whether they are at 

home or in state care. This has been borne out by actually a GAO 

report that was issued in 2005 that found where tribes actually 

participate with states in the placement of the children, that they 

are tremendously helpful and vital in putting the family back together and getting the children back home. 

And even though the Indian Child Welfare Act recognizes the 

tribes’ sovereign right to intervene in state child welfare proceedings, tribes’ abilities cannot keep up because they are so severely underfunded. I know this from my own professional experience, having worked with these cases. A lot of these cases are 

just—they take place so far away from the reservation, tribes just 

do not have the ability to go to different cities and participate, so 

it is very difficult. 

For these reasons, we provide the following recommendations. 

First, we recommend that the Indian Child Protection and Family 

Violence Prevention Act programs be increased by a total of $40 

million, $10 million to the Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant, 

and $30 million to the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence 

Protection Grant Program. These two grant programs are our highest priority and in fact, neither of these programs for native children has ever received a dollar of funding since they were authorized in 1991, despite being the only funds of this nature that are 

authorized for native children. 

Last year, 11 of every 1,000 native children were abused or neglected, and further, native women are more likely than any other 

single group to experience domestic violence at some point in their 

lives. And many of these women have children that they are caring 

for who witness this abuse or who also are victims of the abuse. 

Yet there is no funding available to help these children, specifically 
303

help these children. This underscores the need for tribal access to 

family violence prevention funding that takes into account the relationship between the child and maltreatment and domestic violence 

in their families. So we are asking that the Indian Child Protection 

and Family Violence Grant Program be funded at $30 million, and 

that the Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant Program would be 

funded at $10 million. 

Our second recommendation is that the Indian Child Welfare Act 

Title II funding for our reservation child services program be increased by $10 million, for an approximate total of $30 million for 

2014.

Tribal child welfare programs work with some of the most at risk 

and needy families in America, and in spite of this, they have access to fewer resources and state counterparts. In fact, when ICWA 

was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that at least $26 million 

was required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs, and yet, 

this year the funding level would be around $19 million. This 

means that although almost every tribe receives this funding, more 

than two-thirds of tribes receive less than $30,000. And they are 

supposed to use this $30,000 to support a wide array of essential 

child welfare services, including child protective services, family reunification and rehabilitation, case management, foster care recruitment and retention, and adoption services. That just does not 

go very far. An allocation of $30 million will provide a level of funding which will increase travel capacity to serve children in their jurisdiction and in state child welfare services. 

Third, we are recommending that child assistance funds, that re- quest be increased by $10 million to $35 million. Tribal governments have a responsibility to support out-of-home placement of 

native children under their jurisdiction that live on tribal lands 

and cannot safely remain in their homes. These funds provide 

tribes the necessary resources to make basic payments to families 

willing to provide foster care, kinship placement, guardianship, 

adoptive placement for children removed from their homes. Without these funds, tribes would have to place children in unsubsidized foster care. They would not be covered at all. This is usually used to either augment or be the match for Title IV, e-funds. 

I will just give my last one. We are also recommending that off reservation child welfare grant be reestablished and funded at $2 

million.

[The statement of Aurene Martin follows:] 
304
305
306
307
308

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

We are going to try to stick to the 5-minute rule, because we are 

already running a little bit behind. 

Dr. Rick Niederman, Director of the Center of Evidence-Based 

Dentistry and the Forsyth Institute. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

CENTER FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY, THE 

FORSYTH INSTITUTE 

WITNESS

DR. RICK NIEDERMAN 

Mr. NIEDERMAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank the committee for allowing us to testify, allowing me to testify for supporting oral health care, and for supporting oral health care for 

American Indians, Native Americans. 

What I would like to do is really three-fold: thank the committee 

for their continuing support; I want to commend the IHS for their 

Early Childhood Caries Program; and third, I want to advocate for 

an extension of the Early Childhood Caries to elementary schools 

for a pilot program. So my plan is to share with you—to back up 

a little bit, to share with you about Forsyth and why I am here, 

give you a very high level view of the oral health care problem for 

Native Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and then 

offer a cost effective solution that we have already done in six 

states.

So by way of background, Forsyth is a century-old nonprofit Harvard-affiliated institute. It was founded 100 years ago to provide 

free care to Boston’s poor kids. We did that for 50 years, and with 

the advent of community health centers, switched to looking at the 

causes of cavities and gum disease. So we spent 50 years figuring 

out that gum disease and cavities are preventable infections, and 

we figured out how to prevent the infections. So now in our third 

50 years, we are taking that information back into the community. 

And as I just indicated, we have programs in Massachusetts, 

Maine, New Hampshire, Kansas, Colorado, and Hawaii. We think 

that the programs work. We have data that they work, and I will 

share that with you. We would like to move to Native Americans, 

American Indians, Alaskan Natives. 

So let me shift to the data, and everybody has data, and everybody has different data, so I am going to cite two different sources. 

One is the Healthy People 2010 Initiative. So their finding is that 

for children between 6 and 12, 30 percent of Americans have untreated decays. Twice that many American Indians, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives have untreated decay. Five percent of those 

kids have acute infections and pain. 

Last year, the Indian Health Service, in collaboration with Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, found that 6 to 8 year olds, 83 

percent of kids have either untreated cavities or treated cavities. 

Again, way over the national average, twice the national average, 

and way over the Healthy People goals. 
309

So what is the result of that? Well, any of you have had a toothache know that you cannot think, you cannot concentrate, and if 

you have 5 percent of the kids in a classroom who cannot think or 

concentrate are acting out. They are not learning and they are disrupting learning for everybody else in the classroom. They also are 

not eating well, and if you project forward 20 years, people that 

have cavities that are not treated lose their teeth. So if you look 

around the room at your committee members, my guess is that everybody has their front teeth, and they look pretty good. And if you 

were a committee member and you were missing a front tooth, your 

immediate reaction would be that there is something wrong with 

the person and that they are mentally challenged, that there is 

something wrong with them. Well, that is what happens when you 

do not have simple prevention that can occur in elementary 

schools. So you end up with poor self-image, and often unemployed. 

So what are the solutions? The CDC has a number of solutions, 

the primary one being prevention, as you might suspect by the 

name of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One of the 

things that is key for them is elementary school-based prevention. 

You have 6 years when children are learning. They are learning 

their ABCs, they are learning personal hygiene. They are learning 

self-efficacy, and learning good habits. They are learning skill sets 

that they carry with them for the rest of their life, so we are advocating, just like the CDC, for school-based prevention. And it is 

particularly important for kids, when they have distances from 

where they can get primary care. 

So back to Forsyth and what we do and what we know. We know 

it is a grand pas and preventable infection, and what we have 

learned is that with common preventative techniques, that is, parachuting into a rural school with a dentist and a team, we can do 

dental exams, provide comprehensive prevention. By that, I mean 

a cleaning, fluoride, varnish, sealants, and temporary restorations. 

Time out of class is 15 minutes per period, so twice a year, 15 minutes, with a community care coordinator to help get those kids to 

care.

Now I think the biggest piece—let me give you a graph. The Yaxis going up and down is a percentage of kids with untreated case, 

so these are Title I schools for Massachusetts, and each circle represents one school. Each school is about 200 kids, so when we are 

going into Title I schools—these are not Indian schools, they are 

Alaskan Native. These are schools on the East Coast, but the numbers are similar to Native Americans, American Indians, Alaskan 

Natives. Sixty-seven percent of untreated decay. Six years later, 

the time it takes to get through elementary school, we have driven 

the percentage of kids with untreated decay down to 21 percent. So 

in 6 years, we can exceed the Healthy People 2020 goals prior to 

2010. That is the effectiveness of the program. 

So what we are requesting is that the committee consider extending the Early Childhood Caries Prevention Program to elementary 

schools, and providing $5 million for a pilot program. 

So let me break down what that means: $5 million over 5 years 

for five reservations for about 5,000 kids total. That is $200 per kid 

per year, or $100 for prevention. That is about one quarter of the 

cost of a dental office practice, and our national data indicates that 
310

what we currently spend does not move the needle on care for Caries. With this program, we can achieve healthcare’s tripling aim of 

increasing access, reducing costs, improving health. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Rick Niederman follows:] 
311
312
313
314
315

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Next, Dr. Heather Shotton, President of the National Indian 

Education Association. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

DR. HEATHER SHOTTON 

Ms. SHOTTON. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, 

Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for convening this important hearing and inviting the 

National Indian Education Association to the table once again to 

testify. Again, my name is Dr. Heather Shotton, and I am the 

President of NIEA, and a citizen of the Wichita and affiliated 

tribes.

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

testimony, and with respect to others who are testifying today, I 

will only highlight a few of our budget recommendations and other 

Native education concerns, but I respectfully request that you utilize my written testimony for NIEA funding recommendations. 

Mr. CALVERT. All of the testimony is—— 

Ms. SHOTTON. NIEA understands the current fiscal climate; however, without sustained or increased funding for Native education 

programs, increasing achievement rates among Native students 

and achieving parity for Native education will prove extremely difficult. 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 in the country. The situation is increasingly dire for Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

Underlying this issue is the poor condition of many of these 

schools. Schools operated within the BIE system are woefully outdated, and in some cases, dangerous. More than 60 BIE schools are 

rated in poor condition currently, according to the 2009 BIE index. 

This puts our students at an unfair disadvantage, and students 

cannot be expected to succeed in school environments that are 

often dilapidated and unsafe. 

Full funding is imperative; therefore, NIEA requests total construction funding to be appropriated at $263 million for the fiscal 

year 2014. In February, you all know that I testified on the need 

to increase funding for BIE school replacement construction; however, in the recently adopted Continuing Resolution and in the 

President’s 2014 budget request for the BIE, the entire program 

was eliminated. 

NIEA requests this subcommittee to reinstate the $17 million appropriated in the fiscal year 2012, and strengthen this crucial program by increasing funds so our Native students have the opportunity to attend safe and structurally sound schools. In addition to 

construction funding cuts, the President’s budget request would 

also reduce the Indian School Equalization Program, or ISEP 

funds, by $16.5 million. ISEP provides the core budget account for 
316

BIE elementary and secondary schools by covering teacher salaries, 

aids, principals, and other personnel. ISEP funds are also often reallocated to cover the program cuts and other areas of education. 

Current budget constraints and funding other programs or initiatives should not decrease critical ISEP funds. NIEA requests ISEP 

be funded at $431 million to ensure program needs are fulfilled. NIEA appreciates the $9.8 million increase in contract support costs, the funding over 2012; however, $231 million is still below 

the target of the $242 million needed for BIA contract support 

funding in fiscal year 2014. Furthermore, NIEA opposes the Administration’s 2014 proposal to impose significant changes in the 

BIE by moving line item funding for CSCs to a separate account 

from the operation of Indian programs. No change should be implemented until there has been thorough consultation and studies undertaken jointly by federal agencies and Native partners. Congress 

should maintain the status quo until tribally developed changes in 

CSC funding mechanisms, if any, can be included in the fiscal year 

2016 budget. During the interim, NIEA calls upon this subcommittee to conduct oversight hearings. 

In a March 25, 2013, letter to this subcommittee former Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar explained that based on 

the 2012 broader assessment, the BIE will soon implement a reorganization of its administrative functions. The realignment is expected to focus on providing more efficient, regional, and locally 

driven support for decentralizing certain administrative functions 

from BIE headquarters here in D.C. 

NIEA understands the bureaucratic entanglements in the BIE, 

but requests sufficient resources for proper oversight to guarantee 

consistent, transparent communication between tribal partners and 

federal officials during this realignment. There must be adequate 

measures in place locally and in Washington to ensure this reorganization fulfills its expectations. There should be opportunities to 

include parent, teacher, employee, and tribal comments throughout 

the process and upon completion of the transition. Native partners 

should also have a chance to provide comments on any realignment-based office closures, as well as staffing transitions. Additionally, there should be procedures in place to ensure consistent access to information so the transition can be as seamless as possible. 

We ask this subcommittee to provide oversight to ensure administrative costs and bureaucracy are actually decreased, while increasing services. 

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, NIEA appreciates 

your work to protect funding for Native programs and your continued dedication to improving our communities and protecting Native 

education. We look forward to working with you to strengthen native education programs and to protect vital funding that will help 

achieve educational parity for our native students. [Speaking native language.] 

[The statement of Heather Shotton follows:] 
317
318
319
320
321
322

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Next, Quinton Roman Nose, Executive Director of Tribal Education Departments National Assembly. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS NATIONAL 

ASSEMBLY

WITNESS

QUINTON ROMAN NOSE 

Mr. ROMAN NOSE. [Speaking native language.] Good morning. 

Today I am representing the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly, also known as TEDNA, a national nonprofit organization for tribal education departments and agencies. TEDs are 

an executive branch of American Indian governments responsible 

for tribal education. 

I want to introduce myself. My name is Quinton Roman Nose. I 

am Cheyenne. I am a citizen of the Cheyenne Arapaho tribes, and 

I got to tell you real quickly, my Indian name is Mano McCloud, 

and I tell you that because my great-grandfather, his Indian name 

was Roman Nose, and he was here over 100 years ago. He was a 

captured war hero in Oklahoma, sent to prison in Fort Marion, 

later Captain Pratt brought him to Hampton along with other warriors, and they came to Congress and they asked for money to establish Carlisle Indian School. And so it is with that spirit of wanting to partner to improve the education of our Indian students that 

I am here today. So TEDNA requests $2 million for TEDs and the Department of 

Interior for the fiscal year 2014. Funding would be used to direct 

education services to approximately 700 American Indian and Alaskan Native students across the country. Funding for TEDs through 

the Department of Interior has been authorized in Title X of the 

ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind, since 1988, 25 years 

ago. It has never been appropriated. It has been authorized and 

never appropriated. In fact, despite important role of TEDs in 

American Indian education, tribal governments receive very little 

funding from the Federal Government for education. Tribes are not 

eligible for the majority of federal education funding and ESEA allocated for American Indian education. 

Most of the funding for programs serving American institutes 

goes to states. Indeed, over 92 percent of American Indians are in 

public schools, and the rest of them are in BIE and parochial 

schools. Current federal education policy effectively excludes tribes 

from meaningful participation in all schools serving American Indian students. Meanwhile, American Indian education is in a state 

of crisis. I am not going to go through all the data on dropout rates, 

success rates and absenteeism, expulsion. You can find that. 

For over 30 years, the policy of Indian education self-determination has proved that federal programs better American Indian communities when operated when American Indian tribal governments, yet it is not applied in education. It is time for the policy 

of self-determination is adopted in the area of American Indian 
323

education. In 2012, when Congress for the first time appropriated 

TEDs for funding in the U.S. Department of Education, the funding 

was used to support State Tribal Education Partnership Program, 

also known as STEPP program, in which tribes and states combined resources to implement ESEA programs for public schools located on Indian reservations. These four grantees are currently implemented and supported the type of tribal/state relationships that 

we want for Indian education and tribal leaders who have long 

called for a meaningful way to improve Indian education. 

Yet there is an opportunity to do more. TEDs across the country need additional support. They would be used to request $2 million 

from Interior appropriations to fulfill the original intent of the ’88 

authorizations.

Moreover, tribal funding is targeted to critical immediate needs 

such as scholarships, student clothing, and other needs. Federal 

funding is needed in order for tribes to engage in core education 

areas. Tribes with the resources to do so have shown remarkable 

success. In recent publications, Hoopa Valley, Rosebud Sioux of 

South Dakota, Jemez TED in New Mexico, the Chickasaw Nation 

of Oklahoma, and their various projects have shown improvement 

that they have actively changed the success of their Native American students. Federal support is needed to assist tribes in implementing these programs and other programs that will improve education. TEDNA encourages the subcommittee to appropriate funding for Department of Interior to support the role of TEDs in 

schools serving American Indian students. This would begin and 

implement policy of self-determination for American Indian education, and further the United States trust responsibility in Indian 

students.

Furthermore, I want to say the STEPP program is not available 

to the BIE-funded schools, because they are not receiving direct 

federal funding. But also, I wanted to add that you heard testimony about the construction of the schools. You know, that has 

been a sore spot for Indian education and schools and reservations 

for a long time. We will ask that the committee here look at the 

BIE and ask them to be more of a standalone bureau. I can tell 

you that the non-success of the school program was because of bureaucracy which is happening in the BIE. I can see public schools 

in Oklahoma where I am from that go up in less than a year. In 

BIE, it takes years to build a building. So I ask that you look at 

BIE to be a standalone agency. 

I have other things to say, but it is in my written testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Quinton Roman Nose follows:] 
324
325
326
327
328

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Next, Bambi Cross, President of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRIBAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICERS 

WITNESS

D. BAMBI KRAUS 

Ms. KRAUS. Good morning. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert, and members of the subcommittee. I am here representing the 

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. I am 

based here in Washington, D.C., and I am a member of the Tlingit 

Tribe from Kake, Alaska. And I would like to thank the committee 

for your annual hearing. I think for you to hear directly from Indian country on these Federal programs that describe, you know, 

our personal lives is greatly appreciated. I think these are some of 

the most interesting hearings on Capitol Hill, quite frankly. 

The National Association works with the tribes that operate tribal historic preservation offices. We call them THPOs, and right now 

there are 142 from Alaska to Florida, and from Maine to California, so California has the greatest number of THPOs. For example, over 25 tribes are participating in this program. They were authorized by the 1992 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, and so that is rather late in the historic preservation 

field. Last week the committee heard public witnesses on the National Park Service’s program that operates this particular support 

program, and that is the Historic Preservation Fund. So the 

NATHPO is requesting at least $10 million for the tribal line item 

of the Historic Preservation Fund of the National Park Service. 

I actually think that this might be the most successful Federal 

program going right now. It started with 12 programs in 1996, and 

now it is up to 142, but the past five years has been an incredible 

growth. It went from 79 to 142. And the issue is not so much the 

success, and I am sure Congress intended this program to be successful. It is just keeping pace with the number of tribes participating in the program. And it is a very successful program, and the 

Park Service has entered into these agreements with the tribes to 

preserve and protect historic properties on tribal lands and off tribal lands. Right now, in fiscal year 2013, the average grant will 

probably be below $60,000, and that is for one tribe to operate an 

entire historic preservation program. The highest was over 

$140,000 10 years ago, but as more tribes come into the program, 

it makes the pie that much smaller for each of them. 

I just wanted to point out also that there are some serious disparities between the state historic preservation officers and the 

tribal historic preservation officers. There are 56 SHPOs, and that 

includes in the Territories, if you are wondering how do you get to 

56 States. And at one point all the Territories, and I am talking 

about Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, were receiving more 

than 31 Indian tribes. So six state historic preservation officers 
329

were receiving more than all the Indian tribes going in the country, 

and the smallest territory still receives about twice as much as the 

largest Indian tribe. So, for example, Guam receives twice as much 

as the entire Navajo Nation, which has 17 million acres. So there 

are still existing disparities there. 

Some of the comments I have heard, in terms of operating the 

program, and why tribes, you know, perhaps are not getting the attention that they deserve is that the tribes are not required to 

match this grant from the Park Service, but the tribes are matching the program. I mean, at $60,000, you cannot operate a program 

without a tribal match. So I want to point out that it might not 

be mandatory for the match, but tribes are actually doing so. And 

another point I have heard is that the tribes do not have to participate in the tax credit program. Well, one thing that you need for 

a tax credit program to work is you actually need infrastructure, 

and something to write off your taxes for development. So, I mean, 

it is hard to, you know, understand how tribes can be held to that 

level, especially with a serious lack of funding. 

And then the last item I just have been urged to bring up is that 

the SHPO funding formula actually includes a tribal land base. 

And so the State of Montana, part of their funding formula includes the tribal lands for the State of Montana. It is just something that could use some attention in the near future. 

The only other Federal program that tribes can really utilize to 

preserve and protect is the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act. That is also operated out of the Park Service. 

And I just want to bring one example of the need, again, for more 

attention to this program is that there was a recent auction just 

2 weeks ago in Paris, France of over 70 ceremonial masks from the 

Hopians Indian tribe that were allowed to go forward overseas, in 

France. And our organization had requested the administration 

look into whether or not these items were actually stolen, or could 

the auctioneers actually prove right of possession that would allow 

them to auction these off to the highest bidder in Paris? 

Unfortunately, we were not successful in that effort, but there 

are examples of why enforcement money is needed for the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. If there had 

been some enforcement funds, we could have, you know, tried to 

stop this, or we could at least, you know, make sure that they had 

the right to possession to auction those off. 

And just to wrap up, I want to just say that even though the 

THPO grants and the NAGPRA grants are the only two main 

sources of funding for tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs should 

also have its own tribal line item, because right now they have responsibilities to comply with Federal laws, and yet they have no 

distinct line item for this purpose, for in-house work or for tribal 

work.

So thank you very much for your time. 

[The statement of D. Bambi Kraus follows:] 
330
331
332
333
334

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. Now, open for questions. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for your testimony, Ms. Martin. The history of 

child placement, children being removed from their homes to attend schools, it is shameful, it is hurtful, it is an ugly part of our 

shared American history. The work you do is really, really important, and I would ask this question, whether it be Ramsey County, 

Dakota County, or Washington County in Minnesota. 

I am sure you are aware of what happened in North Dakota and 

what has come to light in the Spirit Lake Reservation, and your 

testimony was brief. Part of what needs to be happen is there 

needs to be more money in violence, domestic prevention, chemical 

dependency. And we need to put more money into the programs 

that you were talking about, but if you cannot get back to me 

today, briefly, I would really like a more intensive conversation on 

what we can do collectively to not only stop the child abuse that 

goes on in foster placement, as I said, in Ramsey, Washington, Dakota Counties, all around here, where counties are in charge of foster placement, but also what we know as neglect on reservations 

when foster placement is taken forward. 

And there is a ‘‘New York Times’’ article, and I wanted to refer 

to it. There is much talk back home, I am from Minnesota, about 

what happened. Collectively, we all have to understand what is in 

the best interest of our children. Best interest of the children is 

being with their family and their community first, but we need to 

make sure that family and that community is safe. And according 

to the tribe, Federal officials found out that a hired children’s case 

worker had been convicted of felony child abuse, and was employed. Another social worker was discovered, you know, a oneyear-old child covered with wood ticks, but never taken to the hospital.

This happens in every community. Human beings all make mistakes, and do not always stand up in the best interest of children, 

but, as you move forward, I want to know what we can do collectively to help reservations have strong, solid programs that will become model programs into the future. So if you could get back to 

our office later, or if you would want to comment now? You know, 

this is an uncomfortable conversation I am having, but if we do not 

speak for the children, who will? And I know you are here to speak 

for children. 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, I will get back to you later today to talk about 

this more, but I think, you know, at a minimum, money cannot 

solve everything, but it definitely helps. And if there is more funding available, we are able to do better background checks, to provide better technical assistance to tribes, and to just beef up their 

infrastructure so that these things do not happen. But I would be 

happy to talk to your office later today and come up with a better, 

more concrete answer for you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, we want to work together for the success 

of your program, and so one of the things that we need to do is to 

do better oversight, and listen to your concerns, your needs, your 

ideas on how to improve the system, because it let a lot of children 

down. Just as off reservation, in counties around the United States, 
335

we failed children and let them down too, so we need to do the 

same due diligence and that is the spirit in which I ask those questions. Thank you. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Just a real quick question, sir, regarding Indian 

dental care, and why dental health in those communities is obviously worse than anywhere else, apparently, statistically, in the 

country. What is the main culprit for that? 

Mr. NIEDERMAN. So the culprit is bacteria, but we have not investigated—I would say there is the what and the why. We know 

what——

Mr. GRAVES. Education that is necessary for dental care in that 

community that is not being—— 

Mr. NIEDERMAN. There is no evidence that education anywhere——

Mr. GRAVES. Is that—— 

Mr. NIDERMAN [continuing]. Is effective altering oral health. 

What is effective is prevention. So what we found out is what to 

do. We are still looking at the why. So the chart I showed shows 

what we can achieve by doing comprehensive prevention that is not 

currently available. Most dentists are trained to do treatment, not 

prevention. Most programs are compensated to provide treatment, 

not prevention. We just switched the paradigm around. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

And just one quick comment, sir. I agree with you that we ought 

to give Indian country more discretion on how they operate their 

own schools, and I think that is a common goal that we should 

share.

With that, I thank this panel, and appreciate your testimony, 

and we are going to recognize the next panel. 

Silas C. Whitman, Executive Committee Chairman of the Nez 

Perce Tribe. 

Dennis Smith, Chairman of the Shoshone Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. 

Bud Lane, Vice Chairman of the Siletz Tribe. 

Aaron Hines, General Council Chairman of the Confederated 

Tribes of the—forgive me if I mispronounce some of these— 

Umatilla Indian reservation. 

And Ron Suppah, vice Chairman of The Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as members are coming up and being 

seated, you will notice that some of us are in and out of this room. 

The Department of Defense is having a hearing right now. Some 

of us serve on that committee. But the people that are the Department of Defense are the doctors that are talking about medical 

records, and things that we want to have transferred back and 

forth between Indian country, so that is why we are leaving. We 

are kind of doing double duty. And a lot of it impacts, as we have 

a veteran here at the table, making sure that our Native American 

warriors are given their due health care in the Department of De-
336

fense. So that is why you are seeing some of us move around back 

and forth. 

Mr. CALVERT. Matter of fact, the four seated members here are 

all on the Defense and Appropriations subcommittees, so that is 

why you see a lot of moving up and down, so we apologize for that. 

Thank you. 

So, with that, Silas Whitman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE 

WITNESS

SILAS C. WHITMAN 

Mr. WHITMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my pleasure and 

honor to be here on behalf of my people, the Nez Perce Tribe. I 

have written testimony that has been provided to the committee. 

The provision of this testimony, I guess it would say, prioritizes 

the spending of the United States regarding Indian Health Service, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to the needs of 

our many tribal nations. As a government, we provide a multitude 

of services that are backed in large part only by our tribes’ resources. You know, from our different methods of operation we 

have economic services, but also from the Federal Government. 

Quickly, going down the comprehensive natural resource program and enjoy, that is a collaboration and coordination between 

the Federal agencies and the states that we reside in. Our operations include Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The resource programs we have are forestry and timber management, 

land services, land management, habitat and watershed restorations, air quality, smoke management, water quality and water 

management, ecosystem, ecological operations that use cultural resources and traditions that direct, in our treated territories, how 

we go about managing, the fisheries recovery and restoration, including endangered species work and research that we do, big 

game management, that includes wildlife management for predators and prey, determined, again, by cultural resource traditions 

that we have, and all those treaty lands in our adjudicated lands. 

The comprehensive administration framework that we have allows us to provide the exercise of sovereignty for our operations. 

With all these treaty rights and obligations that we have through 

the Federal Government, it requires extensive coordination and collaboration. Thereupon, we look at the issues of contract support. 

You have heard from Mr. Miller. We have a problem. The statutory 

language that was invoked was done so without any consultation 

and coordination with the Indian nations. We do not take that 

lightly. The issues that we are looking at, then, is to have the funding in there that we would require, Preventative Health Service 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are looking at the contract 

support cost, $615 million that we are requiring through the Indian 
337

Health Service, the BIA, to fully the contract support that we need 

for $242 million. 

Right now the land services request we need for our Snake River 

Basin adjudication. It is critically important for us, timely funding. 

We need that. We need to get our surveys for those lands that were 

supposedly returned to us through the Bureau of Land Management. We cannot really take those lands and work with them until 

we get the surveys accomplished. Since 2004 we have not been able 

to fully engage getting those surveys taken care of, and their costs. 

The BIA public safety is another critical issue. We have a full 

service law and justice program, courts, police force, prosecutor. We 

cannot do that without getting the support necessary, through the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, to get that funded at the full amount. We 

are looking at getting our education. We want $36 million, backing 

what the rest of the tribes want, for Johnson-O’Malley. The Tribal 

Education Department’s $5 million, and $94.3 million we are looking to save tribal colleges. You know, we are supporting that. We 

have a tribal college on our reservation that we are dependent 

upon. Rights protection, $49.5 million covers our treaty watersheds in 

that multiple state area. The fisheries, very critical to us. The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, 11 million. The BIA wildlife and 

parks, we are looking at full funding for that in support. All those 

issues we can back by data. At this point, the Environmental Protection Agency is extremely critical for our operations. That, as well 

as funding for the Forest Service. We are such a large area that 

we require a lot of collaboration and coordination with our attempts at providing a quality of life that was guaranteed to us, 

that we are trying to support within our treaty language. 

So, with that, I will close my testimony. 

[The statement of Silas C. Whitman follows:] 
338
339
340
341
342

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

And next, Dennis Smith, Chairman of the Shoshone Palute 

Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SHOSHONE PALUTE TRIBES OF THE DUCK VALLEY 

INDIAN RESERVATION 

WITNESS

DENNIS SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Good morning. I want to thank you, Mr. Calvert, and 

Ranking Member Moran, and members of the committee that you 

invited us here to testify before you. God bless you people. 

I am Dennis Smith, Senior Chairman of the Shoshone Palute 

Tribes of Duck Valley Indian Reservation. I am here with a heavy 

heart. Our former chairman, Terry Gibson—he was a strong advocate for our tribes. He will be missed. I am here on behalf of the 

tribal council to represent the tribes, as Former Gibson did before 

me.

First I want to discuss contract support costs. These funds help 

us carry out all our Indian Self-Determined Act contracts. And I 

really do respect, and I really do appreciate, the comments that I 

hear of some of the committee members back to the presenters. 

God bless you guys, you are right on board with us. 

For years the BIA and IHS failed to pay us our full contract support cost amounts. In 2005, after years of litigation in the courts, 

the United States Supreme Court said that our self-determined 

contracts had to be honored, and the United States had to pay the 

full amount asked, committing to fully funding tribal contact support. My question is, and this is the question in Indian country, 

why do we have to litigate? We do not need to litigate. Tribes do 

not have that kind of money. But in order to keep the trust and 

responsibility of the Federal Government, you have got to go to 

court.

There are so many things I would like to say. It is hard to try to say this in 5 minutes. We are asking you to add $140 million 

to Indian Health’s budget above the President’s 2014 request. Add 

$12 million to the BIA budget above the President’s 2014 request. 

We strongly approve the administration’s unilateral plans to cap 

contract support cost payments and eliminate future claims. That 

is why I said a little while ago, I appreciate you guys acknowledging that. You have an administration out there that is not abiding by, I think it started with President Reagan, mandates the 

Federal Government to sit down in true consultation with any tribal governments. We sit down, like we are doing here, you have consultation, and hopefully we can reach a compromise. But that is 

not happening in a lot of cases. 

Why are these administrators, Dr. Robideaux, Mr. Kevin 

Washborn, why are they allowed to do what they are doing to the 

tribes? It is not ethical. Why would the administration treat Indian 

tribes different than all other government contractors? Do you have 

a contract with GE? Do you have a contract with Boeing? Do you 
343

have that kind of stuff? Do you have administrators out there putting you people in a position where we are having to come to you 

and tell you about these things? I do not think so. Why are we 

treated different? We should not be. The administration, to honor 

the trust, responds and consults with tribes, and we reject the administration plans. 

Second, 2 years ago, when heavy rains flooded the basement of 

our administrative building, they became infested with black mold. 

For health reasons, we closed offices, and now work in little small 

trailers. How we survive, I do not know, but we are surviving, bless 

the Creator. We have obtained $3 million in U.S. loans to replace 

our administrative office over time, in six phases. We would ask 

that you increase the BIA construction budget to provide construction dollars and BIA loan and loan guarantee programs to help us 

replace our tribal headquarters. BIA construction monies, my 

friends, is obsolete, as a lot of other fundings in the Federal programs that are obligated to help us. 

Third, for over a decade we have wanted to build a juvenile detention center in our reservation. We secured Justice Department 

grants, and built a secure facility, but we always wanted to provide 

treatment programs. In 2010 Congress passed the Tribal Law and 

Order Act. That act recognized that treatment and counseling is 

critical, and directed the BIA, HIS, and Justice to coordinate with 

the tribes. I ask the committee to increase BIA public safety, Justice funding, education, and construction funds, and IH service dollars to ensure that tribes can successfully operate and maintain juvenile facilities and get the treatment programs and services our 

youth deserve. 

BIA selected us for a pilot project this year, to prepare a plan to 

ensure that, as we renovate our juvenile facility for treatment, we 

can successfully provide treatment services in the new facility. It 

is important. We were selected, one of three tribes, as a pilot 

project. They are asking us for a plan. What happened to the plans 

years ago, when they first put this out in Indian country? Bruce 

Babbitt was the Secretary of Interior at the time. We had came 

here, and the tribal leaders, we met with him, and we told him our 

concern about this. We told him about probably the lack of funding, 

and that is where we are at right now. There are no monies. 

A lot of times I feel, and no offense to anybody, but a lot of times 

I feel the Federal Government comes and says, okay, we are selfgoverning this tribe. Get in, you know, do this, we have got the 

funding. And when there is no lack of funding, people like me, in 

my reservation, 100 miles north of Boise, Idaho, 100 miles north 

of Elko, Nevada, we are sitting out there, so we depend upon the 

Federal Government to help us. They are not there, so I do not 

want use the word failure, but because of lack of funding that we 

have contracts with the Federal Government, we cannot achieve 

the goals that we are wanting to achieve for our tribal neighbors. 

We are asking $1 million to fund our culture resource project. In 

2009 Congress passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. 

The Act includes inception of the Shoshone Palute Tribal Resources 

Program. The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate with tribes to implement our culture resource protection plan, 

and, to quote the words of the statute, ‘‘to protect cultural sites and 
344

visas important to the continuation of the traditions and beliefs of 

the tribes.’’ The Act authorized funding for the program. In 2010 

the Bureau of Land Management gave us money to buy planes and 

hire rangers and cultural service director, and now that money has 

run out. 

It is up to Congress to provide the additional funds. We need $ 

one million to keep the program going, to retain the chief ranger 

and cultural reservation director, and hire youth ranger staff, and 

build a hangar for our two planes. It is very important to us to protect tribally sensitive cultural sites, and work with BLM and other 

stakeholders.

Finally, we ask that you fund our water rights settlement. The 

water settlement took years to work out. The Act, Public Law 111– 

11, authorized 60 million for our water settlement to be paid to the 

Treasury for an irrigation project. We ask the committee to support 

the President’s budget request for $12 million to fund the settlement. It is another installment to fund our irrigation project. You 

will create jobs for our reservation to rehabilitate our existing irrigation system. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Dennis Smith follows:] 
345
346
347
348
349

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Next, Bud Lane, Vice Chairman of the—I pronounce this right— 

Siletz Tribe? 

Mr. LANE. Siletz. 

Mr. CALVERT. Siletz Tribe, excuse me. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SILETZ TRIBE 

WITNESS

BUD LANE 

Mr. LANE. Thank you. My name is Bud Lane. There we go. My 

name is Bud Lane, and I serve as vice chairman of the tribal council for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon. Our 

tribe is a self-governance tribe, with a tribal membership on reservation, and scattered across 11 counties in Western Oregon. We 

negotiate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health 

Service for our share of BIA and IHS programs, which we receive 

annually in one lump sum. 

I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to 

explain some of our specific funding requests and issues. I would 

start with contract health services. This program is the most important budget line item in the IHS budget for the Siletz Tribe. 

IHS areas, like the Portland area, with no IHS or tribal hospitals, 

are 100 percent dependent on contract health services resources to 

pay for hospitalizations and hospital services, including specialty 

care. Access to the Medicare-like rates beginning in July 2007 

helped alleviate some of the backlog of cases, and relaxed priorities 

for a short period, but funding sufficient to address inflation and 

population growth is critical to maintain our current levels of care. 

The current funding does not begin to address the tremendous 

backlog of deferred care. 

Deferred services are those services that, while medically necessary, do not meet current funding priorities. Our CHS program 

accumulated a deferred services list of 278 medical, dental, and 

mental health requests in 2011, and 230 for 2012. Surgeries, such 

as carpal tunnel release, rotator cuff repair, knee surgeries, gastric 

bypass, inpatient psychological treatment, herniated disc repair, 

and hysterectomies are deferred because CHS cannot afford this 

level of care. Treatment of orthopedic injuries is one of our greatest 

challenges. Thirty-three requests for MRIs for knees, back, shoulders have been deferred. Because CHS cannot afford to pay for 

these surgeries, if indicated by the MRI, they are deferred. The unfortunate reality is that it is less expensive to purchase a cane, a 

walker, crutches, back or neck brace than surgically repair orthopedic injuries. 

We support distribution of CHS dollars with a formula that recognizes that some areas are strongly dependent on this funding 

source. And, to go a little bit further on this issue, towards the end 

of the year, if we are hit with a catastrophic case, one that is a 

very expensive case for CHS, tribes are allowed to apply for CHEF 

funds, Catastrophic Health Emergency Funds, depending on 
350

whether those funds are depleted, and towards the end of the year 

they always are. So it is a roll of the dice whether we have to go 

to a priority two or a priority one for funding of really needed medical services. 

An increase in contract support costs is needed for tribal governments to assume control of new programs, services, functions, and 

activities under self-determination and self-governance. Each year 

insufficient contract support funds lead to shortfalls resulting in reduced services to our tribal members. Tribes have increased the 

quality and level of services to members under these policies, but 

failure to adequately fund contract support costs undermines the 

programs that are helping to improve conditions for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. 

The Siletz Tribe is a Public Law 280 tribe. Historically, BIA has 

not allocated adequate funding to meet the public safety needs of 

these tribes. The high incident rates for crime and violence in Indian reservations, especially against women, have received a lot of 

attention in the past few years. The Tribal Law and Order Act was 

passed in 2010 to strengthen tribal law enforcement authority and 

address reservation conditions that impact crime and violence. For 

this law to have meaning, there must be adequate funding. 

The Siletz Tribe established a tribal police force in 1998, with 

one police chief using a COPS grant and tribal funds. By 2005, the 

department included a chief, two officers, four reservists, a part 

time clerk, and a security guard, but our funding could not keep 

pace. In 2006 the tribe had to suspend independent law enforcement operations and contract for more limited services from a nearby city police department, which continues to this day. In 2010 and 

’11 the tribe paid about $400,000, with only 22 percent covered by 

BIA funding. The cost has risen each year, and in 2012 the tribe 

had to reduce patrol coverage from 120 hours a week down to 80 

hours a week. And even so, the tribe was hard pressed to allocate 

enough resources to continue services through 2013. If additional 

resources are not found, we may be forced to end all law enforcement services on the reservation. 

When Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, it estimated that $35 million was needed to adequately fund tribal 

child welfare programs. However, it has never been funded adequately. The Siletz Tribe receives just $55,000 from the BIA to run 

our ICW program. That is not enough to fund even one case worker 

position. The actual cost for our modest program is $400,006 annually. To pay for it, the tribe takes funds away from other self-governance programs, directing them to this priority area. We also access other funding through five agreements with the State of Oregon. We enthusiastically undertook a plan to directly administer 

the title for a foster care reimbursement program, but a major barrier will be the match requirements, even though Federal law allows tribes to use BIA funding as a non-Federal match, and the 

limits on reimbursements. Unlike states, we do not have the tax 

base to generate revenues to cover Federal match requirements. 

In 1990 Congress passed the Indian Child Protection and Family 

Violence Protection Act, Public Law 101–630, to provide programs 

for treatment for child abuse victims, and for child protection and 

family violence prevention, but the grant programs have not been 
351

funded in over 10 years. Adequate Indian Child Welfare and Public 

Law 101–630 funding will enable tribes to ensure safe placements 

where children remain connected to their families and their heritage.

Well, I will have to conclude. I am sorry, I went over a little bit, 

but I thank you for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Bud Lane follows:] 
352
353
354
355
356

Mr. CALVERT. Stay to the 5 minute rule. I apologize. There are 

a lot of folks here, and just a limited amount of time to do all this, 

but——

Mr. LANE. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT [continuing]. We certainly appreciate your testimony. But all your written testimony will be taken for the record, 

and will be reviewed by members and staff, so we appreciate it. 

Next is Aaron Hines, the general council chairman, Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN 

RESERVATION

WITNESS

AARON HINES 

Mr. HINES. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Members of the Committee. My name is Aaron Hines, and I am the general council 

chairman for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

CTUIR, consist of a little over 2,900 members, who primarily live 

on our reservation in Northeastern Oregon. In 1855 our tribe 

signed a treated with the U.S. government, ceding over 6.4 million 

acres to the United States. However, we reserved rights to fish, 

hunt, and gather foods and medicines within the ceded lands, 

which today is Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. 

Before I get into specific requests, I want to request that the committee recognize the Federal Government’s earliest treaty commitments when it takes action on the BIA and IHS budgets. We recognize that our country and this Congress confront a difficult budget 

climate, but that climate does not justify breach of the government’s treaty and trust obligations to tribes. 

Generally, the CTUIR is pleased at the President’s fiscal year 

2014 budget requests for BIA, and IHS, and tribal related programs has held its ground from 2012 enacted level. Subject to more 

specific comments below, we support the $31 million increase in 

BIA budget, and the $234 million in IHS budget, over fiscal year 

2012 enacted levels. The CTUIR has compacted nearly all available 

BIA and IHS functions under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act. A receipt of full contract support costs 

is essential to administering these programs. We have recently 

filed claims both against the BIA and IHS for the underpayment 

of contract support costs. Our claims are based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter case. 

The CTUIR supports the CSC budget increases of $9.8 million for 

the BIA, $1 million of which is for the Indian Self-Determination 

Fund, and $5.8 million for the IHS. We urge this subcommittee to 

ensure that CSC appropriations fully fund tribal contract support 

costs.

The CTUIR is actively engaged in negotiations for a water rights 

settlement for our tribal homeland in the Umatilla Basin, where 
357

agricultural diversion have seriously impacted once abundant salmon runs. A Federal Indian water rights negotiation team has been 

appointment, and our negotiations have been ongoing for over a 

year, and are making real progress. The CTUIR supports the $1.5 

million budget for litigation support, attorneys’ fees to support our 

water rights negotiations. There has been no funding under this 

budget category for the past 2 years. The tribes also support the 

$8.6 million budget for water rights negotiation litigation line item, 

which is the same as the 2012 enacted level. 

The CTUIR strongly supports a $32.4 million budget increase for trust natural resource management, which includes $9.8 million to 

cooperative landscape conservation, $7.7 million to rights protection implementation, $5.1 million to forestry, and three million to 

fish, wildlife, and parks, and two million to tribal management development. The CTUIR supports the $19 million increase in the public safety 

and justice budget. The CTUIR played a leading role in addressing 

public safety issues in Indian country by advocating for, and implementing, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and 

the Tribal Law and Order Act on the reservation, and advocating 

for the tribal provisions in the reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act. The provisions of effective law enforcement, 

fire protection, tribal court services are essential for our tribal government and community. 

The CTUIR is opposed to the proposed reductions for unexplained and undefined administrative cost savings. Last year the 

BIA held a series of consultation meetings on their streamlining 

initiative. Since the consultations concluded, tribes have heard 

nothing regarding the consultation results. The 2014 proposed 

budget includes $19.7 million of BIA reductions that are a result 

of streamlining and improved oversight. Additionally, the budget 

proposes $13.9 million reduction as a result of invoking management efficiencies. 

The CTUIR supports the $35 million in the Purchased Referred 

Care Program, formerly known as contract healthcare services. Our 

Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, located on our reservation, operates under a self-governance compact with the IHS. Yellowhawk 

provides outpatient health care, as well as alcohol and drug treatment.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the committee for hearing my testimony, and we also thank Congress’s recent action on the Violence Against Women Act. The Umatilla is 

one of two tribes in the nation to implement the authority of the 

Tribal Law and Order Act. That places us in a unique position to 

positively demonstrate the nubile authorities to prosecute domestic 

violence on our reservation, and I thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Aaron Hines follows:] 
358
359
360
361
362

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Next, Ron Suppah, Vice Chairman of The Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS 

RESERVATION OF OREGON 

WITNESS

RON SUPPAH 

Mr. SUPPAH. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I am Ron Suppah, 

Vice Chairman for The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Oregon.

We suffer from an approximate 60 percent unemployment rate on 

our reservation, which severely hampers us, as far as taking care 

of our people. And I think that we have to recognize that, of the 

over 5,200 tribal members, probably a majority of them choose to 

live on the reservation. So, with no jobs, and with cuts in health 

care and education, et cetera, the problem of taking care of our people’s needs is severe. I guess our Federal appropriate priorities reflect the circumstances we face, and we would like to maybe speak 

to those. 

Number one, Indian Health Service. In 1992, because we were on 

a waiting list of about 30 tribes nationally for IHS facility replacement and construction, we chose to approach the Congress and go 

into the development of a joint venture agreement, where Warm 

Springs agreed to finance the construction of our own IHS facility, 

and IHS, per that agreement, agreed to fund and staff that facility. 

But, in recent years, the IHS and Federal funding for our facilities 

decreased dramatically, and hampers our abilities to address our 

healthcare needs for our tribal members. 

Number two, tribal forest management. Warm Springs is a timber tribe, and we do have a mill, which has teetered on being 

closed due to severe impacts on our reservation created by 

wildfires. And in most instances, the bigger fires are coming from 

off reservation Federal lands, such as U.S. Forest Service, and they 

jump onto the reservation, and we have problems with fighting 

those fires, and then also for reconditioning and recovering those 

lands after the event. 

Conventional oversighted funding is needed to effectively implement the Tribal Forest Protection Act. On a policy matter, Warm 

Springs asked that Congress review and enact proposed changes to 

the TFPA identified Bay Review Committee. Testimony from the 

Inter-tribal Timber Council will go into further detail. Warm 

Springs urges this subcommittee to adopt the $5.1 million increase 

for BIA forestry proposed for fiscal year 2014, and to further add 

an additional five million to begin moving BIA forestry towards 

parity with other Federal forestry budgets. The independent 1993 

and 2003 IFMAT reports documented that the BIA forestry per 

acre management funding is far less than what is provided for national, state, and private forests. 
363

By supporting the proposed $5.1 million BIA budget increase, 

and supplementing that with an additional five million, that will 

start to shore up the eroded Federal Trust responsibility, making 

a needed investment in the single most productive Federal timber 

program, and provide jobs and countless social and economic benefits for tribal communities. 

Number three, DOI has an—prioritization and allocation system. 

Warm Springs aligns itself with the comments of the Inter-Tribal 

Timber Council in requesting that BIA wild and fire budget be removed from the HFPAS formula, which does not adequately 

prioritize tribal resources. 

Number four, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special 

Trustee have been confronted with trust mismanagement claims 

from individual—and tribes for mismanaging both monetary assets 

and non-monetary, or natural, resources that span many decades. 

The Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association has provided a very valuable essential source of policy level information and analysis, technical assistance, legal research, and help in facilitating interactions 

between the tribes and Federal officials to engender more trust-efficient relationships and resolutions. And the reason that Warm 

Springs brings this point to the subcommittee’s attention is that, 

with the restructuring of the government, the OST has taken the 

position that they will no longer fund ITMA, which was under contract to provide those very needed services to the tribes. 

BIA, IHS contract support. Since 1975, tribal self-determination, 

pursuant to Public Law 93-638, has been the keystone of Federal 

Indian policy. Unfortunately, BIA and IHS budgets have failed to 

complete the reimbursed tribes for unavoidable—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Gentleman would just conclude the comments, 

please?

Mr. SUPPAH. Okay. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. SUPPAH. And I guess, lastly, the BIA jail that we have at 

Warm Springs had a life expectancy of 25 years. There was a lawsuit filed, and it was directed that there be some reconditioning 

and rebuilding. But subsequently, the BIA, at that time, stated 

that we could no longer hold juveniles in that facility. So now we 

are in a dilemma to where we need to maybe replace that BIA jail 

facility, and we feel that we need help with negotiating that with 

mainly Department of Justice. 

I thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ron Suppah follows:] 
364
365
366
367

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman. Do you have any questions? 

Excellent testimony. I appreciate the passion in which you are giving your testimony, and we will review that. And, with that, you 

are excused, and we will introduce the next panel. 

The next panel will be Andy Joseph, Junior, Chairperson, Northwest Indian Health Board. 

Kathryn Brigham, Chairwoman of the Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission. 

Phil Rigdon, President, Inter-Tribal Timber Counsel. 

W. Ron Allen, Tribal Council Chairman and CEO of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. And Mr. Allen is testifying twice, for the 

United States Commissioner, Pacific Salmon Commission. 

And we are all up here, so I will start with Andy Joseph, Northwest Indian Health Board. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NORTHWEST INDIAN HEALTH BOARD 

WITNESS

ANDY JOSEPH, JR. 

Mr. JOSEPH. Good morning, committee. My name is Badger in 

my language. I am Andy Joseph, Junior. I am on the Commonwealth Confederate Tribes Business Council, and I chair the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. I am testifying on the 

IHS 2014 budget. My written testimony has been submitted to the 

subcommittee, and I will summarize the recommendations by underscoring that there is a Federal trust responsibility to provide 

healthcare to Indians, and, due to the chronic underfunding of the 

IHS, and the lack of access to healthcare, our people suffer high 

health disparities. These facts make a compelling reason for Congress to provide an adequate level of funding for IHS budget. 

Fundamentally, Northwest Tribes believe a simple principle, is 

that IHS programs must be preserved by the President and Congress in the budget process by maintaining a current level of health 

carrier services, otherwise, how can unmet needs ever be addressed 

if the existing program is not maintained? 

For the fiscal year 2014 IHS budget, we recommend the following. First, we recommend that the subcommittee restore the 

$228 million that was sequestered from the IHS budget. We believe 

this was a legislative drafting error, and an unintended consequence in the Budget Control Act. Other Federal healthcare programs were protected up to a two percent cut. It did not make 

sense not to have a similar protection applied to IHS. Like Medicaid and the VA, IHS also provides expense and vital healthcare 

services. I want to emphasize that, while the deficit reduction is 

targeted at discretionary spending, IHS funding is not discretionary. It is funding that is provided in fulfillment of the United 

States Trust responsibility and treaty obligations. To sequester this 

funding objurgates Congress legal and moral responsibility under 

the Federal Trust relationship. I hope you will agree to restore this 

funding.
368

Two, we recommend the subcommittee provide adequate funding 

to maintain current services by funding inflation and population 

growth in fiscal year 2014. We estimate it will take at least $213 

million to fund medical and general inflation, and an additional 

$89 million to fund population growth. 

Third, we recommend that the subcommittee fully fund contract 

support costs for those tribes that operate their own health care 

systems. Without full funding, tribes are forced to reduce direct 

services in order to absorb CSC shortfalls. The total amount of the 

full funding contract support costs is estimated to be $617 million. 

The Congressional justification proposes damaging language on 

contract support costs that is intended to cap payments to tribes. 

This is a radical and unfortunate reaction to a recent court decision, intended to block tribes from pursuing past years’ claims. 

This proposal is inconsistent with the President’s executive order 

on tribal consultation, and in violation of the IHS tribal consultation policy. We respectfully request the subcommittee to reject the 

recommended changes by IHS until the agency and administration 

have consulted with tribes about the proposed changes. 

Fourth, our final recommendation is that the subcommittee halts 

funding for the facilities construction and staffing packages as a 

deficit reduction strategy. It does not make sense to continue to 

fund new facilities when overall health services must be reduced to 

comply with the deficit reduction plans. When new facilities are 

constructed, they carry liability for a staffing package, at the expense of all other tribes that do not, and cannot, access facilities 

construction funds. It is more effective to maintain current services 

by directing the funding to inflation and population growth for the 

benefit of all tribes. 

Thank you, and I would gladly take half of Ron Allen’s time. 

[The statement of Andy Joseph, Jr. follows:] 
369
370
371
372
373

Mr. CALVERT. Thanks. Thank the gentleman. 

Next, Kathryn Brigham. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013 

COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION 

WITNESS

N. KATHRYN BRIGHAM 

Ms. BRIGHAM. I am taking half of Ron Allen’s time. 

Good morning, committee members, and I am very pleased to see 

Representative Jaime Beutler here, because she is to join the committee as a Columbia River Member of Congress. My name is Kat 

Brigham. I am a member of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Board of Trustees Secretary, and 

the chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 

It is my pleasure today to address you about the funding needs of 

the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and the fisheries 

programs for each of our member tribes, which is the Yakima Nation of Washington, Warm Springs, and Umatilla Tribe of Oregon, 

and Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. 

Our base funding is from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Rights 

Protection Implementation Account. Our programs are carried out 

pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Assistance Act. We conduct the competence of treaty rights implementation program, intended to maintain compliance with our tribal treaties, court orders, regional inter-governmental agreements, and international 

salmon treaties. Together, our tribes manage and co-manage land 

equivalent to the state of Georgia, which is 1⁄3 of the Columbia 

River Basin. 

We are leaders in ecosystem management, working in collaboration and partnership with five states, 13 Federal agencies, and several private entities. CRITFC and its member tribes have a goal in 

the region to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey, sturgeon populations, and rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial. To achieve this objective, we emphasize the 

highest level of scientific rigor, and cost-effective management 

strategy, and holistic approaches to the protection of our fresh 

foods. While many of the Pacific salmon coast stocks remain in distress, our tribes are building Columbia Basin success acre by acre, 

tributary by tributary, and stock by stocks, and I have some booklets here, if you want to look at them. 

And we are deeply appreciative of this committee’s ongoing support for tribes in our core programs, including rights protection implementation, but the need remains high, and cuts from sequestration have hit us hard. As tribal leaders, we have learned that if you 

take care of the land, the land will take care of you, and we have 

always planned for the next seven generations, but the U.S. has 

land that can no longer take care of its U.S. citizens. We already 

have hampered in our basin, and we do not want this area to expand, or add any other area in the Columbia Basin. That is why 

we are asking for this committee’s support to meet, or exceed, the 
374

President’s request for the base program for our member tribes’ 

fisheries programs. Specifically, we request a total of $49.5 million for rights protection implementation, and that is based upon this book, where 41 

tribes got together, talked about rights protection. We have $12.8 

million above the President’s request, of which $7.7 million is for 

Columbia River fisheries management, which is $2.5 million above 

the President’s request. We support the President’s request for 

$4.84 million for the U.S.-Canadian Pacific Salmon Treaty to implement the obligations adopted by the U.S. and Canada. We support the President’s request for $340 million for the public safety 

and justice criminal investigation and police services, of which 

$718,000 supports the enforcement of Federal laws on our fishing 

access sites on the Columbia River. And we support the President’s 

request for $10 million for cooperative land state conservation to 

assist tribes nationwide in climate change adoption and planning. 

A Congressional requirement by Congressman Norm Dicks delivered, through prior appropriation language, visibly more Gulf salmon produced in Federally funded hatcheries, and most of these are 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife hatcheries, should be reviewed to see if it 

is consistent with the overall objective of ESAD listing, prevailing 

laws, agreements, such as U.S. v. Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty, 

and the Columbia River Basin accords. 

CRITFC is working hard towards a unified Columbia River 

hatcheries strategy among tribal, state, and Federal co-managers. 

Salmon managers should be provided the latitude to make a case 

by case decision whether to mark salmon, and, if so, at the appropriate percentage. Part of that strategy will rely on the best available science that is supported by adequate and sufficient funds, 

with the objective of complying with prevailing laws, agreements, 

and working towards delisting the 12 ESA stocks in the Columbia 

River basin. And part of those information does talk about the 

John Tagerman and Johnson Creek, where we have used stocks to 

rebuild.

And, in summary, the CRITFC and the four tribes have developed the capacity and infrastructure to lead in protecting, restoring, and rebuilding Columbia River Basin population. Our collective efforts is to protect our 1855 treaty reserved fishing rights for 

the next seven generations through the collaboration and partnerships with the states, Feds, and non-Indian communities. It is 

showing some success to provide healthy, harvestable salmon populations to all citizens. This is a time for us to be working together, 

and putting our goals and funds together through a cross-budget 

approach.

Do you have any questions? 

[The statement of N. Kathryn Brigham follows:] 
375
376
377
378
379

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Do you want this? 

Mr. CALVERT. And then—yes, please, thank you. We will enter 

that into the record. 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Next, Phil Rigdon, President of the Inter-Tribal Timber Council. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

INTER-TRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL 

WITNESS

PHIL RIGDON 

Mr. RIGDON. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, good morning. I 

am Phil Rigdon, Director of Natural Resources for the Yakama Nation. I am president of the Inter-Tribal Timber Council, or the ITC. 

I am here today to talk about tribal forestry budgets and issues. 

Forest management policy has become an increasing interest to 

a lot of folks these days, so first I want to direct your attention to 

a comprehensive and independent review of tribal forestry that is 

just being completed. Federal law, the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act, requires that this report be done every 10 

years by an Indian Forest Management Assessment Team, or 

IFMAT. We believe the IFMAT Three report, which is expected to 

be finished this June, could offer valuable insight into the management of tribal forests, and other forests as well, and I urge the subcommittee to review the report, and its findings and recommendations, and, if possible, to give them consideration in the fiscal year 

2014 interior budget appropriations bill. 

I also want to mention the ITC’s anchor forest pilot project being 

undertaken with the help of the Forest Service. An anchor forest 

is a large forest area that is dedicated to long term sustainable productivity, working across tribal Federal, state, and private boundaries, in a collaborative effort to meet local and regional economic 

and ecological goals. The pilot project underway in Central Washington State will shed light on landscape level cooperative forest 

management, and help improve the efficiency and the effectiveness 

of investments, essentially to address forest health concerns, and 

sustain badly needed economic infrastructure, and improve delivery 

of important ecological needs and services. 

With regard to wild land file, the ITC asks that Interior Department hazardous fields funding be restored to $206 million, and its 

fiscal year 2011 amount. The Administration’s proposal to cut hazardous fields funding by 50 percent, while increasing the fire suppression budget by 250 percent, is ill advised. This approach simply 

abandons the wild lands, while expecting millions of dollars to try 

to protect small wild land urban interface areas. 

As the conditions in our forests deteriorate, and impacts of climate change have become more pronounced, intense firestorms will 

likely consume our forests, causing catastrophic loss of life, property, and untold damage to rural and tribal communities. Limited 
380

investments for reducing threats to wildfire to treatments of small 

wild land urban interface areas ultimately prove futile. 

Also, regarding fire, we ask that the subcommittee remove the 

tribal and BIA fuels funding from the Interior Department’s hazardous fuels priority allocation formula, and setting up a separate 

tribal BIA fuels category at 25 percent of the past funding, but no 

less than $50 million. The formula is simply not fair to tribes. We 

have had little time or opportunity to participate in its development, and have lost faith in its use. We now ask to be separated 

from application of the formula by restoring historical levels of 

funding.

For BIA forestry program funding, the ITC urges support for the request of $5.1 million increase, and to further bolster the program 

with an additional $5 million. By almost any relative measure, 

tribal forests are much harder working forests than other Federal 

forests, despite serious and long term underfunding. Our management has been innovative and responsive. But, as recent trust mismanagement lawsuit settlements have shown, the U.S. is failing in 

its trust responsibility, and must provide more adequate work to 

tribal forestry. ITC also supports the $10 million for the BIA cooperative landscape conservation. Indian people live directly on their land, and 

are very vulnerable to climate change. BIA has 10 percent of the 

interior land base, and, at last, the BIA funding request reflects 

that fact. We also ask that these funds be directed to tribally based 

applications. We support the $2.7 million for BIA-ESA funding, adding funds 

for BIA combating invasive species, and for initiatives that involve 

Native American youth in natural sciences. 

Finally, we hope the subcommittee will extend and expand the 

forest stewardship contracting program. 

Mr. Chairman, the ITC greatly appreciates the subcommittee’s 

support of Indian programs, and hopes you can continue doing so 

in fiscal year 2014. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. 

[The statement of Phil Rigdon follows:] 
381
382
383
384
385

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

And next, Mr. Allen, you are recognized twice, both for Jamestown——

Mr. ALLEN. S’Klallam. 

Mr. CALVERT [continuing]. S’Klallam—okay. 

Mr. ALLEN. It is a tongue twister. 

Mr. CALVERT. All right. And the Pacific Salmon Commission. I 

got that one. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE 

WITNESS

W. RON ALLEN 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Butler. Thank you for the honor and the opportunity to come and 

testify. I think my job is going to be fairly easy this morning, because a lot of my colleagues have testified before you this morning, 

and you will hear this afternoon and tomorrow a very consistent 

message.

Without a doubt, my tribe, speaking on behalf of my tribe, the 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, is very supportive of the work of the 

national organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, 

the National Indian Health Board. We are all testifying and providing you evidence about the importance of Indian country. We 

work very hard putting together documents that capture the importance of all these different programs that serve our Indian communities, and justification of why. We are reflecting on the President’s 

commitment, you know, and in his statement he is standing with 

Indian country, and we are here basically calling for the Congress 

and the administration to honor his promises to Indian country. So 

our testimony is submitted to you, and we appreciate you putting 

it in the record. That probably articulates more specifically some of 

the issues. 

But just to share with you, from a tribal perspective, you know, 

you heard about CSC, and the importance of CSC, and honoring 

contracts, and you are going to hear the importance of many programs that are within the Department of Interior, BIA, and over 

in IHS. I want to specifically highlight three areas I think are really important on the BIA side. The HEAR Program, the administration is proposing to zero out the HEAR Program. I can tell you unequivocally the notion that we have been chasing now for many, 

many years, that HUD provides the resources that HEAR provides, 

that is simply not true. HEAR provides services for emergency 

care, housing assistance, and for those do not qualify for HUD programs. And so, even though it is not a lot of money, it is very, very 

important to our communities, and from Alaska to Florida, it is 

critical.

Another area that I want to highlight is economic development, 

the loan guarantee program. Bottom line is this Congress, and this 

administration, wants our society, and our economy, to become 

stronger. Well, how are we going to become stronger if we cannot 
386

get investment in our communities with regard to our tribal businesses, or even our individual businesses? And those loan guarantee programs help us access those resources, and create that 

kind of investment in our communities. 

The tax exempt bond agenda that was authorized under AURA, 

you know, that kind of legislation provides opportunities for those 

who can leverage tax exempt bonds, which is very challenging for 

those kind of levels of resources. So they cover two different areas, 

smaller loans versus much larger loans, to get investment in our 

communities to create jobs in our respective communities. So, if we 

are going to enhance our economy, you have to enhance the economy everywhere, and most often Indian countries and rural communities, so economic development is very important. 

An area we have been urging the administration to advance is 

also surety bonding guarantee programs. Surety bonding is a very 

difficult arena for tribes to get surety bonding, because they want 

no risk. And so there is no program out there that works for us. 

SBA has a small program, but it is a small program. You know, 

it goes up to three, maybe $five million, but, quite frankly, if a 

tribe is going after anything bigger than that, then it is very challenging for the tribes to move that agenda. 

The next issue, quickly, is natural resources, and rights protection money, and some of the other categories that provide resources 

for natural resources. It is critically important to us in the Northwest, and not only in the Northwest, Great Lakes, and other areas 

where natural resources is so important to us. And it is in those 

categories where you are going to see the resources. And our concern if you aggregate them, and our concern in aggregating these 

kinds of resources for natural resource management is, does the 

sum—is less than the parts? You know, in terms of aggregating, 

and that becomes a great concern to us, in terms of how we continue to manage that agenda. 

[The statement of W. Ron Allen follows:] 
387
388
389
390
391

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION 

WITNESS

W. RON ALLEN 

Mr. ALLEN. So I am going to shift from that agenda, because I 

do not need to repeat many things that you are going to be hearing 

throughout these hearings, and shift to my capacity as a tribal 

leader, and representative of the 24 Northwest tribes that are represented in the International Commission, and that is the second 

testimony.

In the U.S.-Canada Treaty, we manage salmon, which is a precious resource for us in the Northwest. Our cultures, our communities, are critical. It is reflective of our treaties with the United 

States government, and that relationship. So when you create this 

international treaty, our treaties get rolled into it, and then we, as 

tribal leaders, participate in that forum in order to make sure that 

we are protecting the opportunity for the return of those salmon, 

the five species that we manage, from the upper reaches of Alaska 

all the way into the upper reaches of the Columbia River, into 

Idaho. That is a big deal, it is very complicated, and the resources 

for that treaty come through a number of different sources. They 

come through the State Department, in terms of the international 

obligation. They come through the Commerce Department, in terms 

of the relationship with the State, and their responsibility, and it 

comes through Interior, for the tribe’s responsibility. 

So that is where we get our resources, in order to manage our 

resources, and make sure that we are protecting our interests in 

those forums. So if we are managing that stock, and HOOG intercepts that stock from Alaska, to British Columbia, and all the way 

down, until it gets up into the upper reaches of our various river 

tributary systems. That is an important agenda for us. It is complicated. Every one of those species has complications, and we have 

to have our participants in those various forums, from the top 

level, the commission, all the way into all the different technical forums, where we make sure that our rights and our interests are 

being protected to the benefit of our people. 

Salmon is an important agenda for the whole Northwest, Indian 

and non-Indian alike, and we are a big part of that process being 

a success, and so we urge that you continue to support the resources. Kathryn has noted that we were targeting 4.8 million for 

the tribes that are shared by the 24 treaty tribes in the Northwest. 

So, with that, I will close, and say thank you. We always appreciate your care. Your staff has been very great to work with, and 

we need to continue to, you know, try to find that balance between 

the challenge of the budget and the responsibilities to the Indian 

communities, in terms of becoming self-reliant. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of W. Ron Allen follows:] 
392
393
394
395
396

Mr. CALVERT. Well, you are right that we are getting a consistent 

message here, so I think we are going to be taking that well into 

account.

Any questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I had a couple questions, couple 

thoughts, and maybe just get some clarification. And I know I have 

talked with some of you before, or you have also been in contact 

with my staff. I grew up along the Columbia River in Clark County, probably like your kids did, and protecting our resources is very 

important to me, especially our wild salmon runs. That is one of 

the things about our area that is unique. People come from all over 

to experience what we have. 

I was reading in your bio you did not necessarily start fishing 

until you got married. I remember fishing from a very, very early 

age, whether I liked it or not. Oftentimes it is really early, and 

really cold and rainy, so I did not always like it, but I have come 

to treasure those experiences that are so unique to the Northwest. 

I mean, hands down. 

I wanted to ask a little bit about your thoughts on tagging, especially hatchery salmon. You brought it up. You talked about what 

Norm has done, and I wanted you to expand upon that a little bit, 

because partially, what I have understood, we are having record returns on our runs, but not necessarily record returns on our wild 

runs.

Ms. BRIGHAM. That is correct. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Everybody is interested in this. Whether 

you are tribal, whether you are a sports fisherman, whether you 

are a commercial fisherman, whether you are like me, you throw 

a line out, you never catch anything, you are interested in protecting those wild runs. And, tribal or non-tribal, we spend a lot 

of money in the Northwest doing what we can to mitigate. And I 

support our hydro system. I think it is one of those things we have 

to mitigate, to the best of our ability, but I do not support tearing 

out the dam. For me, I thought tagging some of the hatchery fish, 

so we are able to more accurately track our wild runs, seems like 

a good idea, but I seem to hear a little concern. 

Ms. BRIGHAM. There are two different types of tagging sources. 

One is the coded wire tagging, which is very instrumental in the 

Pacific Salmon Treaty management, so we can, as Ron was saying, 

tell where our stocks are in the ocean fisheries. There is another 

one where you just remove the alphas—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Clip the fin? 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Clip the fin, that says, this is a hatchery fish, and 

this is a wild fish. And, quite frankly, this is the only way they can 

tell when you look at a fish. And before our stocks were 20 percent 

hatchery and 80 percent wild. Now it is vice—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is flipped? 

Ms. BRIGHAM [continuing]. Versa. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yeah. 

Ms. BRIGHAM. It is flipped. And so we are having, like, fish come 

up to the Snake River, to the Grand Ronde, to a number of tributaries. And, because they are marked, they are being pulled out of 

the system, whereas if they were not marked—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. These were hatchery? 
397

Ms. BRIGHAM. Yeah, these are hatchery fish, and they are being 

pulled out of the system, whereas, if they were not marked, they 

would be allowed to go up and spawn naturally. And the Johnson 

Creek information shows that hatcheries can be used to rebuild 

naturally spawning fish. And so we think it is really important to 

go back and review that appropriation language to see if it is meeting the needs, because right now we have put a cap on spring Chinook whereas, if the non-Indians were out there catching, using 

this selective gear to harvest fish, they cannot go over 50 percent 

simply because they cut out fishes, because we are managing for 

the harvest rates. 

And so we are going to probably push to do the same thing on 

the fall Chinook, because, again, they are trying to do the same 

thing. And so if we would all—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. They are trying to do the—— 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Do the selective—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yeah. 

Ms. BRIGHAM [continuing]. Fishing on the fall Chinook—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, my—— 

Ms. BRIGHAM [continuing]. The increased—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [continuing]. Thought is, is not that 

where we are going, period, in terms of selective? 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Yeah. And we do not want to be that way, because, quite frankly, the ones who harvest through selective fisheries are mostly non-Indians and if we put the fish right here in 

front of a hatchery, we are forgetting about the tributaries that are 

up here, and this is where our usual and customaries are. This is 

where our treaty rights are. This is where part of our culture, our 

history, and our life is. It is not in front of a hatchery. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So you are not so concerned about—I 

mean, what I heard you say was the hatchery fish, you believe, can 

be used to rebuild the wild run. So you are not so concerned with 

the—forgive me if I am not using it correctly—the purity of the 

stock?

Ms. BRIGHAM. They can be managed in a way as—like I said, it 

took 13 years for Nez Perce to prove this, through the Hagerman 

study, but they can be managed in a way to rebuild naturally 

spawning fish, whereas if you just used hatchery fish to be harvested, that can be done too. But that is why I said working toward 

de-listing of the ESA stocks. We have got 12 stocks in the Columbia River that are listed, and we would like to de-list them so that 

we can have a fishery that is based upon abundance, versus upon 

ESA harvest rates. Can I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman, 

from a different witness? 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. One more question. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. I will make it very quick. Timber. 

I briefly would love to hear your thoughts on part of our challenge—I do not know if you guys have Gifford Pinchot. What is the 

Federal forest that heads up against—— 

Mr. RIGDON. With the Yakama Nation—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Is it Gifford? 

Mr. RIGDON [continuing]. Gifford Pinchot, and Okanagan National.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Really? 
398

Mr. RIGDON. So it is—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Holy cow. Okay. So one of the challenges 

I have seen with the way we are, I would say not managing our 

Federal forests, because you alluded to fire. I think climate change 

can be a part of this. But one of the things I am fiercely fighting 

is that, well, we have climate change, so our forests are in disrepair. Part of the reason our forests are in disrepair, I believe, is 

because we are not managing to an ecosystem approach, we are 

managing to a single species. 

And what we see on Gifford Pinchot are more trees die than get 

harvested out, there is no early seral species, because it is all canopy. There are no holes in the canopy for the light, so we have elk 

herds and deer herds that are dying. We have over 40 species of 

bird that cannot eat the varmints, because there are no varmints, 

because there is no early seral—so on and so forth. And I wanted 

your thoughts about managing to a single species, like the spotted 

owl, or looking at the spotted owl in context of all the species in 

the forest, including the rural communities, who are also dying at 

this point. 

Mr. RIGDON. I think it is an important part, and, first of all, part 

of our teachings and our way of life is balancing between, you 

know, I am part of the CRITFC tribes, and what Kat says is important to us. But I think one of the elements is you come to understand that our forests have always been changing, and our people, 

our ancestors, helped shape that land for the purposes of—using 

fire as a tool for huckleberry fields, or to clear areas, and those 

type of things. So when people have this idea, especially on the 

East side, and interior West of what a forest looks like, it is different than what it naturally is. We have moved away from those 

things. And I think the tribes have taken a real proactive approach 

onto really addressing that. Our economy in the Yakama Nation is 

really based upon, you know, doing forest management. But it is 

not going out on a commercialized basis of claiming all the trees. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I do not think anybody is talking about 

commercial harvesting 

Mr. RIGDON. It is thinning—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [continuing]. From a forest. 

Mr. RIGDON [continuing]. From below. 

Mr. RIGDON. It is using and making the processes work so that 

it functions—it is restoring the watersheds, and making sure that 

your roads function in a way that you do not hurt fish or other species. It is putting the priorities of the things that are significant to 

our culture and our way of life. But the economy, and having the 

infrastructure to be able to do this is a vital part. It supports, you 

know, over 250 people that work in our mill, another facility that 

we support, you know, and are able to, you know, get 60 to 150 

million board feet a year. One of the things is that you see the adjacent forest, and you see, on Gifford Pinchot this last year, those 

fires happened—those, actually, were very close to coming on to the 

reservation. The Warm Springs earlier talked about fires that 

burned up to their reservation. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I remember. 

Mr. RIGDON. Part of the Tribal Forest Protection Act is looking 

at—and tribes have not engaged into this conversation because of 
399

the cumbersomeness of the relationship that you have to—do you 

have the time to go out and do this, or do you just stick to what 

you have, and do that? We ourselves are trying to work with 

Okanagan National, work with Gifford Pinchot on doing forest activities, but it is a struggle, and it is a challenge. 

And so, back to the question, multi-species is the approach. 

Sometimes we get too focused. The Northwest Forest Plan is aimed 

at protecting spotted owls, instead of the conversation of what is 

the diversity across the landscape that is necessary to support 

the——

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. The ecosystem. 

Mr. RIGDON. Yes, exactly. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yeah. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank this panel, and 

good luck on de-listing the species. It is a lot easier to list them 

than it is to de-list them. But we will help as much as we can. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BRIGHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. The next panel is Fawn Sharp, President of the 

Quinault Indian Nation. 

David Bean, Councilman of the Puyallup Tribe of Washington. 

Joseph Pavel, Vice Chairman, this is a test for me, Skokomish 

Tribal Nation. 

Timothy Ballew II, Chairman of the Lummi Indian Business 

Council.

And Edward Johnston, Treasurer of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

And so everybody is sitting down. We will start with Fawn 

Sharp. You are recognized. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

QUINAULT INDIAN NATION 

WITNESS

FAWN SHARP 

Ms. SHARP. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 

of the subcommittee. It is truly an honor and privilege for the 

Quinault Nation to be invited to testify and provide our perspective 

on the upcoming budget cycle. The Quinault Nation has outlined 

a number of issues and priorities. We have provided our written 

testimony. I also want to support the local and national inter-tribal 

groups in areas. We certainly support the work of the Northwest 

Portland Area Indian Health Board, the Northwest Indian Fish 

Commission, the Inter-Tribal Timber Council, all very good testimony. We support that. I am going to reserve a minute or so at 

the end of my remarks, if I have time, for contract support costs, 

but I will reserve that conversation. 

The first issue that we would like to talk about is our Blueback 

Restoration Project at the Quinault Nation. A number of years ago, 

in 2002, we had a BLM station of the Upper Quinault, and it was 

determined that, at that point, the blueback in the river would not 

recover and restore on its own, that it required human interven-
400

tion. In the 1950s we had millions of blueback stock run through 

our river system. It was in the millions. In the early 2000s, the 

numbers started declining down to 4,000. We had a graph that 

showed millions, and then just drop. And our fear at that time was 

that we may hit a point of no return, and how would it be possible 

to explain that prize wild salmon stock to future generations? And 

it was unthinkable, if that were to disappear entirely. 

So we began an initiative, the Blueback Restoration Project. We 

also learned that, by installing a bridge to connect the north and 

south shore of Lake Quinault, it accelerated the river’s flow, a fire 

hose effect, to the point where it just simply wiped out original 

spawning habitat because of the accelerated flows. And so we 

looked at best practices and science to try to figure out how we 

could contend with this issue, and we were advised by our staff and 

scientists to look at engineered logjams. So we constructed 14 of 

those engineered logjams. We planted conifer trees, riparian plants, 

and I could say right now that that Alder Creek side channel is recovering, the blueback are returning. It has been successful. It stabilized that river system. 

In our testimony we have outlined the next phase. In the next 

phase we are looking to restore seven miles of the Upper Quinault. 

We are in partnership with the local community, the non-Indian 

citizens in the Upper Quinault. We have partnered with the park, 

with the Forest Service. This is an excellent example of private citizens working with the county, the state, the Federal agencies, and 

the tribe. And so we are very proud of this project, and we are looking to continue and advance the project. We call it our legacy. It 

is going to take at least 40 years to design and construct 400 of 

these jams. 

And the last point I want to make about that, without the conifer 

trees, the river system moves rapidly, north to south, and it wiped 

out an entire house. The house had to be moved, and the citizens 

in the Upper Quinault were desperate for solutions. And we are 

now seeing that with that stabilized one system, over the course of 

time, we will restore that Upper Quinault the way it looked 100, 

200, 300 years ago. So that is a legacy, and we are looking forward 

to seeing that come to fruition. 

The second issue I would like to highlight relates to law enforcement. The Quinault Nation occupies 31 miles of international border. We have 31 miles of Pacific coastline. A number of years ago 

I started getting asked by many of our citizens about unusual activity on our reservation. I had a tribal elder talk about low flying 

helicopters surrounded by vehicles at midnight in a logging road. 

I had people in our crab fleet talk about high speed boats moving 

in and out off of a mother ship into Raft River, which is a very isolated part of our reservation. So we began to undertake a drug task 

force. We could not get grants, because we did not have data. All 

I could say were just these stories. We invested half a million of 

our own dollars, put together a drug task force in October. 

Eight months later, in June of this last year, since our last testimony, we partnered with Federal officials. We had seven Federal 

indictments, 120 some Federal agents that came out to Quinault in 

a Blackhawk helicopter. We found out, not only are these drug traffickers working in Quinault, but they are infiltrating our timber, 
401

cedar salvage, that is declining and depressing the market for our 

operators. A piece of property was bid for $20,000. Someone came 

in with cash, offered 60. And the person told me, Fawn, there is 

just not that much wood. So we know that this drug activity is not 

only trafficking. We have 22 points of entry from the Pacific Ocean 

to Highway 101 with no security. Department of Justice has recognized that the Olympic Park and the Olympic Peninsula is a high 

risk to international drug trafficking. 

My last comment, 10 seconds, contract support costs. We are 

looking to the Congress. We have exhausted one branch of government, the U.S. Supreme Court. The administration executive is not 

honoring that commitment. We are looking to Congress. You are 

our last line of defense. Please uphold in good faith your commitment to the Constitution, and fully support contract support costs. 

With that, thank you. 

[The statement of Fawn Sharp follows:] 
402
403
404
405
406

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony. I am 

going to turn over the chair to the gentlelady from Washington. I 

apologize, but I have a meeting that I must attend to, and she will 

continue the testimony. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [presiding]. All right. Thank you. And 

now we are going to David Bean, with the Puyallup Tribe. Councilman? Thank you. Yeah, I can say Puyallup. 

Mr. BEAN. May I properly introduce myself? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes, please. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON 

WITNESS

DAVID BEAN 

Mr. BEAN. Thank you for allowing us here today. I am a member 

of the Puyallup Tribal Council, located in Washington. I am here 

on behalf of my chairman, Herman Dillon, Senior, who was unable 

to be here, but sends his regards. 

We appreciate the increased funding provided for the operation 

of Indian programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian 

Health Services. However, years of underfunding, the negative effects of inflation, and the devastating impacts of the sequester on 

fiscal year 2013, and possibly 2014, severely impact our ability to 

maintain self-determination and self-governance. We would ask 

that the Congress and the administration, in order to preserve 

these funding levels in recent years, we realize that you view these 

as base funding, and protect them, and hold them harmless from 

any across the board cuts, specifically because, historically, these 

programs have been so underfunded. 

Our priority is public safety, and towards that end we appreciate 

this committee’s commitment towards funding law enforcement 

programs. We fully support the $19.9 million requested increase for 

BIA public safety and justice. We also support the $13.4 million increase directed toward funding staffing, training operations, and O 

and M costs of newly constructed tribally operated detention facilities. We have recently received an R grant, in 2009, in the amount 

of $7.9 million to construct a 28 bed adult correction facility. We 

have recently submitted a contract request to the BIA for O and 

M funding for the new facility, including pre-award, startup, transitional funding, and staffing. We humbly request this committee’s 

support.

You know, our request to the BIA had an estimated cost of $3.2 

million annually. Further, the tribe requests the subcommittee support increasing funding for BIA detention and correction facilities 

by $32.2 million to reflect the actual funding need. We continue to 

request an increase in tribal court fund in the amount of $73.2 million, an increase of approximately three times the enacted FY 2012 

base level. 

The lifeblood of the Puyallup Tribe is our natural resources, including our fish, our shellfish, and many other forms of wildlife. I 

brought with me a picture today of our shellfish. It is a geoduck. 
407

I myself am a commercial diver. I fished with my parents, and personally know the importance of these resources to both our culture 

and our economy. 

Over 150 years ago, when our ancestors signed these treaties 

with the U.S. government, they believed that these natural resources would be the reason for our continued existence. And, towards that end, you know, we support requested increases for tribal hatchery operations and maintenance, the Timber, Fish, and 

Wildlife Program, and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Existing levels 

are just simply inadequate to reverse the trend of resource habitat 

degradation. Furthermore, we request the subcommittee’s support 

providing base funding for the tribe’s Wildlife Management Program in the amount of $100,000 for the BIA unresolved Hunting 

and Fishing Rights Program in FY 2014 appropriations. 

Improving the educational opportunities for our children is absolutely critical for the future of the Puyallup Tribe. Tribal pre-K enrollment is increasing, along with the cost of operations of maintenance of Chief Leschi High School facilities, of which I am a part 

of that school system, so I thank the Federal Government for providing the funds in the past, and then humbly request your continued, you know, support for those programs, excuse me. 

The tribe was disappointed with the less than one percent increase requested for education programs. We will work with Congress and the BIA to increase funding in fiscal year 2014, including 

tribal grants and support costs for tribally operated schools, in the 

amount of $23 million above fiscal year 2012 level, replacement of 

school construction in the amount of $17.8 million, student transportation, $52.8 million, and elementary and secondary programs 

for $526 million. 

The operation of Indian program and tribal priority allocation 

historically have not received adequate and consistent funding to 

equip tribes with the resources to fully exercise self-determination 

and self-governance. The tribe is requesting support from the subcommittee to fund OIP in fiscal year 2014 with a request of $2.183 

billion in TPA, at a minimum of $894 million. We further request 

support from this subcommittee to increase funding for Indian 

child welfare by $45 million—Indian child welfare by $50 million, 

and child welfare assistance by $55 million. 

I am going to wrap up here. Thank you. Finally, inadequate 

funding in IHS. Again, I grew up with IHS service, so I come here 

and say thank you from myself and our community. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Do not thank me. 

Mr. BEAN. The Congress. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I would say the people. 

Mr. BEAN. The people. And thank the people. Well, you represent 

the people, so, in your capacity, we thank you. The inadequate 

funding of IHS is the most substantial impediment to the current 

Indian Health System. It is a grave concern to the tribe that, of all 

the healthcare services operated by the Federal Government, Indian Health was not held harmless from the sequestration. The 

tribe has operated its healthcare program since 1976 through an 

Indian Self-Determination Act contract. Our current patient load 

exceeds 9,000 clients, of which approximately 1,700 are Puyallup 

tribal members. The tribe fully supports funding increases for ex-
408

isting IHS programs, and will work with the administration towards that end. 

Now, we were taught, you know, from, you know, we are always 

taught from our elders you look to take care of the land. If you take 

care of the land, it will take care of you. And we are taught, you 

know, if you take care of your children, your children will take care 

of you. I am here as a result of some foresight of our ancestors and 

my elders, and here I am taking care of, you know, our children, 

and our community, and in return they will take care of me one 

day.

So I would like to close with that, and again raise my hands, and 

thank you for being here. 

[The statement of David Bean follows:] 
409
410
411
412
413

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Next we are going to go to Joseph Pavel, 

Vice Chairman, Skokomish Tribe, from Washington. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SKOKOMISH TRIBAL NATION 

WITNESS

JOSEPH PAVEL 

Mr. PAVEL. Good morning. I am Joseph Pavel, Vice Chairman of 

Skokomish Tribal Council. Thank you for hearing us, Madam 

Chairman. Pleasure to meet you, Representative Beutler. I do not 

think we have ever had the pleasure before. I would just like to 

concur with you on your observation with some of the issues with 

regard to our resource management, with the mono-agrarian policies that have been established in our state, Federal, and commercial forest lands. We have a large issue with that. I would just like 

to point out that Norm Dicks, one of his projects was a forest legacy and stewardship program, which we have utilized in the 

Skokomish Watershed. It has certainly been a very huge benefit in 

our salmon recovery efforts there as well, but we look to use that 

as a tool for game management. 

We have our hurdles to overcome with regard to mono-species 

management, the spotted owl, with regard to doing any sort of activity within the timberland base, but we continue to encourage the 

Forest Service to address that. They have got some projects on the 

books. They have been planning and meeting for, like, four years 

for a couple of small harvests, open up the canopy. We did a 37 

acre prairie restoration burn about 10 years ago, and that is the 

kind of thing that requires maintenance, ongoing maintenance, to 

establish that prairie. Thirty-seven acres in an area that—I think 

some of the historic—aerial photographer shows us about a 1,200 

acre area, so, you know, we are struggling to prevent these kind 

of things. 

So once again we come here in a crisis mode. It is unfortunate 

that we have to petition you in this manner, with law and order, 

justice, the health issues. You know, I would like to come to you 

from a community health perspective. You know, we had an unfortunate piece of news yesterday. I was here, one of our young tribal 

members committed suicide at a local county jail. You know, so 

that is just kind of the end result, the culmination of these many 

issues we face with regard to the education of our youth. The mental health aspects, the drug abuse, all of these issues that we continue to address. I guess most commonly, you know, firefighting 

mode, you know, crisis management. 

You know, we support, you know, increases to IHS. Youth mental 

health is certainly a huge gap in the available resources in that 

arena, prevention activities. I think, with the high emphasis on law 

and order, you know, we certainly petition for increasing our law 

enforcement capabilities. We have been hard at work, have tried to 

reform, and create a more efficient and more responsive judicial 

system with our own reservation, our lone community, the violators 
414

that we do, you know, incarcerate and so forth, and write tickets, 

and bring them to court, and get them into the system. 

We are looking for alternatives to incarceration. You know, trying to look at encouraging them to address these issues within the 

court system, with a more responsive prosecutor, establishing a 

Public Defender, so these are the kind of things we want to be able 

to implement, helping these people. Those are part of our community. They are not just criminals and violators. They are part of our 

community, and they deserve our attention, as far as our community service, so we look to be able to provide a service to them, not 

just a punishment to them. 

You know, then, within the natural resources arena, I guess a recent addition to all the many responsibilities we have heard of here 

today would be the shellfish. You know, we have got to establish 

through the, you know, the legal system, and the treaty rights, a 

shellfish program, shellfish harvesting and so forth. And we were 

able to get the legal standards, but we have to struggle to provide 

the infrastructure to manage that, because that is hugely complex. 

It adds a public safety, a public health element to it, with regard 

to shellfish. I think we are all aware. We certainly concur with the 

state and with the private growers that we have to be ever vigilant 

and ever conscious to maintain and manage that resource, with regard to any public health risk. So that has added a layer of complexity to that. Takes up people on the ground, takes more law enforcement. It takes more technical resources. 

So, with that, I think you have my written testimony, and I 

thank you for this time. 

[The statement of Joseph Pavel follows:] 
415
416
417
418
419

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. With that, we are going to go to Timothy 

Ballew, with the Lummi Indian Business—Lummi? I have not 

heard of the Lummi Indian Business Council, but I am excited to 

hear your testimony. 

Mr. BALLEW. Thank you. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I am in the Portland media market. Give 

me some slack here. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

WITNESS

TIMOTHY BALLEW, II 

Mr. BALLEW. My name is Tim Ballew, Chairman of the Lummi 

Nation, thanking the chairwoman of the board, and distinguished 

members, all of the leadership of Indian country. It is an honor to 

be here today to testify for the Lummi Nation. I come here as the 

chairman of our people, and a fisherman for the people. 

Since time immemorial, the Lummi Nation, and the people, the 

Lhaq’temish, have occupied and used vast areas of the lands and 

waters of the Salish Sea. We have done so to support the fishing 

lifestyles, and the salmon have played an enduring role in that for 

our tribe’s subsistence, culture, identity, and economy. At the signing of the Point Elliott Treaty in 1855, we ceded tens of thousands 

of acres of land. In return, among other things, were reserved right 

to take fish, all in the name of maintaining a way of life, and doing 

so alongside our neighbors of the Washington territory. 

The fish stocks have plummeted in the past decade, and since 

the signing of the treaty, and in 2008 the Lummi Nation declared 

a Sakai disaster. Although the tribal fisheries alone have not 

played the primary role in the decline of the fishery, the Lummi 

Nation has taken it upon itself to help rebuild the stocks with two 

fish hatcheries that it owns and operates. Both hatcheries, the 

Skukum Creek Fish Hatchery and the Lummi Bay Fish Hatchery, 

were built in the 1970s. Both hatcheries provide commercial angler 

subsistence and ceremonial opportunities for all the residents of 

Washington State, and support 15 user groups. Also, both hatcheries have struggled with inadequate water sources since their construction.

The proposed $8.6 million budget in the BIA fish, wildlife, parks 

project and fish hatchery program is inadequate to support the 86 

tribal fish hatcheries that are in operation. The Lummi Nation requests that the BIA fish, wildlife, parks project and fish hatchery 

program be increased an additional $5 million, with $2.5 million 

set aside for the Lummi specific hatcheries for construction upgrades, for new water supply lines, and a water recirculation 

project that would better allow us to provide more fish stocks for 

the Washington residents. 

Furthermore, the Washington State Department of Ecology has, 

under State law, the authority to manage water in Washington 

State, and the State has presently, and been for several years, 

managing water rights and water that remains in the stream in a 
420

way that harms fish that are protected under the Point Elliott 

Treaty.

The BIA Water Resource Department has a key role in protecting water resources that are necessary for the viable Lummi 

and Washington treaty rights. The bulk of the Water Resource Department has proposed funding that is based on outstanding obligations that the BIA has with tribes under existing water rights 

settlements. The $1 million available is not sufficient in order to 

protect water resources for all tribes. Water right claims are based 

on science studies and modeling, and in order for BIA to carry out 

this trust responsibility, and assist the Lummi Nation and other 

local Northwest tribes in finding a resolution with Washington 

State Department of Ecology, the appropriations available is grossly insufficient. The Lummi Nation requests that the BIA Water Resource be funded with $5 million to be proactive in addressing 

water right issues that are related to treaty rights, with $200,000 

to be addressed for Lummi specific water right issues. 

Also, to keep in mind with the Federal Government’s trust responsibilities in upholding its obligations to both education and 

health, Lummi has requests that relate to BIE and IHS. The 

Lummi Nation requests $300,000 for a new early learning childhood facility, which Lummis plan to finish within the next year, 

and we are in need of equipment and new staffing for a new Head 

Start building that we have invested with our own hard dollars. 

Also, Lummi Nation requests $500,000 to allow Indian Health 

Services to provide minimal funding to the Nation for alcohol, substance abuse, and meth mitigation and suicide prevention programs. I just have one more point before the time up. The need for 

alcohol and substance abuse is directly tied to a symptom of a lack 

of the fish dock, which is a burden on our way of life. An inability 

for our people to produce and find a way to contribute back to the 

community has spilled over into a social effect that our folks from 

Quinault and other tribes have touched on. We support any line 

item that helps Indian country combat the negative effects of drug 

abuse.

And, lastly, we would like to encourage the subcommittee, and 

members of Congress, to continue to meet our trust responsibilities 

and obligations, and we look forward to be partners with you and 

the rest of Indian country to contribute to the community. 

[The statement of Timothy Ballew, II follows:] 
421
422
423
424
425

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you very much. 

And last, but not least, Edward Johnstone. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Treasurer, Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION 

WITNESS

EDWARD JOHNSTONE 

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is truly an 

honor to come before you to this committee. The committee has 

really came through for Indian country in the last several years. 

The support across the Board has been really remarkable to see, 

and I bring the messages of best regards from Chairman Billy 

Frank, who could not make this trip. But he wanted to make sure 

that the committee heard that. My message was to also bring to 

the community continued thanks for the support. Gains that we 

made in FY ’10 were very important to us, and the work that we 

do to rights protection in Western Washington. 

But I am the treasurer of the Northwest Indian Fish Commission, and we represent 20 tribes of Western Washington, from the 

peaks of the Cascades down into the Puget Sound backup, into the 

peaks of the Olympic Mountains, out into the Pacific Ocean, from 

the Canadian border down into about Central Washington, with 

our treaties and our U and As. We were formed just after the U.S. 

v. Washington, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, by the 

tribes that recognized the needs that were necessary to comply 

with the Judge’s Orders, and actually was supported by the Congress, and written right into the Decision, so it is implementation 

dollars that are base funding under rights protection. 

The rights protections cover 41 tribes in several treaty areas, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Great Lakes Commission, Chippewa, Ottawa, and I think it is 1854 Commission. And 

that pretty much represents the rights protection account. 

You heard earlier Kat Brigham and other talks about, you know, 

their support for these funds, and collaboratively we have worked 

together on these issues over the years, and we have provided written testimony. I just wanted to touch, basically, on the importance 

of what that means. 

The project that Fawn was talking earlier about, the Sakai restoration in the Upper Quinault, is actually a 100 year vision. And 

most people cannot even get their thoughts around a 100 year vision, but it can be synthesized down into about a 40 year plan, if 

you come up with the money, and we have collaborated with several folks to put that project together. The importance of what I am 

saying here is the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds are basically the foundation of the dollars that we are able to put together. 

And the tribes in the Northwest Indian Fish Commission, and the 

other places that the money flows through, the different states, and 

back to the tribes, those have been principal monies that we either 
426

work through the money that comes through the tribes, or through 

the Surf Board. 

And when we came through here not long ago and talked about 

our treaty rights at risk, we started out with a White House initiative 2 years ago this July, talks about, really, the condition of those 

same stocks that you are talking about, whether it be the Columbia 

River or up in our area, it is the fact that we are using those good 

dollars, and we are collaborating, but the habitat is being destroyed, or being given away at a faster pace than we can recover. 

So we wanted to stress the importance of the rights protection 

funds, Western Washington, Boldt, and then some of those sub-categories, like Pacific salmon. Ron Allen talking about the Pacific 

salmon treaty, our funds come through the BIA. That is a United 

States commitment to a treaty that our participation, our data, our 

science, comes through Interior. So, I mean, without it, you have 

a failed obligation to an international treaty. 

And I wanted to make sure that I covered the funds that come 

through EPA, and that is a gap program, and the Puget Sound 

Arts and Geographic Program. Those, again, are my testimony. 

But I guess I could not leave this table knowing that I have a 

little bit of the Congress’s ear, that, when I listened to a briefing 

the other day, it really gets you to understand. Our brother from 

Duck Valley, who was on a prior panel, talked about his community, and the hardships they face. When I heard the message that 

comes from Pine Ridge in South Dakota, about 110 suicide attempts in 100 days, that broke my heart. But it was worse when 

a young man that is working on those issues talked to me in the 

hall from a youth commission here in D.C. that a four-year-old and 

a five-year-old boy and girl were amongst those 110 attempts. That 

just breaks my heart, and it tells you that there is a lot of disparity 

out there in the reservations, and there is a lot of work to do. 

I guess my final comments are that we have really appreciated 

the help out of the committee to work with us, to get some of these 

funding elevated. We are really concerned about, whether it is the 

fiscal cliff, or sequestration, or the Budget Control Act, because so 

much of the good work that has been done can be really eroded 

quickly. And, when we look at our fiscal year 2014 process, and 

hear from, like, Federal agencies and other that we could be facing, 

by January 1, another eight point something percent, this would be 

catastrophic to us as natural resource managers, and for our tribes, 

as they work to keep their communities healthy and viable. 

And the last part that I would say about, the opportunity to 

speak about these funding sources in collaboration with the citizens 

of Washington State is, our fishing industry generates millions, 

and millions, and millions, and millions of dollars. Out of Quinault 

alone I would say it is somewhere between 10 and 15 million, as 

you were characterizing earlier, where the fishermen were at the 

gear shops, were buying boats and motors, were a big lift in that 

economy. Thank you. 

[The statement of Edward Johnstone follows:] 
427
428
429
430
431

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony and for your time. I appreciate you making the schlep all the 

way over to this town to talk about the issues of importance. Honestly, not just for our tribal communities. This impacts all of us. 

It is interrelated, so I appreciate it, and we are going to take it 

under concern and advisement as we deliberate for 2014. I have to 

officially adjourn, so we are officially adjourned. Next hearing at 

one o’clock. 
432

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Mr. COLE [presiding]. I will go ahead and start the committee 

meeting, so if the committee will come to order. Subcommittee 

Chairman Mike Simpson is unable to be here today so my name 

is Tom Cole. I represent Oklahoma’s 4th District, and it is my 

honor to chair this afternoon’s hearing. Chairman Simpson’s opening statement is as follows: 

Good afternoon and welcome to the second of four public witness 

hearings over these next 2 days specifically for American Indian 

and Alaskan Native programs under the jurisdiction of Interior, 

Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. I especially want to 

welcome the distinguished tribal leaders and elders testifying today 

and in the audience. You deserve to be heard more than 5 minutes 

that we have allotted today, and I want you to know that you have 

an open invitation to call on me and my staff so that we can schedule more time outside these hearings. And I would add parenthetically I think every member of the committee would echo that sentiment.

Despite a somewhat abbreviated hearing scheduled this year, I 

am proud that this Subcommittee is able to hold hearings on these 

important programs. They have been and will continue to be a bipartisan funding priority for this Subcommittee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table one panel 

at a time. Each witness will be provided with 5 minutes to present 

their testimony. We will be using a timer to track the progress of 

each witness. When the button turns yellow, the witness will have 

1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. When you see 

the blinking red light, please stop. We are going to have votes this 

afternoon and that will interfere in the middle of the hearing, at 

which point we will have to stop the hearing and reconvene immediately after votes. So in the interest of everyone’s time, let’s all try 

to work together to keep things moving along as much as we can. 

The chair also wants to remind those in the hearing room that 

the committee rules prohibit the use of outside video cameras and 

audio equipment during these hearings. 

Now, I am happy to yield to my friend, Ms. McCollum, for any 

remarks she might wish to make and, I might add, my fellow chairman of the Native American Caucus. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

We look forward to your testimony, and because we do have 

votes coming up, I am going to let everybody get started and I 

agree with everything Mr. Cole said. Thank you so much for being 

here.

Mr. COLE. Chairman, I am going to turn to you. Chairman Don 

Young wanted to make a couple of introductions of people that I 

think are here. Or do you want to wait and do that later, Chairman?

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, if they are not here, 

you know, you snooze, you lose in this business. I will mention 

their names here. And for the record I do appreciate your chairing 

this meeting today and this business of IHS and contract payments 

and the commitment by this Federal Government and this com-
433

mittee I think is very crucial to the American Indian, especially the 

tribes in the lower 48 and the State of Alaska on health is what 

I am interested in more than anything else. So I do appreciate your 

work and I thank you for letting me bring this forth today. 

But I am going to go through—I do not know who is here and 

who is not here, but I will go through and then I have to go because I have to vote. We are voting on the Keystone pipeline going 

through the other states and they want my vote. I do not know 

why.

But anyway, we have Angie Gorn from the Norton Sound Health 

Corporation will be here today. That is Norton Sound. And then we 

have the Cook Inlet Tribal Counsel, Amy Fredeen. She is a chief 

financial officer and executive vice president of the Cook Inlet 

Tribe; Arctic Slope Native Association, Angela Cox serves as the 

vice president of administration of Arctic Slope Native Association; 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, Julie Roberts. I think she is here and 

she is the president—the vice president of Tanana Chiefs Conference.

And then the Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Patty 

Brown; and then we have Southcentral Foundation, Donna 

Galbreath, who serves as the medical director of quality assurance 

at Southcentral Foundation, a very successful organization; the 

Central Council’s Tlingit Haida, Ed Thomas, he serves as the president of the Central Council Tlingit Haidas. And the Maniilaq Association, Ian Erlich, president and CEO of the Maniilaq Association; 

Copper River Native Association, Lorraine Jackson as the board 

chair of the Copper River Native Association; the Aleutian Pribilof 

Islands Association, Carolyn Crowder serves as the health director 

of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association; and of course Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Michael Douglas. 

So Mr. Chairman, that sounds like 11 Alaskans that I would like 

to remind yourself and other members of this committee you take 

all the land east of the Mississippi from the tip of Maine to the tip 

of Florida, that is Alaska. And in that area you have a little over 

285 Congressmen. So that is why we have so many native people 

from Alaska come and testify for this very important issue. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to introduce those people and listen to them very sincerely. 

Mr. COLE. Well, does that mean it takes 285 of us to equal one 

of you? 

Mr. YOUNG. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLE. I kind of thought you might see it that way. So if you 

are one of the people named and you are under the protection and 

sponsorship of Mr. Young, then we are all suitably impressed and 

very afraid. So—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. COLE [continuing]. You will be treated very well by this committee.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLE. With that, if we could have our first panel come forward, Mr. Greene, chairman of the—is it Makah Tribal Council? 

Mr. GREENE. Makah. 

Mr. COLE. Makah, thank you. If I mispronounce, do not hesitate 

to correct. 
434

Is it Derrell Seki, Treasurer of the Red Lake Tribal Council; Nathan Small, Chairman of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; John 

Sirois, Chairman of the Colville Business Council, Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and Angie Gorn, CEO of the 

Norton Sound Corporation. 

Thank you for joining us. And we will start with Mr. Greene. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

MAKAH TRIBAL COUNCIL 

WITNESS

T.J. GREENE 

Mr. GREENE. Okay. Thank you for being here, distinguished congressional leaders. Give our regards to the chairman. We miss him 

today. But I want to thank you for your time here. 

My name is T.J. Greene. I am the chairman for the Makah Tribal Council and want to thank you for this opportunity to present 

testimony on the views of the Makah Tribal Council on the fiscal 

year 2014 federal budget. I would like to testify today on for priority issues: assistance from the Federal Government for helping us 

clean up the Warmhouse Beach Open Dump site on our reservation, our efforts to secure federal grant funding for replacing our 

commercial fishing dock, our work in support of sustainable federal 

ocean policy, and true high-speed internet on the reservation. 

First off, our Warmhouse Beach Open Dump, the Makah Tribe 

continues to take aggressive steps to address the serious environmental and health risks posed by the Warmhouse Open Dump, a 

decades-old landfill located on the Makah Reservation that was 

used by the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies 

to dispose of hazardous waste. The dump is leaching harmful 

chemicals into a nearby stream which flows into the pristine 

waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Warmhouse Beach. This 

is a traditional shell-fishing location for our people. Frequent fires 

at the dump have contributed to air pollution in the town of Neah 

Bay and the reservation community. 

The fall of 2012 we opened a new solid waste transfer station in 

Neah Bay which enabled us to close the dump. Now, the challenge 

before us is to clean up the dump so stop polluting our waters. 

As a result of a legacy of waste disposal on tribal land, the Federal Government bears substantial responsibility for cleaning up 

the dump and preventing further exposure of the reservation community to the environmental and health hazards caused by the 

dump.

The Makah tribe has taken action to secure federal assistance for 

cleaning up the dump through negotiations with the Defense Department. The tribe also pursued listing the dump through the federal Superfund program. We have waited many years and tried 

many avenues to clean up this dump. We would appreciate this 

subcommittee’s support for our efforts. 

Our next item is a commercial fishing dock. The Port of Neah 

Bay commercial fishing dock was constructed between 1947 and 

1952. Its condition has now deteriorated so badly it has been closed 
435

to semi truck traffic for 8 years. Structural surveys of the dock 

have led to the conclusion that the doctor needs to be completely 

replaced.

This commercial dock generated over 6 million in fish landings 

annually, which are shipped around the country and internationally. It is the only commercial dock in 100 miles of coastline. It supports about half the working-age population of Neah Bay and over 

100 minority-owned enterprises. It supports the traditional maritime culture of the Makah Tribe. It also supports the ecosystem 

management and biological data collection efforts of the State of 

Washington, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and tribes to 

ensure sustainable fisheries of over 20 ground fish species, salmon 

species, halibut, and shellfish. The commercial dock also supports 

the oil spill response work performed by the Makah Tribe and our 

response partners. 

The Makah Tribe has paid for a lot of preliminary work on the new commercial dock. We have also contributed $200,000 in matching funds for a grant we received from the EDA for design and environmental permitting for construction of the new dock. We have 

been working with many federal and state agencies to find funding 

that can help us with the construction costs for this dock replacement project, thus far without success. The Tribe is able to contribute a substantial amount towards construction, but we need the 

Federal Government’s assistance in finalizing this important economic development initiative. 

A third item is our National Ocean Policy. The Makah Tribe is 

proud of formal tribal Chairman Micah McCarty’s service as the cochair to the Governance Coordinating Committee, which is tasked 

by the National Ocean Council to assist in developing a National 

Ocean Policy. We are proud of our work on ensuring tribal consultation on federal maritime matters such as the recently completed Vessel Traffic Risk Assessment by George Washington University concerning the export of coal and Canadian oil sands 

through our treaty area and the signing of the Makah Tribe’s/Coast 

Guard District 13 Interoperability and Coordination MOA to improve oil spill pollution prevention and response, among other task 

activities.

The Makah Tribe applauds the Obama Administration’s release 

of the first U.S. National Ocean Policy, and we stand ready to engage in substantive and meaningful dialogue with the Federal Government on developing a coastal marine spatial plan for our shared 

waters and associated natural resources. 

Lastly, true high-speed internet, over the last few years we have 

been working to obtain broadband to Neah Bay. Last year, our emphasis was to work with NOANET to facilitate the grant they received to get broadband to Neah Bay but the grant expired on January 1 of this year, and before we could secure microwave tower 

space in a nearby community, the tribe had secured tower space in 

Neah Bay and Lower Elwha, but the middle mile from Clallam Bay 

to Neah Bay remains an issue. 

In the meantime, the tribe has taken the initiative to install a 

fiber backbone for the tribal government in anticipation that the 

broadband will be available in Neah Bay soon. We are requesting 

assistance with running fiber optic cable from Clallam Bay to Neah 
436

Bay, which would complete the middle mile and allow the community in the tribal government to access true high-speed broadband 

service.

Thank you again for this opportunity, members of the subcommittee. And I want to say in my language [speaking native language]. Thank you. 

[The statement of T.J. Greene follows:] 
437
438
439
440
441

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Seki. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

RED LAKE TRIBAL COUNCIL 

WITNESS

DARRELL SEKI, SR. 

Mr. SEKI. Good afternoon, Chairman Cole. I thank you and other 

distinguished members of the committee for this opportunity. I 

want to acknowledge Congresswoman Betty McCollum from Minnesota. I am glad to see you here. 

I want to highlight just a few of the most important issues facing 

the Red Lake Nation and Indian Country in fiscal year 2014. My 

written testimony provides a more detailed view on the President’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget request for BIA, IHS, and EPA programs. 

Funding for BIA has not kept pace with the rest of the Interior. 

We really do appreciate your actions to support Indian program 

funding in recent years, but we are very concerned that BIA and 

tribes have lagged behind the rest of the Interior in terms of funding. For instance, the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request 

includes an overall percentage increase of 5.1 percent for non-BIA 

Interior programs and only 1.24 percent for BIA and tribes and I 

do not think this is fair. 

In addition, BIA and tribal employees make up 19 percent of the 

Interior workforce. Yet, of the total requested increase for Interior 

of $486.4 million in fiscal year 2014, BIA’s share of the total increases only $31.3 million, which means the BIA share of Interior 

total requested increase is only 6.4 percent and I do not think that 

is fair. 

To the extent that federal spending is driven by employees, the 

Indian parity share of the Interior budget increase should be at 

least $92.4 million, not the $31.3 million requested. And I think 

that would be fair. Based on the funding levels, the fiscal year 2013 

full year Continuing Resolution over the last 10 years, the budget 

for the National Park Service has grown by 33 percent; the Fish 

and Wildlife Service by 19 percent; the U.S. Geological Survey by 

14.5 percent; the Bureau of Land Management, 14 percent; and 

last and apparently the least, the BIA by only 10.5 percent. And 

I do not think that is fair. 

In fiscal year 2012 BIA received the largest budget cut at Interior: $62 million. And that I do not think it is fair. These trends 

are alarming and I ask that you address them in 2014 by increasing the BIA’s budget by at least $100 million over the fiscal year 

2012 level. I think this would be fair. 

I have placed on the table here are several graphics which illustrate what I have said today, but I ask that you please look at 

these. As the first Americans, I ask you to hold tribes harmless 

from the sequester. Now that the unthinkable has happened, tribes 

must suffer the terrible effects of the government’s sequester along 

with other rescission. The effective rate of cuts is 5.21 percent in 

fiscal year 2013 and that rises about 9 percent in fiscal year 2014 
442

and for the next 10 years. That is a BIA funding cut for Red Lake 

Nation of more than $1 million this year but if sequestration is allowed to continue in 2014, that will jump to $2 million. This will 

be nothing short of an economic disaster to our tribe in terms of 

public safety, human services, education, and natural resources. 

In terms of BIA funding and tribal job losses, we estimate the 

number of job loss this year will be 365 nationwide and a 635 jobs 

next year. Red Lake’s unemployment rate is more than 50 percent. 

We cannot afford to lose one single job. 

The impacts of sequestration on health services are equally severe. It will result in reduced staff, fewer needed medical procedures for our people. Indian healthcare is already substandard. 

Tribes’ core government service programs have experienced steep 

declines for many years. For instance, all tribes, tribal priority allocation accounts, which form the core government services, were 

permanently cut by 16 percent back in 1996. These same programs 

were permanently cut an additional 10 percent from fiscal year 

2002 to fiscal year 2008 due to more rescissions and other rescissions. Tribes now face an additional 9 percent cut from the sequester. This means tribes’ critical government service program must 

operate today with 35 percent less actual dollars than in 1995. 

On top of all of this, the only addition to tribes’ core service programs in 18 years has been pay costs, but for the last 12 years, pay 

costs have only been partially funded, usually at 50 percent or less. 

The President’s budget proposes an alternative to sequestration. 

There is nothing more important to Red Lake Nation than reversing the sequester’s devastating impacts. For this reason, we support the President’s proposal. Some of you may not support this 

budget, but I know most of you are sensitive to the plight that 

tribes face. It is imperative that you understand that the indiscriminate cuts of the sequester on top of all the previous cuts to 

our core service programs will result in irreparable damage to 

tribes. I asked that you enact the Interior budget this year to consider what I have said and reverse the sequester on tribes in fiscal 

year 2014. 

And in conclusion, I ask that tribal funding be made mandatory, 

not discretionary, because we are the first Americans. We have 

treaties. Our ancestors agreed to the United States Government 

that has a trust obligation to Indian tribes. 

And I want to thank all the committee members here for giving 

me this opportunity to hear testimony. [Speaking native language.] 
443
444
445
446
447

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Small. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES 

WITNESS

NATHAN SMALL 

Mr. SMALL. Good afternoon, Congressman Cole and other members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

My name is Nathan Small. I am chairman of the Fort Hall Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. Our reservation is about 544,000 acres and we 

have about 5,300 tribal members. And we would like at this time 

to thank Congressman Simpson for his friendship and commitment 

to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes if somebody can relay that for us. 

My testimony will focus on the following priorities: first is 

healthcare. We thank the Committee for providing funding increases for IHS, improved healthcare service for Indians. The Administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget requests an increase for IHS. 

Given fiscal pressures, we appreciate this. However, from our perspective, this increase is just a starting point from which to go up. 

With rising costs and a large number of healthcare needs, we face 

dwindling dollars to provide healthcare. We request that the Committee consider additional increases so that we can actually provide 

preventive and primary healthcare in addition to emergency 

healthcare.

Second is the contract support costs. The Administration’s fiscal 

year 2014 budget proposes individual statutory tribal caps on contract support costs payments. This would be a complete overhaul 

of the current system. And the Administration did not consult with 

us on this, which is in violation of the consultation policy. We request consultation with IHS and BIA prior to any more changes to 

contract support costs. 

Third, our 6th grade at our tribal high school is a tribally controlled BIE school. Three years ago we added a 6th grade program 

to the high school. The sole elementary school on the reservation, 

a public school, ends at the 5th grade and our high school starts 

at the 7th grade. This leaves a big gap in our 6th grade where our 

children had to go to different schools in different counties for a 

year and then come back to the reservation. This created inconsistencies and academic achievement. In the past, the Interior Appropriation bills have placed moratoriums on BIE grade expansion. We 

request language in the Interior Appropriations bill that would 

allow our 6th grade to be funded by the BIE. 

Fourth, our juvenile education and mental health. After decades 

of seeing if the Federal Government or the State of Idaho, as Public 

Law 280 states, could assist in replacing our condemned law enforcement buildings. We took out a $16 million loan to build a new 

justice center 3 years ago to house all of our public safety services. 

This center is state-of-the-art. The center also contains our juvenile 

detention facilities. 
448

For our juvenile facility, we seek to provide educational and mental health services to juveniles in our custody. The detention center 

is often their final opportunity at rehabilitation. Unfortunately, 

under the fiscal year 2014 budget, it requests zero funding for juvenile education and BIA refuses to let us use our correction dollars 

for their education. Further, the Department of Education refuses 

to provide educational funding for juveniles at BIA facilities. For 

fiscal year 2014 we request funding for juvenile education and that 

the Department of Education be directed to address this need. 

We also respectfully make three requests to help stretch existing 

dollars. First, we seek the designation of our juvenile facility as a 

regional facility. Other tribes have expressed interest in sending 

their juveniles to our facility. Second, we seek authorization to use 

detention funding for educational and health services for the juveniles. Third, we seek authorization to use IHS funding to address 

the healthcare needs of our juveniles in our facility. 

Fifth, we have Superfund sites within our boundaries of our reservation, and we would ask for support to clean up the Eastern 

Michaud Flats Superfund sites located on the reservation due to 

the phosphate mining. The hazardous waste from this mining is 

stored in unlined holding ponds causing serious contamination. 

This contamination has affected our sacred hunting grounds. EPA 

just wants to cover it up at the tribes and the people of southeastern Idaho would like to see it cleaned up instead. We request 

that EPA at least allow a pilot treatment study to see if the hazardous waste can be treated more safely removed. 

Last, the BIA road maintenance. The last thing we request funding to address the growing BIA deferred road maintenance needs. 

Funding for this has been wholly inadequate leading to high levels 

of fatalities and serious injuries, which is unacceptable. 

And in conclusion, as you can see, our priorities are focused on 

critical basic needs under the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger. The 

U.S. promised it would provide these basic needs, which it has not 

done.

We know that this country is now facing tough economic times 

and that you are fighting extra hard to protect those essential Indian programs. For this, we deeply thank you. 

I will leave some pictures of Fort Hall and some of the issues I 

just talked about. And if you have any questions, please ask Congressman Simpson. 

[The statement of Nathan Small follows:] 
449
450
451
452
453

Mr. COLE. Well, I will note for the record, Chairman Small, that 

there is a particularly handsome photo of the Congressman 

amongst these pictures into his hard hat. So it immediately attracted my attention. 

If we could just let me interrupt for one second for a quick announcement. As those of you in subsequent panels, if you have 

handouts, if you could bring them to us first, we will get them distributed so that people can view them in a timely fashion. 

And with that, Mr. Sirois, we will go to you next. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL, CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION 

WITNESS

JOHN SIROIS 

Mr. SIROIS. [Speaking native language.] On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, I sincerely thank 

you and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

[Speaking native language.] My name is John Sirois. I am the 

tribal chairman of the Colville Business Council. The Colville Indian Reservation is located in north-central Washington, and it is 

slightly larger than the State of Delaware. We have about 2/3 of 

our reservation is covered in timber, and timber sales and forest 

products have been traditionally our primary source of revenue and 

economic development to fund our tribal governmental programs. 

About half of our 9,500 tribal members live on or near the reservation.

Certainly, you know, I echo a lot of the comments that our tribal 

leaders have spoken about today. Certainly, with the downturn in 

the timber market, jobs is a real problem for us as well. 

I am here today though to discuss three recommendations for you 

all to consider as you draft your fiscal year 2014 spending bill. 

First, the Small Ambulatory Facilities Grant Program. As the Subcommittee is aware, you know, healthcare facilities in Indian Country is a crisis, and it has been that way for a long time. This Small 

Ambulatory Grant Program is one of the Indian Health Service’s 

programs that provide for facilities construction. Under this grant 

program, the successful applicants in IHS, IHS will pay for the construction costs of the facility and the tribe is responsible for all of 

the staffing needs. The fiscal year 2014 request does not include 

funding for this or other IHS facility construction programs. We see 

that as a problem. 

The Colville Tribes has an ongoing issue with the lack of staffing 

capacity in its existing IHS facilities. Despite dedicating significant 

travel resources of our own to update our clinics, the Indian Health 

Service does not provide commensurate increases in staffing. Without sufficient staffing, these facilities cannot treat patients to its 

full capacity. Many Indian tribes are in the same position. 

The reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 

provides new opportunities for tribes to generate additional revenue through third-party reimbursements. With a short-term infu-
454

sion of funds through these third-party reimbursements, tribes 

would be in a position to make these reimbursements and making 

their staff self-sustaining. This would provide opportunities for 

tribes like the Colville Tribes that have staffing shortages to generate additional revenue from existing facilities to hire new staff. 

The fiscal year 2014 request does not contain any funding for a 

Small Ambulatory program this year. However, we recommend at 

least 50 million for the Small Ambulatory Grant program and 

allow for short-term staffing packages as an eligible grant activity. 

Our written testimony will go into further detail on this. 

Secondly, this is one of the things that we talked about in our 

consultation in Seattle within the Cobell buyback program. We 

would like to push for legislation that allows the Department of Interior to invest the $1.9 billion already appropriated for the 

buyback program. You know, as a part of this Cobell settlement, 

the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 appropriated $1.9 billion for the 

voluntary buyback and consolidation of fractionated land interest 

by the Department of Interior. The intent of this program is to require many of these small fractionated interests from willing Indian sellers as possible to reduce the burden and expense on the 

Department of Interior managing all of these fractionated interests. 

And this would also help prevent future Cobell cases going forward. 

Under the terms of the settlement, any unspent amounts of that 

$1.9 billion will revert to the U.S. Treasury within 10 years. 

There has been tremendous interest across Indian Country in the 

buyback program since the Department of Interior unveiled its 

plan earlier this year. The Department of Interior has identified 40 

Indian tribes that would initially be able to participate in the program, and many more not on that list have also expressed a lot of 

interest in participating as well. Somewhat surprisingly, the 

Claims Resolution Act did not include any language that allows the 

Department of Interior to invest that $1.9 billion and retain the 

earnings for the buyback program. It only makes sense to maximize the amount of funds available to purchase fractionated interests by allowing the Department of Interior to invest these funds 

and retain the supplemental earned amounts for the buyback program.

Because the 10-year clock is already begun ticking on that $1.9 

billion principal to be spent, every fiscal year that goes by without 

this money being invested represents money and opportunity lost. 

Just for a quick example within our tribe, we still have a land sale 

that is not finished and was started in 1998. So there is a huge 

problem within that buyback system that we really need to fix and 

maximizing the opportunity to use those funds is really important. 

We encourage the Subcommittee to consider including language 

that allows the Department of Interior to maximize these funds by 

investing them. Our written testimony will also include more information on that. 

Finally, the third thing is about law enforcement. You know, for 

many reservations there is a constant need for additional funding 

for the criminal investigations and police services account within 

the BIA’s budget. This account funds tribal and BIA police officer 

salaries. There are occasions when there is only a single tribal offi-
455

cer on call for the entire 1.4 million acre reservation that we have 

jurisdiction over. 

The much-heralded passage this year and that we cheer on is the 

Violence Against Women Act reauthorization that will provide 

those tribes with sufficient resources and the ability to prosecute 

non-Indians for domestic violence offenses, but for the majority of 

those tribes, this new authority will mean very little if there are 

not police officers on the ground in the first place. The fiscal year 

2014 request includes a $5.5 million increase for this account but 

the Colville Tribes encouraged the Subcommittee to consider a larger increase to help bridge this gap and meet that need in Indian 

Country for police services. 

This concludes my testimony and I would also be happy to answer any questions that the members of this Subcommittee have. 

So with that I say [speaking native language]. Thank you. 

[The statement of John Sirois follows:] 
456
457
458
459
460

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Gorn. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

NORTON SOUND HEALTH CORPORATION 

WITNESS

ANGIE GORN 

Ms. GORN. Good afternoon. I am Angie Gorn, President and CEO 

at Norton Sound Health Corporation in Nome, Alaska, and I just 

want to thank you all for giving up your time and for making this 

opportunity available. I know it is a very difficult economic time 

and, as we can see, the needs here around the table are great. 

I wanted to make sure that I could be here in person today so 

you could hear firsthand how these budget deficits impact our region in northwest Alaska. The budget cuts and the serious underfunding are great and they present serious challenges for rural 

Alaska. And when I say rural I mean 500 air miles from the nearest city, which is Anchorage. Rural also means that we have no 

road access for 16 of our communities that reside in the Bering 

Strait region. Some of our residents can actually look out the window and they do see Russia on a clear day. So we are rural and 

we are also medically underserved. 

A wonderful recent achievement is the opening of this beautiful 

state-of-the-art, 150,000 square-foot replacement hospital in the 

Arctic and I want to thank all of you. This was made possible 4 

years ago with the stimulus funding and the Recovery Act. And we 

are just very pleased that that dream became a reality for our region. We gained beneficial occupancy of that building in June of 

2012, and now, we need IHS to expand and fund fully the staffing 

needs for that new facility. So our request, which is in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2014, is $13.58 million in additional 

staffing funds to help us staff that new facility. 

In addition to that, our region is extremely remote and so recruitment is challenging. There are many, many barriers. Our area 

has one of the highest HPSA scores, Health Professional Shortage 

Area scores in the Nation. Those additional staffing funds will 

allow us to recruit and hire the medical personnel and other allied 

health personnel that are required to expand and staff that facility, 

examples being pharmacists and laboratory technicians. Those 

would not just be nice to have. Those positions are mandatory to 

help us expand our healthcare and to use that building for the purpose for which it was intended. 

That building is three times the size of our old facility. We need 

additional housekeepers; we need additional maintenance personnel as well as security. And so we are hopeful that that request 

for $13.58 million will be appropriated in fiscal year 2014. 

Additionally, we would like to express our concerns for our village-built clinics. Healthcare in our region, 75 percent of it takes 

place in our village, so this is a beautiful facility but 75 percent of 

that takes place at the village level. And it would not be possible 

without our health aides, our community health aides. All of them 
461

graduate from the Community Health Aide program and they are 

the backbone for healthcare delivery in our region. Now, many of 

them have to work in subpar conditions, facilities that have not 

been maintained in years. The money that Indian Health Services 

gives our villages is not enough to sustain and operate those clinics.

A personal example in one of our villages, Gamble, over the past 

2 years, they actually had to close their doors. Norton Sound 

Health Corporation had to step in and assist and help fund improvements and renovations to keep the doors open. That has become a trend in our region. We now earmark monies to help our 

villages so they can meet those expenses on an annual basis. So we 

would like to see the additional $8.2 million be appropriated to 

help with the VBC leases in fiscal year 2014. 

In addition to that, we ask for your support to fully fund the contract support costs. That continued shortfall compromises our ability to care for our patients, and that request is at $617 million. 

And our last request alludes to the sequestration, which I know 

we have already talked about today. For Norton Sound Health Corporation, that resulted in a 5 percent cut and that translated to 

over $1.2 million being cut from our remaining fiscal year 2013 

compact funds. In addition to that, our new staffing funds will be 

impacted by the cut as well, and so we urge you to please protect 

Indian Health Services from that sequestration. 

So I just want to thank you very much and also thank you for 

giving up your time to listen to these requests. 

[The statement of Angie Gorn follows:] 
462
463
464
465
466

Mr. COLE. Thank you. And let me make a couple quick remarks 

before I opened it up for questions. And just obviously a common 

theme—and there were in the earlier panels today—about the need 

for funding. As I am sure you are probably aware, that is always 

a challenge and probably more so this year than most. On the 

other hand, this committee under Chairman Simpson and Chairman Moran has really been the leader I think on most of these 

issues and I know over the last 3 years has actually out-appropriated what the President requested for BIA and I believe BIE 

and certainly for Indian Health. 

And our problems tend to be the other side of the Rotunda. It 

is actually not a partisan problem; it is a chamber problem in some 

ways. So we appreciate the input. It is very helpful. And we will 

continue to try to work on these issues. But you do not have to convince anybody on this panel on either side of the aisle that these 

are genuine and real needs, and we understand the problems associated with the sequester. 

I do have a quick question for you if I may, Mr. Greene. I was 

curious—and this may be in your written testimony. You talked 

about the commercial fishing dock that was so critical, and I was 

curious what the cost estimates on that were. 

Mr. GREENE. The cost estimates are between 7 and $9 million to 

complete the project and we have a substantial amount of that put 

away already, right around $3 million that we tried to set aside for 

that project. 

Mr. COLE. So you are looking for a match in effect? 

Mr. GREENE. Yes, either a match or, you know, whether it is a 

new market tax credits, access to new market tax credits. We have 

applied to the Department of Transportation TIGER program several times. We have not been successful. Although it has been 

rated as a good project, it just is not quite competitive enough for 

that program. 

Mr. COLE. Well, it is an excellent use of the money. I will just 

hold here quickly because I know we are limited on time. Let me 

go to the ranking member, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. I think I should do the same, Tom, because we are 

going to have a vote. We were supposed to have the vote at 1:30 

Buddy tells me so I think we better get as many people in. I am 

not sure how many votes we have but let’s see if we can get as 

many witnesses as possible. 

Mr. COLE. Absolutely. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, Mr. Chair, I am going to take advantage 

to ask the representative from Red Lake, Darrell. We heard a little 

bit about what is going on with Indian education. We have heard 

a little more about what is going on with Indian healthcare, and 

I think people have a pretty good picture on that. And I do not 

mean to put you on the spot because you have a lot of tribal responsibilities. You know what is going on with the schools that I 

know, you know, that is something you care passionately about. 

Mr. SEKI. Yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. But you might not have everything at your fingertips. But a lot of things are happening with some of the tribal 

schools with Impact Aid, and Red Lake is right in the middle of 

the hot seat on that. And if you would care to share if you feel that 
467

you have been briefed enough on what is going on with Impact Aid 

with the Red Lake schools, I would appreciate it. Maybe describe 

how long these young people are in the bus just to get to school 

and the talk about consolidation is very, very scary from what I 

hear what their school day would become just being in a bus. 

Mr. SEKI. Well, Dave Connor is the one that gathers all our information, but like our reservation, we have a big land base and 

for some of our students they go to school from Panama to Red 

Lake, that is, what, a 45-minute ride. And, you know, the sequester 

that is going to happen, it is going to affect the state funding also 

because the state is being cut back because the dollars they used 

to get from the Federal Government to support, you know, the public schools that we have in Red Lake. And I want to have Dave 

Connor come up here and add some of these issues we have regarding education. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, if that is okay with you? 

Mr. COLE. Yes, that is okay. We are quickly if we can, though. 

If you could state your name and position for the record? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, David Connor, Self-Governance Coordinator, 

Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOR. And thank you, Mr. Chair and Ms. McCollum. It 

is a critical matter. You know, from one end of the reservation to 

another it actually spans in terms of transportation sometimes 75 

miles one way and it will cut back on bus services and possibly 

other services to get the kids to other schools because right now in 

the remote location many Red Lake kids do not just go to Red Lake 

High School; they go to Clear Brook and Black Duck, and several 

other locations. 

And additionally, back to BIA, you know, the funding levels for 

the Johnson-O’Malley program, we estimate that this year, because 

of the sequester, 107 students are going to be denied aid, school 

supplies, tutoring, and bus transportation, and that number is 

going to jump to nearly 200 next year. And as we all know, Minnesota graduates 42 percent of Native American kids from high 

school. Only 42 percent of Native American kids graduate from 

high school in Minnesota. It is the worst state in the Nation. So 

programs like JLM actually provide services that help kids at a 

younger age get the skills they need to get graduated. 

But thank you very much. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just wanted to get a little better picture of what is going on 

with the education opportunities that are being ruled out with sequestration. I appreciate your indulgence. 

Mr. SEKI. Congressman McCollum, it also is going to affect our 

college students that go to college. Because of these cuts, it is going 

to be less for them. It will be less high school graduates going to 

college because we will not have any scholarships available for 

them. And it is going to be very devastating because education is 

supposed to be for everyone, but in our reservation if the sequester 

is not stopped, it is going to affect our scholarship funding for our 

students, and it is a shame to see that is going to happen in these 
468

coming years. If you can look at our testimony and the graphs that 

we submitted, that could help. 

Mr. COLE. I can assure you that we will. Thank you. 

I am sorry to rush it along, but we do want to make sure that 

as many panelists as possible can come address. So thank you very 

much and I look forward to working with you on these issues. 

If we can, our next panel—and if I mispronounce the name, I am 

sorry. Is it Amy Fredeen? Angela Cox, Julie Roberts, Patty BrownSchwalenberg, and Dr. Donna Galbreath, welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL 

WITNESS

AMY FREDEEN 

Ms. FREDEEN. Congressman Cole and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak—— 

Mr. COLE. Well, if you would introduce yourself. If I do not call 

on you, they do not know. So if you would introduce yourself and 

your position. 

Ms. FREDEEN. Okay. My name is Amy Fredeen and I am with 

Cook Inlet Tribal Council. I am the executive vice president and 

CFO.

Mr. COLE. Thank you so much. 

Ms. FREDEEN. Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak to 

you today. As I mentioned before, I am with Cook Inlet Tribal 

Council, or CITC. We are an Alaska Native tribal nonprofit organization which serves as the primary education and workforce development Center for Alaska Native people in Anchorage. I will be addressing two issues in my testimony today: the 477 program and 

contract support costs. 

CITC serves Alaska Native and American Indian people primarily in south-central Alaska, which is home to over 40,000 Alaska Native/American Indian population. Our population experiences 

huge disparities. Alaska Native students are twice as likely to drop 

out as their non-native peers, 33 percent of the unemployed in 

Alaska are Alaska Native people, and almost 20 percent of Alaska 

Native people have incomes below the federal poverty line, nearly 

three times the rate of their non-native counterparts. 

The Indian Employment Training and Related Services Demonstration Act, or the 477 program, is an effective tool in reducing 

and eliminating these disparities. Administered by the Department 

of the Interior, the law allows a consolidation of funding streams 

from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Health and Human Services, and Labor into a single employment and training plan. On a 

national level, 62 tribal grantees and a consortia of 477 programs 

serve 267 out of the 545 tribes nationwide. 

CITC relies heavily on the 477 program to find our people more 

effective and integrated services while reducing costly administrative redundancy. Over the past 5 years, CITC’s 477 program has 

provided over 9,300 jobseekers with career coaching, training, and 

job search assistance with 5,900 of those reaching employment in 
469

non-subsidized work. The average hourly wage of a jobseeker coming to CITC for services increased from $9.95 an hour to over $17 

an hour, greatly impacting their livability. 

In addition to being successful on the ground, the 477 program 

is fully accountable. It achieved the highest rating of the Office of 

Management and Budget PART assessment rating tool in Indian 

Affairs. The 477 program is critical to our effectiveness, especially 

in an environment of shrinking funding sources. This committee 

has been very responsive to tribes’ concerns and supportive of the 

477 program. We are grateful that your action last year resulted 

in considerable momentum to resolve agency issues regarding 477 

implementation.

While we continue to meet weekly with the agencies in good 

faith, we have not reached a solution. We request that the Subcommittee expedite negotiations and clarify the intent of the program by adding language to the law that strengthens the intent, 

details of which are included in my written testimony. 

Secondly, contract support costs provide a key element in our 

ability to leverage funds and be effective. The Administration’s 

budget proposes wiping out all contract support claims and fiscal 

year 2014. We object to this provision on the following grounds: 

first, the provision effectively amends the Indian Self-Determination Act to wipe out the damages remedied which Congress provided in Section 110. Second, the Administration never consulted 

with tribes before proposing this radical change. Amendments to 

the Indian Self-Determination Act should only be developed 

through the Authorizing Committee after full consultation with 

tribes and tribal organizations. And lastly, if the Administration 

wants to explore improvements in the funding of self-determination 

contracts, it should only do so through the advanced collaboration 

with tribes and tribal organizations. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

[The statement of Amy Fredeen follows:] 
470
471
472
473
474

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Angela Cox, Vice President of Administration, Arctic Slope Native Association. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

ARCTIC SLOPE NATIVE ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

ANGELA COX 

Ms. COX. [Speaking native language.] Distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today regarding the fiscal year 2014 Indian Health Service 

budget. My name is Angela Cox. I am Inupiaq from the northernmost tribe of the United States. I am also the vice president of Arctic Slope Native Association. We are an intertribal health organization based in Barrow, Alaska, and we serve and are controlled by 

eight federally recognized tribes across the northernmost region of 

Alaska.

The anchor for all of our services is the IHS Samuel Simmonds 

Memorial Hospital in Barrow. Since 1996 we have operated this facility under a self-governance compact with IHS now compacted 

under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act. I am here to 

provide testimony about our new IHS hospital, which is in the final 

stages of completion. This new 100,000 square-foot, state-of-the-art 

hospital is replacing the 25,000 square-foot hospital which IHS 

built in 1963. We are excited about our new facility and must 

pause to thank this committee for your extraordinary work in providing the majority of the funds necessary for this project. 

I am proud to say that we contracted for the construction of this 

hospital under Title V and we are completing the project within 

budget. Next month, we will receive our certificate of beneficial occupancy, and in September, actual patient services will begin. 

But a brand-new hospital is of little use if there is no new staffing. This is one reason I am here to testify about IHS’s proposed 

fiscal year 2014 budget. The most significant impacts for ASNA in 

the budget are staffing for new facilities and contract support costs. 

Regarding new hospital staffing, IHS signed our final staffing 

package in May 2011. The new hospital is four times larger than 

our existing facility and many more services would be available, assuming we have the staffing. 

Our existing staffing package for the old hospital is 116 full-time 

equivalent employees. IHS calculated the new hospital staffing 

package—granted, only at the standard 85 percent capacity formula—to be 256 FTEs. That is a 140 FTE increase in staff. Although we require 140 new FTEs, the fiscal year 2014 budget only 

requests 49, for a total of 165. That is less than half of the personnel required to bring the hospital online at 85 percent capacity. 

In other words, half of the hospital will be empty and unused. As 

a matter fact, even though we are commencing patient services in 

current fiscal year 2013, ASNA is not slated to receive any fiscal 

year 2013 IHS staffing funds. 
475

It makes little sense for Congress to finance the construction of 

a high-priority new facility and then to leave the facility halfstaffed and unable to provide the care for which it was designed. 

We ask that the Committee take corrective action to staff the Barrow Hospital by adding 140 new FTEs, not a mere 49. 

Regarding contract support costs, the underfunding of the staffing package is compounded by the underfunding of our contract 

support requirements. These are the funds which IHS is required 

by contract to pay ASNA the cost of operating the Barrow Hospital 

and outlying village clinics. ASNA’s contract support has been underfunded since ’96. This committee has been heroic in seeking to 

close the national gap in funding all tribal contract support cost requirements, and we thank you for your hard work. We appreciate 

that it is extremely difficult to find new funds and to reorder priorities in a sequester environment, but with all due respect, honoring 

a contract in full is not a choice among priorities; it is a legal obligation.

The proposed budget would prevent us from securing justice on 

our contract claims in fiscal year 2014. It would cap contract payments to ASNA and deprive us of our day in court for any losses. 

Worse yet, there has been no consultation whatsoever with impacted tribes. We understand the importance of the current fiscal 

challenges and would like to be part of the solution. In short, contract support costs should be fully funded at $617 million. 

Regardless of funding levels, no new language should be added 

that would cut off our contract rights under the Indian Self-Determination Act. 

In closing, on behalf of our president Marie Carroll, our board 

member tribes, I would like to extend an invitation to all members 

of this committee, your staff, to join us for our celebratory opening 

in August for the opening of the new hospital. This new facility is 

the result of a unique partnership between many local, state, and 

federal agencies: the Denali Commission, the Indian Health Service, and our eight federally recognized tribes; and, most importantly, this committee. We would be very honored if you could join 

us at the opening. [Speaking native language.] 

[The statement of Angela Cox follows:] 
476
477
478
479
480

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

If we may, Julie Roberts, Vice President—is it the Tanana? 

Ms. ROBERTS. Tanana. 

Mr. COLE. Tanana. Thank you very much—Chiefs Conference. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE 

WITNESS

JULIE ROBERTS-HYSLOP 

Ms. ROBERTS-HYSLOP. Thank you. Thank you very much. It is an 

honor and a privilege to be here and I really appreciate, you know, 

your taking this time to hear from us. As you know, we have a lot 

of need out there in Indian Country, and just allowing us the opportunity to be heard is very much appreciated by all of us. 

My name is Julie Roberts-Hyslop. I am the recently elected vice 

president of Tanana Chiefs Conference, a consortium of 39 federally recognized tribes in the interior of Alaska. I also currently 

serve as the president of our tribe in Tanana. And our territory, 

which is mostly roadless, is almost the size of Texas, and so it is 

very huge. 

TCC is a cosigner of the Alaska Tribal Health Compact awarded 

under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act. And I will be 

testifying on two matters. First, I will provide an overview of the 

Joint Venture Construction Program can specifically address TCC’s 

joint venture staffing needs. 2nd, I will explain the impact suffered 

by the TCC and others from contract support cost shortfall and 

how the shortfall will have the most impact of those entities starting to operate replacement or joint venture facilities in fiscal year 

2013.

As you know, the Joint Venture Construction Program is authorized in Section 818 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

The authorization directed the Secretary of HHS to make arrangements with tribes to establish joint venture projects. The program 

is executed through a JVCP agreement—a contract—in which a 

tribal entity borrows non-IHS funds for the construction of a tribally owned health facility, and in exchange, the IHS promises to 

lease the facility, to equip the facility, and to staff the facility. 

And in the Conference Report which accompanied the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation 

Act of 2010, the conferees explained the importance of the Joint 

Venture Program. That program is a unique way of addressing the 

persistent backlog in IHS health facility construction projects serving American Indians and Alaska Natives. The conferees reported 

they ‘‘believe that the Joint Venture Program provides a cost-effective means to address this backlog and to increase access to 

healthcare services for American Indians and Alaska Natives. The 

conferees are aware that IHS is currently reviewing competitive 

applications from tribes and tribal organizations to produce a patent in the 2010 Joint Venture Program and encourages the service 

to move forward with the process in an expeditious manner.’’ 
481

So Tanana chiefs, they went ahead and they borrowed the money 

and we build a facility under budget and ahead of schedule. And 

we just opened our facility in early December and so we are using 

it right now. 

So the IHS signed a legally binding Joint Venture Construction 

Agreement with TCC. In the agreement, IHS agreed to ‘‘request 

funding from Congress for fiscal year on the same basis that IHS 

request funding for other facilities.’’ Given that IHS has requested 

funding for the various in JVC projects across the country at different percentages and not in correlation to clinic opening dates, it 

appears that IHS has not requested funding on the same basis 

across all facilities. 

TCC is deeply appreciative of the Committee’s efforts to secure 

some funding for 2013. So according to the agreement with the 

IHS, TCC’s staffing package funding should be $29.4 million, requiring an increase of $19.4 million over our 2013 funding level. If 

the President’s proposed $77 million staffing increases for 2014 are 

supported in applied to the fiscal year 2013 increase, this will 

make it right the wrong TCC experienced. But if, as IHS indicates, 

they are above the 2012 level, they are woefully insufficient. 

Secondly, I want to ask your support for the contract support 

shortfall. Related to the Joint Venture Construction Program is our 

concern that IHS requested funding for contract support costs. 

These costs are owed to the tribes and tribal organizations like 

TCC that perform contracts on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act. Contract supports are 

fixed and fully audited costs which we incur and must spend to operate IHS programs and clinics. The law and our contracts say that 

these costs must be reimbursed and the Supreme Court ruled so 

twice.

The problem is that for 2014 IHS has requested only a $5.8 mil- lion increase over fiscal year 2012 levels, up to $477 million. So I 

am just asking that we have your support for contract support 

costs that is owed to our tribes and our tribal organizations that 

operate contracts on behalf of our Indian people. 

I just want to thank you very much for your time today. 

[The statement of Julie Roberts follows:] 
482
483
484
485
486

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Patty Brown-Schwalenberg, Executive Director of the—is it Chugach?

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Chugach. 

Mr. COLE. Chugach Regional Resources Commission. Thank you. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION 

WITNESS

PATTY BROWN-SCHWALENBERG 

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. And I 

would also like to thank you for continuing to have these hearings 

every year because, as you have heard from my colleagues at the 

table here and probably from the colleagues sitting in the audience, 

that it is important to be heard and it means a lot for the communities in Alaska in particular but probably across the country to be 

able to share their concerns with those of you who make decisions 

on our behalf. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Don Young for taking 

the time. He is not here but he came and introduced us ahead of 

time, and I always appreciate the time he takes to recognize his 

constituents from Alaska. 

The Chugach Regional Resources Commission is a nonprofit coalition of tribes located in south-central Alaska, Lower Cook Inlet, 

and Prince William Sound, and we were created by the federally 

recognized tribes to address specifically subsistence, natural resource issues of concern to the tribes. So we are not a corporation 

but we are what I call sister organizations to Chugach and Chugach, Alaska. So while they deliver the Health and Human Services and education type services and then the 4-private businesses, 

we focus specifically on natural resource management type issues. 

So in regards to the fiscal year 2014 budget, we urge you to work 

together to pass an appropriations bill by September 30 of 2013. 

That would be wonderful. I do not know if it would ever happen 

but it does cause hardship to our organization anyway. We are a 

small organization. We operate maybe $2.5 million a year and we 

have not received our funding this here yet. And so we have had 

to get a $100,000 loan from the bank and we are still waiting to 

receive our funding. So that gives us a cash flow problem and we 

have to try to get the projects running any way we can until that 

funding comes in. And part of it is because the budget is not passed 

in, you know, a timely manner, and of course sequestration and the 

Continuing Resolutions are issues, too. But, you know, if we can 

streamline the process, it would be really helpful for those of us 

who have small budgets. 

We are, however, including in the 2014 budget again this year 

and we are thankful for your continued support for the $350,000 

that we do get through the BIA Trust-Natural Resources program. 

And we also support the proposed increases that are in the Administration’s budget for Trust-Natural Resource programs. Particu-
487

larly, there is some extra funding to support Youth in Natural 

Sciences, and that is very important for us because we have been 

striving and working in natural resource education to try to urge 

students to pursue degrees in the natural sciences. We have a 

shellfish hatchery and we support through the University of Alaska-Anchorage Ph.D. candidates and master’s students, some of 

which are native students. But we would really like to be able to 

some sort of stipend or some kind of support for these students so 

that we can continue to support the research in the shellfish research areas and other areas of natural resource management that 

we do. 

And we also support the $10 million increase for climate change. As you know, it is only $200,000 right now, so any kind of increase 

would be very helpful. In Alaska we are experiencing population 

declines of both salmon and shellfish and ocean acidification is becoming an issue. So this funding would help us participate in those 

climate change discussions that are going on with other federal 

agencies and oftentimes not in a greater even in Alaska, so it is 

hard to participate even though Alaska is the northernmost state 

in the union. 

In regards to the Fish and Wildlife Service portion of the budget, 

I see that there is an increase in the budget but part of the funding 

for the Alaska Natives is for migratory bird management and the 

amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for spring and 

summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds, and along with 

that, the Alaska Natives have an organization called the Alaskan 

Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. It is made up of one state 

representative, one federal representatives, and 10 native representatives. They set the regulations for the harvest of each 

spring and summer hunt or set the regulations, excuse me. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service sets this money aside at the Region 7 level, but it is not guaranteed, and so we would like to ask 

you to allocate $1 million of this increase in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service budget to the Alaskan Migratory Bird Co-Management 

Council. And that would provide us more stable funding. And it is 

the current amount that they spend on AMBCC right now. 

And then, finally, I just wanted to echo just what everybody else 

that has spoken before me today on the contract support costs. You 

know, as everyone has said, this reverses the Supreme Court victories that direct the U.S. to honor fully the Indian self-determination contracts and agreements, so we do not support this Administration’s amendments to the appropriations process and we also 

support any kind of consultation with tribes before this decisions 

are made. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The statement of Patty Brown-Schwalenberg follows:] 
488
489
490
491
492

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Donna Galbreath, Medical Director, the Southcentral Foundation.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

DONNA GALBREATH 

Ms. GALBREATH. Hi. 

Mr. COLE. Hi. 

Ms. GALBREATH. I want to thank you for listening to our voices. 

I am Donna Galbreath, Medical Director of Quality Assurance for 

Southcentral Foundation. Southcentral Foundation is a tribal organization that compacts under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act. For more than 25 years SCF has carried out Indian 

Health Service program. SCF provides medical, dental, optometry, 

behavioral health, and substance abuse treatment services to 

58,000 Alaska Native and American Indian beneficiaries living 

within Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and 55 villages. In addition, we provide 60,000 people selective services 

throughout the State of Alaska. 

Three years ago, SCF and Indian Health Service entered into a 

binding joint venture contract. SCF agreed to construct a new primary care clinic in the Mat-Su Valley using borrowed funds. In return, IHS agreed to provide the supplies and 85 percent of staffing 

for operations and maintenance. SCF opened the clinic in 2012 and 

IHS provided 2 million of an IHS 85 percent calculated staffing 

need of 27 million. We appreciated this since IHS did not anticipate 

us opening in 2012. 

In 2013, IHS’s budget requests half of the staffing requirements. 

We do appreciate this also, but to be very frank, the amount and 

timing of this payment has caused severe cutbacks. SCF has only 

been able to provide medical services, wellness and physical therapy and minimal behavioral health. And the medical service, 

wellness, and physical therapy is also quite limited. There is nothing in the way of dental, lab, optometry, audiology, OB/GYN, pediatrics, home healthcare, or specialty clinics. Three-quarters of the 

clinic has not operated this year. We expect this to improve when 

we receive the funds, but most of the clinic will remain unused. We 

remain 12 man short and clinic funding. 

The second problem is in the budget’s inadequate request for contract support cost funding, another contractually required payment. 

The budget request for 2014 is $477 million, despite projected 

needs of $617 million. Worse yet, IHS is imposing a cap on contract 

payments when no caps have ever existed. Caps would be a change 

in the law and the caps are being kept secret. 

If IHS is going to underpay us, we should have the right to go 

to court to vindicate our contract rights. To cap our contract by 

statute is essentially to kill the principle of tribal self-governance 

and convert us to grantees. It is really a step backward. 
493

CSC funding reimburses SCF fixed costs of running its contracts 

with IHS. If IHS fails to reimburse these costs, SCF will have no 

choice but to cut positions, which in turn cuts services, which in 

turn cuts collections, which in turn cuts even more services to our 

people. SCF contract support cost shortfall in 2014 will be almost 

$9 million plus the remaining $12 million for the new clinic totaling $21 million. That is over 150 healthcare positions. 

In 2012 this committee reiterated the binding nature of our contracts and it directed IHS and the BIA to fully fund all contract 

support cost requirements, yet the IHS budget reflects the view 

that these contracts are not binding. No other government contractors are treated this way. IHS only treats its contracts with Indian 

tribes this way, as optional, discretionary agreements that it can 

choose to pay or not. We provide a contracted service for a contracted price and IHS only pays us what it chooses to pay. This is 

not the law. 

On a related note, IHS does not disclose data for contract support 

costs in a timely manner. Fiscal year 2011 data is now one year 

late. 2009 data was 2 years late. The 2014 budget has kept secret 

the projected CSC requirements. Contract support cost appropriation belongs to the tribes. This committee also needs data for budgetary oversight. 

In summary, SCF respectfully calls upon Congress in fiscal year 

2014 to require IHS to fulfill its contractual obligations and pay 

staffing packages in full, eliminate all existing caps on contract 

payments, provide $617 million in contract support cost funding, 

and direct IHS to timely disclose IHS data on contract support cost 

requirements and payment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

Southcentral Foundation and the 120,000 people we serve. Thank 

you.

[The statement of Ms. Galbreath follows:] 
494
495
496
497
498

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. Let me make a couple of comments before I go to my colleagues for their comments and their 

questions.

First, many of you in the preceding panels have been kind 

enough to thank this committee for hearing. Let me first acknowledge thank you for coming such a long way. It is extraordinarily 

helpful to us to have you do that. And let me also quickly acknowledge this was a custom on this committee that former Chairman 

Dicks established and I do not know if somebody else did it before 

him, but it was going when I got here. And I found it absolutely 

invaluable as a new member of the committee. I know a lot about 

Oklahoman Indians; I did not know a whole lot about Washington 

Indians, let alone Alaska Indians. 

So the complexity and diversity of Indian Country is always on 

display, and I assure you that it is not just a matter of hearing you; 

it is enormously helpful to us when we draft the legislation that 

you have taken the time to present the testimony and come this 

far. And I know how helpful it is to our staff as well. So just thank 

you very much. 

Second—and I speak only for myself in this—I have heard this 

concern expressed repeatedly over multiple panels—and I am sure 

my colleagues have as well—about language in the President’s 

budget that caps payments and forgives previous obligations. I for 

one would never accept language like that. I mean I think your 

point is very well made. We may not be able to catch up and do 

everything we would like. We are working under very difficult circumstances, but I certainly would be—and I want you to know— 

I would be very opposed to anything to, as you said, turn you into 

grantees. I thought that was a wonderful turn of phrase. 

This committee exists to enhance self-governance as well as fulfill the obligations of the United States toward tribal nations and 

it has tried to work in that way. So I do not think we are very interested collectively and probably in a bipartisan sense in doing 

things that limits sovereignty or puts you in the position where you 

are not free to assert your legitimate claims in court and certainly 

fully in the political process and here in this testimony. 

So thank you for bringing it, though, to our attention so forcefully and so repeatedly. It is helpful. Appreciate that. 

Mr. Moran? 

Mr. MORAN. Well put, Mr. Chairman. It looks like we can get another panel in before we have votes, so I will pass on further questions.

Mr. COLE. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out we 

have an all-woman panel here, and with your permission, I am 

going to capture the moment with my phone. This is fabulous. 

Mr. COLE. Can I point out for the record Chickasaws are matriarchal.

Mr. MORAN. Are they really? 

Mr. COLE. Yes, they are. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So are the Iroquois and a whole lot of others. 

Mr. COLE. Believe me, in my family there is not any question of 

who ran the show. It was all women. 
499

Mr. MORAN. Well, would not that be a way out of our world problems if that culture spread? 

Mr. COLE. Well, and was also a woman that planned our attack 

on Desoto, so do not think they are all that much different than 

men.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We always take care of home. 

Mr. COLE. Believe me, they took care of it plenty good. 

So thank you very much for your testimony and we will try and 

get another panel in. 

Ms. BROWN-SCHWALENBERG. Thank you. 

Ms. GALBREATH. Thanks. 

Mr. COLE. If we could, Edward Thomas—I will just call you by 

name and then we will identify you by title when we call—Ian 

Erlich, Lorraine Jackson, Carolyn Crowder, and Michael Douglas. 

Thank you very much. 

Okay. Mr. Thomas, President of the Tlingit Haida Central Council.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

TLINGIT HAIDA CENTRAL COUNCIL 

WITNESS

EDWARD K. THOMAS 

Mr. THOMAS. [Speaking native language.] Hello. Thank you very 

much, distinguished committee members. [Speaking native language.] And my English name is Ed Thomas. I am president of the 

Tlingit Haida Central Council out of Juneau, Alaska. I join others 

in thanking you for taking the time to listen to us. You know, it 

is really important for us to exchange our concerns with you and 

hopefully you will listen to us. 

I provided some graphs, and I know time is limited, so I am 

going to go through them fairly rapidly. I hope you will follow me. 

The first graph that I provide for you shows that since about 1980 

the per capita expenditures for this nation has constantly gone 

down for Native Americans while the per capita expenditure for the 

rest of the population has gone up. This was put together by the— 

at the time they called it the Congressional Budget Office. I guess 

it is Congressional Resources now. But I really would like to see 

if this committee could have that upgrade updated to cover this 

last decade. 

The second slide is the trends of Indian funding within the Department of Interior. You will see from 2004 to 2011, well, Park 

Service has gone up about 26 percent and BIA only went up by 11 

percent, just about the rate of inflation up until that time. 

The next slide covers that if we include 2012 you will see that 

the Indian Affairs went down to 8 percent of the Department’s 

budget while Fish and Wildlife went up 30 percent and Park Services by 28 percent. 

We have been talking about sequestration and we tightened our 

belts and absorbed 5.2 percent of the cutbacks, but if you look at 

what happened since 2010, you can see that the cutbacks to Indian 

programs was even greater; Indian Housing Block Grant, 21 per-
500

cent; Indian student education. And you can go down the line on 

that table. 

The next slide is pretty important because we talk about what 

has happened within the Bureau of Indian Affairs itself once it got 

the money. TPA is the Tribal Priority Allocation, the money that 

goes to the tribes, and you will see that from 2002 to 2008 TPA 

went down by nearly $60 million, and look down a couple lines 

down and you are going to see that the Central Office went up 

$116 million, a very big increase. 

And then look at the next slide. Even under the President’s 

budget for 2012, you can see that the BIA programs, they are requesting a negative $120 million while you had an increase of 130 

or $140 million for Park Service. 

Okay. Let’s look at this year then. As I talk about we absorb sequestration to the same degree as everybody else, but now that we 

are getting past that and getting a new budget cycle, the entire Department of Interior has gone up by 4 percent under the President’s budget. And if you take the BIA part out, all of those other 

agencies goes up by 5.1 percent. While the BIA programs go up 1.2 

percent and if you take out the $10 million indirect cost, it only 

goes up by .8 percent. And if you were to look at it on an equitable 

basis, we should have seen an increase within the BIA budget itself 

by $134 million. 

Now, some of this stuff seems to run together, and I understand 

that when you deal with numbers long enough that that is kind of 

what happens. I am going to say that it really is important for us 

in our tribal contracts to keep up with our cost. We try to spend 

within our budgets. 

You have heard some discussions about indirect cost and the 

courts have always agreed that the government should pay its fair 

share on the contracts they sign with us, and that really is important because this is a nation of laws. The indirect cost issues are 

put forth because of laws, and this is one of the laws where the 

country can site that very easily by saying well, gee whiz, it is a 

contract but we really do not have enough money. 

And if you look at that slide that I gave you that showed the 

growth within the Central Office’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, people 

say, well, gee whiz, where are we going to get that extra money for 

indirect cost? That is where it has got to come from. They took that 

money from us in the first place from our tribal programs and so 

that is where it should come from or maybe if there is not enough 

there from other Department of Interior programs. 

I going to close by saying that I have been managing Indian contracts and programs since 1976, and during my earlier years, I 

came here and listened to the testimony from some of our Indian 

lawyers like Wendell Chino, Joe de la Cruz, Roger Jourdain, and 

I used to wonder, you know, when they got so upset and so impatient that when they spoke, they spoke very strongly and right on 

the borderline of being disrespectful. 

But as I get older—and I am just past my 70th year now and 

this is going to be my last time testifying on behalf of my tribe because I am not quite be seeking office again—but I know why they 

were impatient now. We come here, we talk with the Administration, I met with President Obama all four times that he had meet-
501

ings with tribes, I met with President Bush, I met with his dad, 

and nothing seems to change. You look at that trend. It is very disappointing. And the problems of our people continue to rise just 

with growth alone as well as inflation. 

And so while I come here in a good way, I feel the frustration 

of my forefathers and some of the leaders like Roger Jourdain, Joe 

de la Cruz, and Wendell Chino, and even before them. And so I 

come here, I thank you for your time. I know you come here with 

good things. Last year, you did some good things in restoring some 

of those things that were taken out of the President’s budget and 

I am grateful for that. 

I am not asking that you give me any new programs that I really 

would like to get reimbursed from 2006 to 2012 that cost my tribe 

$4.5 million. That is not money that we have just kind of laying 

around. It is money that we came 4th in good faith. We ask that 

the government reimburse us for these costs not just from BIA contracts but all contracts. And I do not think that is too much. I do 

not have new things to put on the table. Our needs of our people 

are great. I am not coming here for that. I just want to get reimbursed for what the government owes me. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Edward Thomas follows:] 
502
503
504
505
506

Mr. COLE. Excellent testimony. 

Ian Erlich, President and CEO of the Maniilaq Association. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

IAN ERLICH 

Mr. ERLICH. Well, thank you, Chairman Cole and committee 

members for this opportunity to talk with you about a very important issue. Well, my name is Ian Erlich, President and Chief Executive Officer of Maniilaq Association. Maniilaq Association is an 

Alaska Native regional nonprofit representing 12 tribes in northwest Alaska, and we provide health services through a self-government agreement with the Indian Health Service. 

I have submitted a testimony to the Committee that covers more 

than what I am going to talk about here. The other issues that are 

in the written testimony discuss village built clinic underfunding 

by the Indian Health Service, underpayment of contract support 

costs for Indian Health Service, and also expressing the need to exempt the Indian Health Service from sequestration. So in this testimony I am just going to focus on something that we are looking 

for support from Congress for, which is advanced appropriations for 

Indian Health Service. 

The need for advance appropriations is based on the need to 

bring some stability and certainty to the Indian Health Service 

budget by changing its funding to an advanced appropriations 

basis. This is what Congress has done with regard to the Veterans 

Administration medical accounts and we ask for a comparable 

treatment with regard to the Indian Health Service. The need for 

the federal health services to maintain and improve the health of 

American Indians and Alaska Natives are consonant with and required by the Federal Government’s historical and unique legal relationship and resulting responsibility to the American Indian and 

Alaska Native people. 

Since fiscal year 1998 there has been only one year—which was 

2006—when the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill has been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal 

year. The lateness in enacting a final budget during that time 

ranged from 5 days in 2002 to 197 days in 2011. Late funding 

causes the Indian Health Service and tribal healthcare providers 

great challenges in planning and managing care. It significantly 

hampers tribal and Indian Health Service healthcare providers’ 

budgeting, recruitment, retention, provision of services, facility 

maintenance, and construction efforts. 

Receipt of funds late also severely impacts Maniilaq’s ability to 

invest the funds and generate interest, which can be used to offset 

the chronic underfunding of the region’s health programs. Maniilaq 

Association drafts our budget for the coming fiscal year in the 

spring. A budget must be reviewed, amended, and approved during 

the ensuing months. However, if we find out that come October, 

Congress has not enacted an IHS appropriations bill, we are in 
507

limbo and must spend considerable staff time redoing our budget 

perhaps multiple times. 

Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding is needed to 

ensure the government meet its obligation to provide healthcare for 

American Indian and Alaska Native people. If IHS funding was on 

an advance appropriations cycle, tribal healthcare providers, as 

well as the IHS, would know the funding a year earlier than is currently the case and would not be subject to the Continuing Resolutions.

So advance appropriations is funding that becomes available one 

year or more after the year of the appropriations act in which it 

is contained. For instance, if fiscal year 2015 advance appropriations for IHS were included in the 2014 Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations 

would not be counted against the fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations funding allocation, but rather would be counted against 

its fiscal year 2015 allocation. It would also be counted against the 

ceiling in the 2015 budget resolution, not the 2014 budget resolution.

In 2010 the Veterans Administration medical care programs 

achieved advance appropriations. This came after many years of 

veterans’ organizations advocating for this change, including enactment of the Veterans Healthcare Budget Reform and Transparency 

Act of 2009, which authorized advance appropriations and specified 

which appropriations accounts are to be eligible for advance appropriations. The Act required the Secretary to include in documents 

submitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget detailed 

estimates of the funds necessary for the medical care accounts of 

the Department for the fiscal year following the fiscal year for 

which the budget is submitted. 

The fact that Congress has implemented advance appropriations 

for the VA medical programs provides a compelling argument for 

tribes with regard to IHS funding. Both systems provide direct 

medical care and both are the result of federal policies. Just as the 

veterans groups were alarmed at the impact of delayed funding 

upon the provision of healthcare to veterans and the ability of the 

VA to properly plan and manage its resources, tribes and tribal organizations have those concerns about the Indian Health Service 

health system. 

Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced Amendment 5282 the Senate 

fiscal year 2014 budget that would be the first step in authorizing 

advance appropriations for the Indian Health Service. This amendment does not increase funding but would allow IHS to adequately 

budget their resources and respond to changes in the federal budget without disrupting care to patients. 

In conclusion, I hope that Congress, the congressional representatives, will actively support legislation that is needed to authorize 

IHS advance appropriations. By changing Indian Health Service 

funding to an advance appropriations basis, it will bring some stability and certainty to budget issues in managing care for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ian Erlich follows:] 
508
509
510
511
512

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Lorraine Jackson, Board President, Copper River Native Association.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

COPPER RIVER NATIVE ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS

LORRAINE JACKSON 

Ms. JACKSON. Good afternoon. I am Lorraine Jackson and I am 

from Gulkana, Alaska, a small village along the Copper River. 

I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding 

fiscal year 2014 appropriation related to the Department of Health 

and Human Services, the Indian Health Service, the Joint Venture 

Construction Project staffing and facility operation funding, and 

contract support cost funding for new and expanded programs. 

Copper River Native Association, CRNA, works to provide desperately needed health, dental, mental health, nutrition, and social 

services within the Ahtna region of Alaska, a land base approximately the size of the State of Ohio. 

The health needs within our service area are severely underserved and access to care is very challenging. Presently, our patients that are in need of even basic outpatient services must travel 

to Anchorage, Alaska. That is about a 400-mile round-trip. When 

the Indian Health Service rated the Joint Venture Construction 

project application received nationally, CRNA was rated number 

one in need. 

The health needs far exceed the funding appropriated to provide 

for the care. Consequently, we request and support general increases across the board for the Indian Health Service programs. 

More specifically, however, there are two areas that we wish to testify today. One is Indian Health Service Joint Venture Construction Project staffing and facility operational funding, and the second one is contract support cost of funding for new and expanded 

programs.

The Indian Health Service Joint Venture Construction Project, 

JVCP, is a wonderful thing and we are very pleased to have received JVCP award. The award recognizes our monumental need 

and allows us and the Indian Health Service to join hands on the 

project, us by constructing a new facility and the Indian Health 

Service by funding a staffing package and facility operating costs. 

In order to accomplish this, we are taking on the debt of $10 million, which equates to almost 150 percent of our annual operating 

budget, a very heavy debt and we are willing to carry this in full 

trusting that the Indian Health Service responsibility will be fully 

funded.

Additionally, our situation is unique in that we are the only 

JVCP award recipient without an existing clinic or hospital program. The staffing funding will allow us, for the first time, to have 

a full-service outpatient clinic thereby substantially eliminating the 

need for our patients to endure the 400-mile round-trip in all 

weather conditions just to see a doctor. Additionally, the collection 
513

for the services provided will be a source of revenue for our debt 

service.

It is imperative that beginning in fiscal year 2014 and each year 

thereafter the funding be fully appropriated for our award. I might 

note that the construction of our facility will be completed this 

summer.

Should this funding be not appropriated, we would be burdened 

with major debt service payments for a substantially, if not totally, 

empty clinic. This would in turn drain for the resources from our 

current health programs. To prevent such an occurrence, the Federal Government must its obligation and not break the trust established in the Joint Venture Construction Project agreement. This 

appropriation needs facilities and related programs. 

Contract support cost funds are a necessity and a legally required funding component which have been consistently underfunded. Although the underfunded need represents a very small 

portion of the Indian Health Service appropriation, they have a 

very significant impact on our ability to operate the desperately 

needed health programs. While it may be the general belief that a 

shortfall of this funding only affects administrative type operations, 

the reality is that the shortfall reduces the health services. It is for 

this reason that we beseech you to appropriate contract support 

funds for our new and expanded Indian Health Service program. 

The costs, referred to as our ‘‘indirect cost pool’’ that make up 

contract support costs are audited annually and negotiated with a 

cost allocation department within the Federal Government, also 

annually. These costs are absolute must items, not luxury items, 

and include the same costs incurred by the Federal Government 

when it ran the same programs, plus additional costs from which 

the Federal Government is exempt, such as cost of annual audits, 

workers’ compensation insurance, certain legal and other insurance 

costs and governing body costs, for example. When funding for 

these real and necessary costs is an adequate, we are forced to use 

health program costs to fill the gap. This, of course, lessens our 

ability to provide health service in an already greatly underfunded 

and underserved area. 

Providing full contract support cost funding does not inflate or 

add to the administration or infrastructure of an organization, including ours, but actually expands healthcare by not requiring the 

health program funds to be used for contract support. This 

healthcare expansion is primarily accomplished through increased 

employment which, in addition to improving healthcare, also expands and improves economy. And in other words, a double bang 

for the dollar into areas where the need is extreme. 

Since much of these funds result in employment growth, there is 

a mitigating benefit to the Federal Government in the form of income taxes. When this is combined with other benefits of increased 

employment and the expanded and improved healthcare, the benefits far outweigh the costs. 

Among all other needs before you, we respectfully plead and request that you set these two areas—Joint Venture Construction 

Project and related contract support costs—top priorities for funding.
514

Please let us know if you have any questions or would like any 

additional information. Your attention and action to this matter 

are truly and greatly appreciated. And I say [speaking native language]. And that means thank you in the Ahtna language. 

[The statement of Lorraine Jackson follows:] 
515
516
517
518

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Carolyn Crowder, Health Director, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLANDS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

WITNESS

CAROLYN CROWDER 

Ms. CROWDER. Thank you very much. [Speaking native language.] Hello. My name is Carolyn Crowder. I am the health to 

Rector for the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, originally an 

Inuit from Alaska. I worked for about 20 years and the Norton 

Sound region, which is the region I was born in. And I was the 

president and CEO of Norton Sound Health Corporation, retired 

from there, and for the past 12 years have been working with 

APIA.

One day earlier this year and said your pictures in the paper, 

and I said why? And I looked it up and it was Senator Murkowski, 

I was an intern with her for Senator Stevens 40 years ago when 

Don Young was first starting his career, and the picture was a picture she had sent to the Anchorage Daily News congratulating him 

on his 40 years. And she has been, as well, and very successful—— 

Mr. COLE. When Don Young was starting his career, you were 

2.

Ms. CROWDER. Well, I will tell you I appreciate Ed Thomas and 

his comments and his frustration. Having been in this field for over 

30 years myself, I do want to let you know, Ed, that I have got 

probably another 21 more years to catch up to the time that you 

have been in this area. So I appreciate that and I appreciate the 

hard work that you have done as well. 

But I know that time is short and my written testimony focuses 

on four areas, and I am going to address really maybe just a couple 

of those areas since my colleagues before we have done such an excellent job addressing particularly the areas of contract healthcare 

and funding sequestration issues. 

What I wanted to focus on really is June 6 of this year marks 

the 71st anniversary of the bombing of the BIA Hospital in Unalaska, Alaska. 

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands is, as you know, you know, a long 

chain of islands, including the Pribilofs in the middle of the Bering 

Sea that are extremely remote. We run a small clinic there and the 

nearest hospital is 800 miles away in Anchorage. And people talk 

about the golden hour of care to meet emergency needs. We are far 

deficient in meeting that golden hour because we are 3 hours away 

from the nearest hospital that provides emergency services. 

And I myself in my 12 years that I have been working with the 

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association have been very concerned 

about the fact that we have lost a number of our community members because they have not been able to access care. We operate 

only on an airline basis. Our weather is difficult at times, and the 

ability to get to another facility makes healthcare very challenging 
519

and very stressful for our staff that work there, not to mention our 

community members that reside in that area. 

Having come from Nome, I expected when I first went to Alaska 

that I would see a full-fledged hospital with doctors. I was very 

surprised by first visit to Unalaska to see it was a small clinic operated, if we were lucky, to high or mid-level provider but by 

health aides. And community health aides, there were no doctors, 

no full-time doctors on the island, much less dentists or any other 

care providers there. I was very shocked for the community being 

equally the size of the region of Nome that I lived in and as well 

the huge fishing industry that brings tens of thousands of people 

into that area during the crabbing and fishing season, as you know. 

It puts a great strain on that community. 

I started asking questions as to why and what happened and was 

surprised as well to note that there had been a 24-bed hospital 

there and that it had been bombed during the war and that steps 

have not been taken to reconstruct that. And it has taken this decade of my time working in those communities really to start working with the tribal governments and get the moment I am going 

to do this. There is huge turnover in the administration of the tribal governments there indirectly because there is a lack of facilities. 

People have to leave the island in order to receive care, so a lot of 

people leave to get their healthcare, and so they are in and out of 

the community. They come home to visit and so it is, you know, 

multiple layers of effect that having the lack of facilities there has 

created for those communities. 

Ten days after June 4, 1942, and about 350 miles east of Unalaska on June 14, the residents of Alaska Atka Island were forcibly evacuated from the island by the U.S. for their safety and the 

U.S. Navy burned down all the structures on the island to the 

ground to ensure that the Japanese invading forces could not use 

the facilities there. I spoke with one young woman—or not so 

young anymore but at the time she was young—she remembers 

going home after they were evacuated. There was a period of evacuation of about 3 years where people were removed from the islands, and when she finally made it home, in the middle of their 

home was a cannon and it was in the living room strategically facing a point where any incoming invading planes could be targeted. 

And so you can imagine the trauma and the difficulty these people had in returning back to their communities. It has taken, to be 

very honest with you, these last 71 years for these people to finally 

get to the point of healing from those events. When I first started 

working with APIA, people would not talk about it. The elders 

would not talk about it. We recently located a 90-year-old woman 

who finally is willing to talk about her experience, and it is because 

of her sister being a strong advocate for healthcare that we are 

going to be able to talk to her about her experiences. 

So we have had a lot of work to do in behavioral health with trying to get over the trauma and getting people to start talking about 

it. The time is now. Now, we need to rebuild that hospital and we 

need to come. Go with the tragedy that has happened in that community and in that region. Not to do so would be very devastating 

to a very strong and proud—as you know, the Aleut community is 
520

well known for their ability to build what you would call kayaks. 

They call them Baidarkas. 

Mr. COLE. I am going to have to ask you—we are out of time. 

Ms. CROWDER. Okay. 

Mr. COLE. You know, one more we are going to try and get in 

before we vote so—— 

Ms. CROWDER. All right. Well, I hope you will read our testimony 

and I ask your support on our facilities and staffing needs, as well 

as restoring the sequestration and contract support costs. Thank 

you.

[The statement of Carolyn Crowder follows:] 
521
522
523
524
525

Mr. COLE. Absolutely. We have got a very short period of time 

so please bear with us. And, Betty, if you need to go, go. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I will go and watch for you to walk in the 

door——

Mr. COLE. Okay. That would be helpful. So please, I am sorry 

again to rush you. 

Mr. Douglas, General Counsel for the Southeast Alaska Regional 

Health Consortium. I apologize. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM 

WITNESS

MICHAEL E. DOUGLAS 

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be as brief as I can. 

My name is Michael Douglas. I am General Counsel for Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, or SEARHC. I am here 

today on behalf of our president and CEO Charles Clement, who 

unfortunately could not make the trip out from Alaska today. 

It is a pleasure to be here and I just want to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before this committee. 

The issue I wish to highlight for the Committee in my testimony 

is the underfunding of contract support cost funds to SEARHC 

under our self-governance compact and funding agreements with 

the Indian Health Service. And I understand that a number of witnesses have touched on this issue today, so I will move through it, 

and are written testimony certainly lays out our thoughts on contract support cost funding in full. 

SEARHC is a consortium of federally recognized tribes that provides healthcare to 18 communities and southeast Alaska. Our 

service area is roughly 35,000 square miles, much of which is not 

connected by a road system, so it definitely presents challenges in 

providing healthcare, as in much of Alaska. We administer over $42 million in IHS programs and services 

and average 115,000 patient encounters per year. These are federal 

programs and services contracted on behalf of the Indian Health 

Service, and in carrying out these programs, we incur certain contract support costs. 

Just to give you a sense of the dollar amount in fiscal year 2012 

the contract support cost shortfall for SEARHC was $4.8 million, 

so it is a substantial amount of money for our program delivery. 

And unfortunately, the only way for us to account for the shortfall 

is to divert direct program funds to cover the contract support cost 

shortfall.

Most recently, this, coupled with the federal sequester, has put 

SEARHC in a difficult position to begin cutting some of our programs due to underfunding, one of which is our adult inpatient 

substance abuse treatment program in Sitka, Alaska, the Bill 

Brady Healing Center. This is both a difficult and unfortunate decision that SEARHC had to make but was ultimately necessary so 

that we can continue to provide a high level of services and other 

areas. However, this program closure will be leaving a substantial 
526

void in the services we provide. SEARHC has operated Bill Brady 

since 1996 and has had over 1,000 Alaska Native beneficiaries 

passed through the program. And unfortunately, on Tuesday of 

next week, April 30, we will be having to close its doors due to 

underfunding.

So the importance of full funding of contract support costs is 

clear. It is a contractual obligation affirmed by the recent decisions 

of the United States Supreme Court. We are also a member of the 

National Tribal Contract Support Costs Coalition, and we fully endorse that testimony. So we urge the full funding of contracts support costs in fiscal year 2014 at a level of $140 million above the 

President’s current request, and hopefully, that will, you know, 

help to alleviate some of the need to divert these direct program 

funds to cover that contract support cost shortfall. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Charles Clement follows:] 
527
528
529
530

Mr. COLE. Well, there probably will not be any questions, but I 

want to thank the panel and I particularly want to apologize to our 

last two presenters. I am sorry to have rushed you, but we have 

got to go vote. We are going to take a recess now. We will come 

back immediately after the votes. We have three votes but there is 

a recommit, so it is going to be a while. So we will come back and 

we have two panels after that. 

Mr. THOMAS. Make sure you vote for me. 

Mr. COLE. Believe me, I am voting for the Chickasaws. I will be 

voting for you, too. 

[Recess.]

Mr. COLE. Okay. We are going to reconvene the hearing, but as 

I do, we would like to recognize we have got some students from 

the Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty Indian School in South Dakota, 

here with the Close Up program. So could you like raising your 

hand so we could acknowledge you? Welcome. Good to have you 

here. Now, if we can, we will welcome up our next panel. I will just 

read off the names and we will give the positions as you are introduced: Frank White, David Gipp, Kevin Keckler, Bryan Brewer, 

and Thurman—is it Cournoyer? 

Mr. COURNOYER. Cournoyer. 

Mr. COLE. Cournoyer. This is not my day to get these things 

right. Well, there were actually two French hunting things in Oklahoma, Checotah and—yes, there is a town called Checotah and 

what is the other one? But yes, they were actually fur trapping 

stuff out on the frontier in the 1700s. 

Okay. Welcome. And we will let you guys all get set up. Good to 

see you again. How are you? 

If we could, we will have Frank White Bull, Tribal Councilmen 

from Standing Rock Tribe. Good to see you again as well. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE 

WITNESS

FRANK WHITE BULL 

Mr. WHITE BULL. Welcome. Or—welcome. When I am back home, 

I am used to that. Welcome. 

Mr. COLE. A little role reversal here. 

Mr. WHITE BULL. I bring my welcome. 

Well, first of all, you know, you guys have been here all day in 

your hearing, and I am really guaranteed that we are all in the 

same boat as tribal leaders coming forward with the areas that we 

are presenting. 

First of all, my name is Frank White Bull. I am a tribal council 

of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe located in North and South Dakota. It borders the center along the Missouri River. I would like 

to thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and demonstrating your support for Indian Country. 

While I have served my tribe for many years, this is my first opportunity to testify before you and it is an honor to be here. You 

know, just for the record, I served this country for 9 years and 3 
531

months in the U.S. Army as 11 Bravo in the 95 Bravo, and it 

makes me feel where I am at to be comfortable in working on the 

government-to-government relationship. 

So with that, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe faces many challenges. Our reservation covers for 2.3 million acres. About 8,500 

members live on the reservation in eight communities that are 

widely spread across great distances. While we have made substantial progress in recent years, our unemployment rate remains 

above 50 percent and our poverty rate is triple the national average. As you know, you are going to hear that a lot in this testimony 

that the poverty rate—and that is all of our reservation and that 

is the truth. You know, it is the truth. 

As the tribe continues to move forward, it remains vitally important that the Federal Government continues to keep its promises 

and does its part to see that our tribal members enjoy a standard 

of living like that enjoyed by the rest of the Nation. 

You know, we remind you that, you know, I am here representing my tribe and you are here representing the Nation and 

your constituents. And, you know, as I said to some of my colleagues, I am not going to be here with my hands like this and my 

head down. I am going to be here with a handshake to remind this 

government that we are still here. 

One of the most basic functions of any government is to provide 

for public safety. I have served as a police officer of Standing Rock 

and I can tell you from firsthand knowledge the difficulties we face. 

Our reservation is about the size of Connecticut and resources for 

law enforcement have never met our needs. In fact, before 2008 we 

had only 7 law enforcement officers to cover the entire reservation. 

As the BIA recognized the growth shortage, we faced more law-enforcement personnel than have been provided since 2008. We now 

have 34 law enforcement positions authorized that are not filled. 

There are still five to seven that still need to be filled, and those 

are through academy issues and just other officers not wanting to 

relocate, I guess, to our location and Standing Rock. 

While we are still understaffed, the basic point is clear: adding 

law enforcement personnel at Standing Rock has led to a very significant reduction in crime. More officers means quicker response 

time in our communities and greater deterrence. While progress 

has been made, more needs to be done. We urge the Subcommittee 

to increase funding for this law enforcement personnel. 

Another key to the tribe’s future is the education of our children. 

Standing Rock has three grant schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education. At Standing Rock, we are concerned that funding 

for Indian education is not keeping pace with the need. Indian 

School Equalization funding, known as ISEP, is important covering 

teacher salaries, administrative costs, and other basics for educating our children. The Administration is proposing to cut ISEP 

by $16.4 million. That funding should be restored. 

And student transportation is another key item. At Standing 

Rock, funds for education are strained because we are a large rural 

reservation. Bus runs for many take 1-1/2 to 2 hours each way. You 

know, our kids get up, you know, at 5:30 in the morning and ride 

a bus for 2 hours, you know. Some of us get up and we drive for 
532

a half-an-hour, you know, but we put our kids through that back 

home. It is because of the education. 

You know, back in the day—when I say that, my time is when 

I rode the bus—it used to take half-an-hour, 45 minutes at the 

most because there was more buses, Your Honor. And now, there 

is lack of that in that area in the transportation so now, it takes 

anywhere up to an hour-and-a-half to 2 hours to get to school. 

I would just basically urge the Subcommittee to provide for longoverdue increase in funding for student transportation. 

Another key component is higher education scholarships, which 

our members need to attend colleges and vocational schools. More 

funding is needed to give our students a chance to get ahead 

through higher education. 

The need for housing remains a big problem at Standing Rock. 

We have 200 families on the waiting list for housing with 150 additional families living in overcrowded conditions and another 300 

families in substandard housing. Over the course of many years, 

the HIP program, Housing Improvement Program, has been important for us at Standing Rock to address emergency and other specific repair needs. Since our other housing needs are so great, 

elimination of the HIP program, as the Administration proposes, 

would create considerable hardship for many low-income people in 

Standing Rock. We urge you to preserve this program. 

The tribe supports the Administration’s request for increased 

funding for the Indian Health Service. We also recommend that the 

Subcommittee give priority to IHS Preventive Care programs. They 

provide funding above the Administration’s requested amount. Preventative care is both essential, beneficial to tribes and tribal members and cost-effective as potential healthcare problems can often 

be dealt with simply before they become a burden to the patient 

and healthcare budget. 

In addition to preventive healthcare, we urge the Subcommittee 

to provide additional funds for Purchased/Referred Care and dental 

care, two programs that are particularly important at Standing 

Rock. You know, in referred care when they refer us to Sanford and 

locally and Bismarck, North Dakota, it is about an hour-and-a-half 

drive one way and we get our services there. And what happens, 

the billing does not come in a timely manner and our members are 

getting billed, and thus, their credit is affected, you know, because 

of that. And their waiting line, I go to IHS for services. I am there 

a minimum of four hours before I am seen by a doctor. And like 

a room like this, imagine there are people sitting there and waiting 

to be seen, mostly probably by a physician’s assistant, you know. 

But, you know, overall, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity and again remind you of, you know, the obligations as set 

forth by our predecessors of government. You know, as linear descendants, we are continuing that and reminding the government 

of the obligation. So thank you. And the written testimony has 

been submitted and I appreciate the time there, sir. 

[The statement of Frank White Bull follows:] 
533
534
535
536
537

Mr. COLE. Betty and I and the chairman actually all had the opportunity to visit Standing Rock a couple years ago. We saw the 

dramatic difference the law enforcement improvements made, so 

thank you very much. 

David Gipp, President of the United Tribes Technical College. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE 

WITNESS

DAVID GIPP 

Mr. GIPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here. 

My name is David M. Gipp, and I am President of United Tribes 

Technical College, which is located in Bismarck, North Dakota, and 

I would ask that our statement is made a part of the record as to 

its request. 

We have been around for 44 years as an intertribal institution. 

We are owned by the five tribes of North Dakota, which include the 

Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold, Standing Rock Sioux, the 

Spirit Lake, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, as well 

as the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux of Oyate of North and South Dakota.

So I mention that in passing because we are an intertribally-controlled institution. As I mentioned, we have been around for 44 

years, and I always like to say that we are the group of tribes that 

took over the fort, formally the Fort Abraham Lincoln, took over 

the fort, but this time for education and peaceful purposes. Let’s 

put it that way, and we sit not far from the Missouri River by the 

way.

We have about 1,200 students annually that we serve from about 

75 different tribes. It varies anywhere from 55 to 85 different tribes 

at any one time, and we operate year round. We operate on a semester basis, and I would say that we have 25 different areas that 

we provide training in, as well as our degree, 2-year degree programs, certificate programs, 2-year degree programs, and now 

three, 4-year degree programs. We are fully accredited from 2011, 

to 2021, at this point in time. 

Our request is this, that one-time funding to forward fund the 

United Tribes Technical College, approximately $3.4 million, is 

needed, and we need an additional sum for our colleague institution, Navajo Technical College. That amount is later in my testimony. Seven million is needed in BIE funding for United Tribes for 

our Self-Determination education Act contract. That also includes 

Navajo Technical College located near Crown Point. 

And also we are asking for Congressional support for a triballyadministered law enforcement training center, something that we 

have received support from our tribes for a good number of years, 

and we have a current MOU with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Law Enforcement Branch, but we need to renew that and continue 

that in terms of trying to, you know, produce more law enforcement 

officers in a wide range of different areas. 
538

I would just highlight then that we try to position our students 

for success. We try to assure that they will have a good future 

when it comes to the programs that we offer and when they graduate. We sit just down below the Three Affiliated Tribes in the 

western part of North Dakota, not far from the Bakken Oil Formation where there is a huge, huge task of bringing our population 

to the forefront of taking advantage of the opportunities, both in 

terms of business as well as in terms of employment. 

We graduated a class of welders here just a month or so ago. All 

of them are placed 100 percent. Our placement ranges anywhere 

from 77 percent to 100 percent that I mentioned, depending on 

which area that they are graduating in. So we have this tremendous area. We have a very, very high need for additional housing. 

We need to build additional science and technology programs and 

facilities for these opportunities for our students. 

So, again, I highlight all of that just to say that we think that 

we can play a more integral role both with the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs in terms of the need for more law enforcement officers but 

as well in the regional and in the national economy that Native 

Americans want to be a part of. 

I am going to close out except to say that hopefully you can take 

a very close look at our request and see if there is a way to honor 

them. We are going through the 5.2 percent reduction as well. We 

cannot afford to take another 5.2 or whatever the percentage is for 

fiscal year 2014, I might say, because we think that will force us 

to lay off faculty and staff and diminish the opportunities for students who want to come here. I am on the phone daily with students who want to be here and who want to be on our campus and 

looking forward to good opportunities. That is why we have the 

early childhood centers and the K through eight elementary school 

for focusing on the family as well as the individual. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of David Gipp follows:] 
539
540
541
542
543

Mr. COLE. Thank you for your testimony. 

Chairman Keckler, Cheyenne River. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE 

WITNESS

KEVIN KECKLER 

Mr. KECKLER. Thank you. Before I get started I want to thank 

you guys for the opportunity of allowing me to speak today, and, 

again, I thank you guys for coming out to our groundbreaking ceremony for our new hospital. It has been open for about 15, 16 

months now, so things are doing better, not always perfect, but appreciate you guys coming out. 

I will begin with good afternoon. My name is Kevin Keckler. I 

am the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I have been 

in the elected position of Chairman for 3 years and prior to that 

I sat 8 years in our Tribal Council. As a result of that I know the 

implications of the budgets of both the BIA and IHS and the effects 

that it has on our tribal members. 

I would like to describe today a few of the most significant hardships we face as a result of the budget decisions over the last year. 

Before I get started I want to talk a little bit about the tribe. We 

are a member of the Great Sioux Nation. Our reservation was established under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. The Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe continues its relationship with the United States 

under treaty law. As a treaty tribe we hold the United States accountable to its promises and agreements to our people. The terms 

used in the 1868 treaty were yours, not ours. We did not write 

them. We ask that you remember that when we call upon you to 

abide by the treaty language. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux reservation is located in north central 

South Dakota. Our reservation is similar to Standing Rocks is 

roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. According to the census our reservation is home to two of the ten poorest counties in 

the United States, not something that we are proud of but something that we deal with every day. Over one-third of our residents 

live below the federal poverty level. Sixty-four percent of our children in Ziebach County on our reservation live in poverty. It 

breaks my heart to tell you about the conditions on our reservation. 

Our youngest members face a constant battle every day to survive, 

let alone thrive. 

I want to talk about a few of the resources that we have that we 

are responsible as a treaty tribe and a large land-based tribe to 

present. Governing our tribe results in high cost to the government. We have many miles of roads, as you testified, substandard 

roads. We had a new bus that the luggage rack broke in the middle 

of our tour. 

Mr. COLE. It was new at the beginning. 

Mr. KECKLER. It was new at the beginning. So you got to testify 

actually to the conditions we have. We have a lot of real estate 

transactions as we have about 1.5 million acres of trust property, 
544

and with that we have water and electricity distribution problems. 

We provide these government services without tax revenues that 

every other government relies upon. With few opportunities for economic development and our hands tied by federal policy, we must 

rely on the Federal Government based on our treaty and our longstanding responsibility to fund the programs. 

Most of our income comes from land leases, but BIE realty operations are being cut under sequestration. Two of our six staff, we 

had six staff that handled our realty of our 1.5 million acres, two 

of them are taking the early buyout, and we did not have enough 

to begin with. So as you can see we are going to suffer some more 

here with what is going on with that. We need staff to process our 

ag leases, our residential leases, business leases, right-of-way applications, mortgage, deeds, and conveyances, but we are losing two 

of the six that we have. 

IHS funding. I feel that it should have been spared from sequestration. After the cuts I am concerned for the safety of our members. As you guys are aware, our Aberdeen IHS area has been 

poorly managed, and it is the subject of numerous federal investigations.

As stated earlier, our tribal members wait in long lines for medical assistance. I thought this may improve with our new facility, 

but with the facility you need operational money and staff to make 

the thing work. You can have a brand new building, but if you do 

not have the people to run it, you just as well be in the old one. 

As an elected official I plan every year for when our contract dollars run out and we are left to fend for ourselves. Sometimes it is 

late August, sometimes September, but I expect it will be in July 

of this year. I have a list of people whose health has deteriorated 

rapidly because of basic procedures not performed. 

I have another list of well-educated members who have lost their 

credit and a good part of their livelihood because they got sick, and 

IHS was unable to pay the bills. As a result, they are left in the 

same condition as stated earlier by Standing Rock. 

Promises to improve law enforcement. We very much appreciate 

the VAWA, the Tribal Law and Order Act, Sex Offender Registration. These are good laws, but they are without funding to implement them. Really do not help us much. Our 638 contract for our 

law enforcement is insufficient to cover our costs for the remainder 

of the year. I just had three officers that graduated from the academy so they could be certified police officers but we were unable 

to hire them on a permanent basis because we do not have the 

funds to give them the opportunity to receive benefits and everything that they deserve. As a result we are probably going to lose 

them to some other agency that can provide that. We have put all 

of this money into them so far. We are probably going to lose them. 

Our courts also need attention as is stated up above. Final decisions and budgets controlling our water. As you guys are aware, we 

have a rural water system that is 40 years old. It pumps at a maximum capacity. Every day it can pump around 1.4 million gallons 

of water whereas we need 4.4 million. Since 2006, we have had a 

moratorium against any new hookups. This keeps us from building 

homes, economic development. A lot of effects are as a result of 

that. We have a $12 million housing project that is waiting to be 
545

built, money sitting in the bank. We cannot build it because we 

have no water to put into them homes. We have 661 families on 

a housing waiting list right now. 

Finally, our General Assistance Program. This is something that 

I have experienced all winter, every day. Our General Assistance 

Program provides help to our most-impoverished members to help 

pay their bills and necessities that they have. BIE terminated its 

support for the General Assistance Program due to lack of budgets. 

Now we are being forced to help our people. 

As the Chairman I can say that I am not going to allow somebody to sit in their home and freeze to death. I am taking dollars 

out of other programs that are going to help us get through the 

winter, and everybody has made it, thank God, but since November 

we have had 259 general assistance cases been left out in the cold 

by BIE. No money. Turn them over to us. Fifty-nine families, 79 

single parents with children, 13 couples, and 100 single individuals. Normally we have funds for the entire year. Our fiscal year 

budget is spent already for that. We have had to take money from 

school clothes and other things for children. 

In terms of the treaty with the United States, we ask that Congress do its job and pass a budget that lives up to these obligations 

and gives my government funding to work with. Under the current 

continuing resolution we have only received 50 percent of the funding that we should have gotten from October 1 through March 31 

of this year. So what that means is now we are using our limited $13 million 

general fund budget to pay for our 477 Program so they can administer funds. We have a lot of federal programs that we are taking 

money that we normally give to other needs now to try to get them 

until the funds come. So we ask that you help us do that. 

Mr. Chairman, our people have upheld every promise that we 

made to the Federal Government in our treaties. In contrast, the 

Federal Government has failed to uphold even the most simple of 

the promises they made in exchange for taking our land, promises 

to provide healthcare, education, law enforcement, and land management services. Now 145 years later we find ourselves more dependent on the United States than we ever have been. We have 

been placed in the powerless position of having to choose on a daily 

basis whose life, safety, and welfare we will sacrifice to make due 

with our meager funds. 

I respectfully ask that you enact an appropriations bill for 2014, 

that provides sufficient resources to my tribe and all nations that 

provide services to its members. Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Kevin Keckler follows:] 
546
547
548
549
550

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much for your testimony, and if we 

could, Mr. Brewer, Chairman Brewer I should say, Oglala Sioux. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE 

WITNESS

BRYAN BREWER 

Mr. BREWER. President. 

Mr. COLE. President. They have got Chairman down here. Why 

do not we just call you king? 

Mr. BREWER. That sounds good. Good afternoon. My name is 

Bryan Brewer. I am the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. I have 

only been in office not quite 5 months. A month after I got in I got 

in a terrible car accident, so I am hoping to get that resolved pretty 

soon, but because of all of our storms, I couldn’t get to the hospital 

to have my surgery. But I would like to say this is my first time 

in politics. I am a longtime educator. I taught, coached, and did all 

of that and right in Pine Ridge, and I also was up in Rocky Boy, 

Montana.

One of the things that it has really been tough being the tribal 

Chairman for such a short time, calls that I receive every day of 

people with no homes, no place to live, no electricity. Really difficult.

I have written testimony here, but I am just going to touch on 

some of the things that I see that are really hard. 

One of our main things that we have is our justice system. We 

had a two-tier system. One was at Kyle, one was at Pine Ridge. 

They were both condemned. Money was received to build one, not 

the other. Now we are in trouble. The tribe has been doing the 

planning. Right now we are about a little over $1 million short for 

the planning, but once we do get the planning done, if we get the 

money to finish it, we are still going to need 2014 monies to build 

it.

Our court system, we really have a difficult time there. We are 

understaffed, we are underfunded. The new mandated law, the 

VAWA, you know, it is going to be very difficult if we do not have 

a court system to help our women that are abused. Like we are 

talking about the police department, our public safety right now, 

we are short almost 30 officers. Our officers are working 12-hour 

shifts. They are working up to 4 weeks at a time without a day off. 

So that is really a burnout for all of them, and they are having a 

very difficult time. Most of our calls when they make a call it takes 

an hour to get there, and if we have a lady, one of our women are 

being abused, an hour is a long time, and then when she does get 

to court, we do not have the money to help her with an attorney 

or we do not have the prosecutors to prosecute the people that are 

wrong.

But I would just like to say we are one of the largest reservations. We have 30.1 million acres that we have on the Pine Ridge 

Reservation. Our population is running around 45 to 50,000 people. 

Our housing, right now we need 4,000 homes for our people. We 
551

are short 4,000. You can see some of the homes that our people are 

living in. There are some pictures here. I would like to talk a little 

bit about HIP. 

You know, our people are desperate. We just do not have the 

homes, and like I say, we are short 4,000 homes. We have people 

in desperation. They are buying trailer houses. We have people 

bringing in trailers that they are buying. We cannot keep them up. 

Our HIP Program does not have the money, and I know it is being 

zeroed out, but this is so important to us. We really need our HIP 

Program bad, and I beg you to help us with that because, you 

know, these are just basic needs that our HIP Program is helping 

our people with. We had 40 FEMA trailers come in a month ago, 

and we had 1,500 applicants for those 40 trailers, and all of these 

people are in dire need of a place to live also. 

And I know I do not have much time here. I would really like 

to say, you know, President Obama made a directive that the BIA 

should have consultation with the tribes on education. That has 

never happened. This never happened. Right now they are trying 

to take $60 million, put into a pilot program, the Department of 

Education. We are very against that. Our schools, we do not have 

enough money. On the Pine Ridge Reservation we have one BIA 

school, and we have six contract schools. We have three parochial 

schools, and they are all affected by this, but we do not have 

enough money. 

Our transportation. Some of our students round trip, 100 miles 

a day, and it is not good. We have a dormitory at the Pine Ridge. 

It is sold right now. A lot of our students have no place to go on 

the weekends. We need money for that. Many of the children we 

have to send home on a Friday night, and when they come back 

Monday, they are in bad shape. We need additional money to help 

our educational program. 

I would just like to say that I do not know what is going to happen. I do not know what we are going to do this fall as far as education. I do not know how we can get going with that. I talked 

about our HIP Program a little bit. Our contract healthcare, you 

know, we are going to run out of money months before it is up. IHS 

does not, we do not have the doctors, we do not have the physicians, so when people come in that are sick, they have to send 

them to Rapid City. They have to fly them out somewhere, and like 

they were talking, a lot of our people are then billed, and they cannot pay that. Their credit is ruined. Right now in the tribal office 

we have a big stack. We have asked everyone to bring in the bills 

that IHS couldn’t cover, and we have so many right now, and I do 

not know what we are going to do with that, but it is a mess. 

Our road maintenance, we have over 500 miles that we have to 

keep up, 500 miles of road on the highway. Thank God, that is almost to Albuquerque if you ever think about that, you know, from 

Pine Ridge, but it is very difficult to keep up. Our equipment is old, 

our bulldozers, our dozers are 1940s. That is when they were built, 

and our equipment, we have a grader that was, I think our newest 

equipment is a road grader that was purchased in 1979. So we 

have a very difficult time. We have hard winters. In fact, we just 

finished one now, and I know I have gone over my time, but I really appreciate it, and it has been good to talk to you. 
552

The thing is I know I am talking to the people that support us. 

I wish I could talk with Obama and those that also have influence 

also, but I would like to thank you very much, and I am very honored to be here to speak before you. 

[The statement of Bryan Brewer follows:] 
553
554
555
556
557

Mr. COLE. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. President. 

And Thurman Cournoyer. Thank you. Chairman of the Yankton 

Sioux Tribe. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE 

WITNESS

THURMAN COURNOYER 

Mr. COURNOYER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. My name is Thurman Cournoyer. I am the 

Chairman of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and I am grateful for the 

opportunity to present my budget concerns to the subcommittee. 

In my testimony today I would like to focus on the devastated 

impacts that sequestration and insufficient Indian Health Service 

funding has on the healthcare available to our members. 

First, I do not understand why Congress did not exempt IHS 

funding from sequestration. IHS services are based on the longstanding treaty and trust relationship between the United States 

and Indian tribes. IHS should have been spared from these indiscriminate cuts like other social safety net programs and your Congressional salaries. 

I ask that this subcommittee restore IHS funding and exempt 

IHS from future indiscriminate cuts. On our reservation in rural 

South Dakota our members are dependent upon IHS for their medical and healthcare requirements. If sequestration will cut IHS 

services, tribal members requiring emergency services will be referred to alternative hospitals. Our members already face soaring 

healthcare costs and racial and economic discrimination when they 

are forced to go to these alternate emergency rooms. 

To make matters worse cuts in health, transportation, and contract health service dollars have resulted in our members being unable to afford these referrals. The sequester cut IHS funding at a 

time when Indian people have a lower rate of health insurance coverage than the general public. By this measure IHS is a social safety net program that should have been spared. 

Second, I would like to discuss the persistent lack of funding for 

IHS that resulted in substandard healthcare for our tribal members. While we appreciate recent increases in the IHS budget, IHS 

is still unable to provide the care that you would hope and expect 

for your own families. The 2014 IHS budget does not meet actual 

needs. Visit our IHS healthcare facility and speak with those who 

have been told and will be told again in 2014, that there is no 

money for appointments. Budget shortfalls not only hurt the patient, they hurt our economy by burdening taxpayers. People who 

are sick miss work, have a greater dependency on federal social 

services, and do worse in school. 

Funding for contract health services consistently dries up by the 

summer of each year. As we all say, you better not get sick after 

May. This year is especially bad. Our IHS facility’s budget has 

more than a $700,000 deficit for the first two quarters of 2013. The 

IHS staff has advised us to notify our members that contract 
558

health services are unavailable even for emergency referrals. If 

they choose to take an appointment, they must do so at their own 

expense.

A 2005 evaluation of our IHS facility found that if our emergency 

room were closed, it would be forecasted that lives would certainly 

be lost. Since then the facility has operated with an inadequate 

budget. It is not surprising that our tribal members have suffered. 

Just this past year a member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe died 

in the parking lot of our IHS facility waiting for the emergency 

room to open. He waited because that he felt he could not afford 

to be treated at the Wagner Community Memorial Hospital. 

We hope that stories like this reveal the severity of the funding 

cuts in fiscal year 2013, and that the adequate proposals for fiscal 

year 2014 will hurt our people. We urge the subcommittee and 

Congress to pass a 2014 budget so that critical funding for IHS is 

restored.

IHS is the only federally-funded healthcare system in the United 

States that is impacted by sequestration. Funding shortfalls affect 

the quality of healthcare services that our tribal members receive. 

We cannot stress how important it is to our members to get the 

healthcare they critically need. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to present these concerns for my people. 

[The statement of Thurman Cournoyer follows:] 
559
560
561
562
563

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much and thank all of you for your 

testimony, and I can assure you we were pretty upset ourselves in 

terms of the cuts in the funding. I couldn’t agree with you more, 

and again, that is a bipartisan sentiment here, and we are trying 

to figure out some way to restore that. It should have never, ever 

happened in the first place. 

Ms. McCollum, do you have any questions or comments you 

would care to make? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Just that I reflect the remarks. We were 

shocked, disappointed, angered, outraged about what happened 

with the healthcare, and you know, I said this earlier today, shame 

on us for not doing more due diligence, and this is something that 

the committee is trying to work on because you are funded out of 

many pots out of money, out of Interior, then out of Education, out 

of the Interior Health, and then out of IHS. So we are doing the 

best that we can with our oversight to work with our colleagues in 

the other committees to ask, you know, very thoughtful questions. 

As long as we have someone here from the tribal colleges and 

that, I would just like to ask a couple of quick questions and Rebecca and I can speak to you more. 

You talked about your law enforcement center. In Minnesota and 

a lot of other states they have moved to a 4-year post so that when 

you are done with a 4-year degree and here you are with officers 

that have trained and cannot get jobs, and I am talking about is 

this a 2 or a 4-year degree. But I am going to ask it anyways. Is 

this a 2 or a 4-year law enforcement academy you are working on? 

Mr. GIPP. We are working on kind of a clear ladder. One is a certificate level. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay. 

Mr. GIPP. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Academy, does not 

do degrees. It just does certificates. It is basically a 13-week course. 

By law they have to certify any that come through. So even when 

we have graduates at the certificate or the 2-year degree level, they 

are forced to go back through that academy and get that certification, when, in fact, we are recognized by the State of North Dakota post-award they call it. 

So that is where the Bureau of Indian Affairs has to develop 

some flexibility both with the Academies and with places like 

United Tribes, but to answer your question, we do a certificate program, we do a 2-year degree program, and now we do a 4-year degree program because what is lacking in the Bureau Law Enforcement System is a real career ladder. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Right. 

Mr. GIPP. And they do not do that. I will just say to me the way 

it is run right now it is one of the last vestiges of colonial America 

run by the BIA. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, can I use the royal, we, Mr. Cole, and say 

we would like to work with you on that because that—— 

Mr. COLE. You certainly may. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. But we do not want you to lose your officers. We 

want you to train your officers. We want to give you the resources 

so your officers serve their communities, because that is what inspired them to go in law enforcement in the first place. 
564

Some of the other training that you are doing, you mentioned the 

welding, and so two questions. One, are any of the businesses that 

are coming in, are they working, are they providing, are they doing 

public, private partnerships with you for doing customized training?

And, two, are the building trades coming in, whether it be carpenters, pipefitters, welders, and that to build those other career 

ladders with providing apprenticeship opportunities? Because you 

are so close to Minnesota where I know we do a lot of apprenticeship opportunities. 

Mr. GIPP. Short answer is that we have agreements with the 

unions, but we also have agreements with employers, businesses to 

take those people who graduate through our system, either at the 

employer level, private employers, or through the union set of programs. Our current welding program is set up so that they can 

move into an apprenticeship and then eventually become a journeyman, for example. 

The other thing is that there are new businesses coming up that 

are Native American. 

I think Chairman Hall will probably comment on that more extensively, but they also need support in developing those businesses because oftentimes these are new businesses, and there is 

great opportunity, but they need sustainable support. 

We also assist them with things like financing and procurement 

out of a small center that we do at the college. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay, and then my last question because, I 

mean, you all reflect, and we need to hear it repeatedly from all 

the different angles about what is going on with healthcare and K12 and elder care and roads and transportation, but this is my 

chance to ask the higher ed questions. 

The young adults that are behind you from Yankton, they are 

here because they are motivated, they have had good mentors either in their family or in their community, and your communities 

feature they are America’s future. We know we failed too many 

students, especially Native American students, and adults who 

maybe did not pay enough attention and go, oh, I should have done 

more attention with math. 

And now that you have these career opportunities in the Dakotas 

with what is going on with business, are you seeing adults and 

high school students all the sudden with the light kind of going on, 

and what are we doing for remedial or refresher courses? 

Mr. GIPP. Remediation is a big issue for all of our tribal colleges, 

our 37 tribal colleges by the way, and so the kinds of resources to 

do that are very necessary but oftentimes lacking. 

The second part, though, to answer your questions, I see a lot of 

young Native people who are very enthused about what their future is. Students come to our place 36 years ago, that is how long 

I have been at United Tribes, I would ask the question, where do 

you want to go for the job? Do you want to go home, because oftentimes there weren’t jobs there. They would raise their hand. Overwhelming majority. Today I ask that question, and the overwhelming majority of Native students that come to our campus 

anyhow say I want to go where the job is. But they also want to 
565

stay home. They want to keep their culture identity. They do not 

want to give that up. 

Incidentally, I graduated from what was then called Marty Nation, and this is run by the tribe now at the Yankton Reservation. 

So I am a graduate from that school. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, thank you. I am planning on visiting some 

of the tribal colleges in Minnesota and, you know, I will just get 

on 94 and go west. 

Mr. GIPP. Come on out. We will show you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you all for your testimony, and we will have 

our next panel. Thank you very, very much. 

And next we will have Tex Hall, Ervin Carlson, Tom Miller, and 

Roger Trudell. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Cole, I am remembering what you were saying about not being caught wearing a cowboy hat. I want you to 

look at these fine-looking gentlemen right here. 

Mr. COLE. I know. Look a little differently in Oklahoma. We got 

a lot of hats. Helmets mostly, actually. 

Welcome, gentlemen. It is good to have all of you here. Tex Hall, 

Tribal Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation, and Three Affiliated Tribes. Tex, good to see you, again. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION (THREE 

AFFILIATED TRIBES) 

WITNESS

TEX HALL 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Tom Cole, and 

Darren Benjamin, and Betty McCollum. It is really a great honor 

to give some testimony. 

I am going to have a chart that goes up there, and it really summarizes where Indian energy is at, and you guys are all aware that 

my tribal nation is in the middle of the hottest oil plain in North 

Dakota, the Bakken Formation, so just a quick update. We have 

625 producing wells since 2008, more than 15,000 semi-trucks and 

30 drilling rigs, and this slide here is the new Administration’s, 

what do they call it, new energy frontier, and everybody gets an increase except for, you can see it in yellow, and look at the bottom 

yellow. Zero, because the bottom portion is oil, and gas and the top 

portion is wind. So I think wind and renewable, is that 2 million, 

Roger, that is right there? The top part, top yellow. Okay. Two 

point three for renewable and zero for conventional. 

So in summary I would say this has been a bust for the Administration on energy development. They are leaving us high and dry. 

There is no one-stop shop. Darren, you mentioned that the other 

day. It was basically on paper. In about 2008, 2009, we asked Senator Dorgan to put forward this one-stop shop that was modeled 

after the Navajo’s one-stop shop where you bring in BIA, BLM, 

OST, EPA, MMS, now it is Honor, you bring in all of these five 

agencies to the reservation. So that way if there is any backlog on 
566

permits, on CAs, on communitization agreements, on minor source 

air permits from EPA, if there is any backlog where the money 

might have went to the wrong allottee or the wrong tribe, maybe 

it went to Fort Belknap instead of Fort Berthold, you know. So you 

bring in all those people, and that is what the concept of the oneshop stop is, and then so that your tribal members and the tribe 

could get everybody in the same room and work through those. 

Never happened. 

In short, what they said was a virtual one-stop shop, and I have 

told the Administration, Mike Black and Kevin Washburn, I said, 

you know, maybe I am just a slow cowboy from North Dakota, but 

I do not know how a virtual one-stop shop works when you have 

15,000 semi-trucks and 625 oil-producing wells and 60 percent flaring. You know, this is a tsunami, and so I do not know how that 

works from Denver or, you know, where this virtual one-stop shop 

classroom is supposed to be, but if I need access to a petroleum engineer or an environmental engineer or a compliance, I have got to 

have them right there. And BLM is in Billings. It is not in North 

Dakota.

So we really have no presence except by the telephone, by e-mail, 

and so it has been a bust. This one-stop shop has been a bust. 

However, Congress has allocated for the last 2 years $500,000 in 

’12, in ’13, we do not know where the money went to, and I just 

came from TIBC, I serve on the Tribal Interior Budget Council for 

BIA, and I got nothing but lip service when I asked about where 

these monies—because we are trying to contract for these dollars 

because we gave the Administration a chance. We said, go ahead 

and implement this one-stop shop because it has been touted by 

former Secretary Salazar, et cetera, et cetera, to Larry Echo Hawk, 

to now Kevin Washburn, and nobody could tell me where the 

money was. 

So finally Tommy Thompson, who is the Budget Director for BIA, 

Tommy Thompson said, Chairman Hall, you deserve a letter to, 

you know, find out where this money went to, and so, I mean, I 

have asked Mike Black, BIA, I have asked Karen Atkinson, the Director of OIEED, which is the Office of Indian Energy Economic 

Development, and I have asked Kevin Washburn. Nobody can give 

me a straight answer. I get anywhere from, oh, it went to Aberdeen. Bruce Watermalky, Regional Director, has it. I talked to 

Bruce yesterday. He said, no, I do not have this $500,000. He said, 

I just have BIA money. 

That is under Kevin Washburn, this OIEED. It is not under 

Mike Black. It is under Kevin Washburn. And so then I pushed 

further, and I said, well, Bruce Watermalky does not have this 

money. Karen said, well, where did it go? Well, I will ask Steve 

Manydeeds. He is in Denver or whatever the town next to Denver, 

where the Division of Indian Minerals is. And I said, I will do that, 

but I know how the Washington runaround works because I have 

been around for a long time. Steve is going to tell me to go back 

to you because you are his boss. 

And then finally Tommy Thompson says, you deserve a letter. So 

I have been chasing this ghost, this one-stop shop ghost for 2 years, 

and then we have all these requirements from EPA now for air permits, you know, for the well emissions I should say, and what are 
567

called minor source permits and now the hydrofracking rule. And 

we have all of the industry that are saying, we are going to probably have to start moving rigs off. 

So all of this huge economic play here is really is at a crisis for 

us, especially as we are looking at a zeroed-out budget so this Administration is a bust on Indian oil and gas, Indian energy as far 

as I am concerned. Huge amounts of quality sweet crude, huge 

amounts of rich gas, natural gas that we are trying to get into a 

gathering system, trying to get into a processing, refining system, 

and then, of course, as you know, we have been approved for the 

first oil and gas refinery since 1976. 

Then finally, the state is taking $314 million out of tax, so I do 

not want nobody to say Indians do not pay tax, because we sure 

in the hell do. We paid $314 million. Not $1 comes back to Fort 

Berthold. Zero comes back to Indian trust land for roads, for oil 

spills, for any kind of a hazardous or environmental impact. Nothing.

So Governor Dalrymple in North Dakota knows this, Senator 

Hoeven knows this, Congressman Cramer knows this, and Senator 

Heitkamp knows this. All of the state legislature in North Dakota 

knows what I said, and I have told it right to their face, and I said, 

this is not fair because that $314 million equals 61 percent tax. 

Hell, Warren Buffet do not pay 61 percent tax, and we get 39 percent tax, yet that impact is happening on our reservation. That is 

not fair. It is not right. If that money channels back, I will buy the 

buffalo from Pine Ridge. I will buy the buffalo from Cheyenne 

River. We are trying to start an intertribal trade, you know. I will 

refine and sell propane at a cheaper price to the tribes that need 

it the most because their monies are drying up. Their monies. We 

have been blessed with natural resources, but we are getting busted by the Administration and from our state government. Our state 

government has taken in 4 years, then I will be quiet after this, 

in 4 years at the current 61 to 39 percent tax ratio, the state will 

be $1 billion from our oil and gas, and not one of those dollars will 

come back. 

So I cannot put those dollars back into the refinery, back into the 

natural gas plant. I cannot do those sort of things. We need your 

help. Tribes need to have sole taxing authority because we will impact not only our reservation, we will help other tribes that need 

that because we are going to start an intertribal trade agreement. 

We met last night. Whatever products a tribe has, if it is buffalo, 

if it is natural beef, if it is crops, if it is foods, if it is gas, if it is 

propane, we are going to buy and trade from each other because 

that is the way we got to help ourselves in sequestration. This is 

having a terrible impact on us, devastating, and this is one way we 

can help ourselves, this intertribal trade. 

So we look forward to working with you to try to replay some— 

there are many tribes, and I cannot believe Kevin said there is only 

a handful of new oil and gas tribes. There is not a handful. We represent COLT, the Coalition of Large Land-based Tribes. Navajo has 

got a huge oil play down there. The Utes got a huge oil play in 

Oklahoma. It is not a handful. There is a huge amount of energy 

resources, so I think that is just an understatement. 
568

So any help you can do, Mr. Chairman and members here, would 

be most appreciated. Thank you. 

[The statement of Tex Hall follows:] 
569
570
571
572
573

Mr. COLE. Thank you. Ervin Carlson, President of the InterTribal Buffalo Council. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

INTERTRIBAL BUFFALO COUNCIL 

WITNESS

ERVIN CARLSON 

Mr. CARLSON. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

committee members. My name is Ervin Carlson. I am a member of 

the Blackfeet Tribe and also the President of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council. I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony 

here today. 

ITBC is a federally-charted national Indian organization with a 

membership of 58 federally-recognized tribes across 19 states, and 

I might add that all of the tribes that are here today testifying before you, they are all a part of the organization. 

ITBC has existed for 20 years, and in that time has successfully 

restored buffalo to 52 tribes who collectively manage 20,000 plus 

buffalo. The historical connection between buffalo and American Indians is well documented. Indians relied heavily on the buffalo for 

survival, and the demise of the buffalo coincided with drastic lifestyle changes for Indians. 

ITBC works to restore buffalo to tribes to revive the healthy relationship between buffalo and Indians. ITBC’s objectives have been 

to assist tribes with buffalo restoration. Successful herd management, reintroduction of buffalo into the diets of Indian populations, 

and developing a marketing program for those tribes ready to market buffalo as economic development efforts. 

ITBC first received federal funding in 1992, when only ten tribes 

were members and largely formed of Congressional earmarks. In 

2006, ITBC received $4,150,000 for Tribal Herd Development 

Grants, commenced an aggressive health initiative utilizing buffalo 

to prevent and treat diet-related diseases and start a cooperative 

marketing effort. 

I might add also with that with the health part of it, today you 

heard from our tribal leaders as to lobbying here for dollars for 

health, and we believe that with bringing back buffalo to the diets 

of our Indian people, that would also help, you know, with the cost 

reductions that we do have in Indian Country. We have diabetes, 

and heart disease is very rampant in Indian Country. So, you 

know, with that we also look at that as helping that area of also 

helping the government help with the funding there. 

But, however, in 2007, funding was reduced to $1 million for 

Tribal Herd Development Grants only. BIA funded ITBC administrative costs in the amount of $400,000. This drastic funding reduction at a point when ITBC membership had grown to over 50 tribes 

seriously restricted the newly-developed health and marketing initiatives and decreased available funds to pass through to tribes as 

Herd Development Grants. 
574

Since 2007, ITBC’s funding has been stagnant, although ITBC 

membership is five times greater than when the organization 

began.

On behalf of the 58 ITBC member tribes, I would like to respect- fully request $3 million to fund ITBC’s ongoing activities. This 

amount would allow meaningful Herd Development Grants to 

tribes. Herd Development Grants have been limited in amount, and 

not all tribes can be funded each year. 

This year we have, you know, all of our tribes put in their wishes, I guess, of what they need, and we just never get there. Each 

tribe will take a year, let another tribe put in for the funding, so 

it is just kind of a rotating issue like that to make the money go 

around.

With a more meaningful amount awarded to tribes, tribes will be 

able to grow herds, ensure sound management and health of the 

animals, and meet basic infrastructure needs. Additionally, ITBC 

could restart and enhance efforts to use buffalo for health and as 

I talked about a little earlier of being able to help our tribes in that 

area.

And also it was talked about earlier about, you know, the jobs 

in the college created there. ITBC with that organization with the 

herd programs there, we do also provide jobs there. So that is pretty important also. 

Additionally, ITBC could restart and enhance efforts to use buffalo for health issues including reintroducing buffalo into diets on 

a broader scale. Additionally, increased funding will allow ITBC to 

develop more certain markets that will allow some tribes to market 

buffalo in an effort to achieve self-sustaining herds. 

There is some tribes, you know, they are there, they keep them 

there for the cultural part, but a big thing, again, is like tribes are 

very, as you hear today from the tribal leaders, the tribes are very 

strapped in every area of dollars, and ITBC with their buffalo and 

buffalo took care of Indian people in a way in our beginning, you 

know, our food, our clothing, our lodging, and this time and day 

and age they can help us out in another way also, and just as Tex 

was talking about also with tribes not being able to sell buffalo 

maybe back to another tribe but also that in marketing those out 

to other areas helps with tribes being sustainable. 

ITBC has developed partnerships with various federal and state 

agencies for the purpose of advocating for buffalo protection and 

conservation and opposing the needless killing of buffalo primarily 

in the Greater Yellowstone Area. ITBC takes possession of surplus 

bison from national parks and is collaborating with the National 

Park Service to take slaughtered buffalo from Yellowstone. 

ITBC has advocated for member tribes to take surplus Yellowstone bison to preserve the pure genetics of these animals, however, ITBC has no funding to assist interested tribes with the necessary infrastructure to take the Yellowstone buffalo. While ITBC 

wants to be a meaningful option for Yellowstone buffalo, we simply 

just do not have the funding to do this and help the tribes in that 

area.

In conclusion, ITBC respectfully requests this committee to in- crease funding to $3 million. This amount is crucial to preserve and 

protect the existing buffalo herds and to allow the organization to 
575

develop health and marketing initiatives. This funding will be a 

clear expression to American Indians that restoration of buffalo to 

Indian lands is a significant part of correcting past wrongs done to 

Indians as well as to reestablishing the healthy historical connection between buffalo and Indians. 

The benefits of funding ITBC at $3 million far outweighs the 

costs. So with that I do respectfully request an increase to help the 

tribes in other areas of buffalo restoration. It also helps, like I said, 

in other areas of health benefits and for jobs there. 

So with that I would also like to apologize. The last time I was 

here in front of you I brought some buffalo jerky, but this time we 

just do not have the money to get it made. 

[The statement of Ervin Carlson follows:] 
576
577
578
579
580

Mr. COLE. If we could, Tom Miller, President of the Association 

of Community Tribal Schools. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY OF TRIBAL SCHOOLS 

WITNESS

TOM MILLER 

Mr. TOM MILLER. With an emphasis on time I will just say thank 

you because I do not want to take too much time. I am Tom Miller. 

I have been associated with the ACTS Group, the Association of 

Community Tribal Schools, since 1982, when it was started in Nevada, and our sole issue is that we are supporters of K through 12 

education.

To go along with that I have also been a school superintendent 

for 32 years at the Hannahville Indian School in the Potawatomi 

Reservation in the upper peninsula of Michigan. The reason I have 

been there 32 years, they want me to die in the seat, and if I keep 

going, I may do that. 

But we understand in requesting now that the sequestration 

movement has put the committees between a rock and a hard place 

and maybe a mission impossible place. We know that we are requesting in our written testimony specific items, but as schools facing reality, we are planning to handle, to do with less I guess is 

what we are trying to say. We have done this before, and historically education has never been funded adequately. So you take the 

sequestration right now and you add that to an inadequate funding 

already, and we got a double whammy effect out of it. 

What we do look at is if we are forced into dealing with less, then 

the amount of money that is there right now needs to get to the 

schools as much as possible. We cannot have the middleman, and 

I say the middleman, the BIE, siphoning off funds for projects that 

someone who had the idea of the week, month, or year, it is a good 

idea, and we are going to do this with you now. 

Recently, and actually starting in 2000, more and more requirements have been put on schools, but at the same time the funding 

has stagnated, and we are every year getting new things heaped 

on us and with an understanding that you have got to do this, and 

we are being threatened with a bigger stick, and that does not 

work all the time, especially if the monies do not come along with 

it to allow us to do the things that we need to do. 

We need those requirements either to be lessened, waived, something, because we are pretty good at what we do, but we are not 

miracle workers. The fact is with reduced funding, many of the requirements that the Bureau is attempting to enforce with us are 

not possible, and like I said, we are used to dealing with not adequate funding, but it does not make our job any easier, and our job 

is to increase the graduation rates for the schools that are in the 

tribally-controlled schools funding vein, and there is 125 schools, 

roughly 28,000 students, so we are talking a fairly good cross section of the Native students over 21 states. 
581

So as an association we realize what the chances are of the increase. What we need Congress to do is if for some reason we cannot get our increase, and that would be nice, would be like Christmas, but if we do not, then we need you to help us make the Administration face reality and lessen the requirements that are 

being put to us. 

I guess I put that as straightforward as I can. One of the projects 

that the BIE has come up with recently, I believe President Brewer 

referred to it as the 16.5 Pilot Project. The things that we are being 

hit with now is the BIE is using funds with a carrot at the end. 

They are taking a significant amount of money out of an alreadystrapped area where we are at, and they are asking the schools to 

access, this money you must do this. There is no rule, law, or regulation, but we are being hit with that. It is back to the era of 638, 

which when I started in this thing it was there, and that is a lot 

of regulations that just happened to be brought up, idea of the 

week, idea of the day, idea of the month. 

And as the Association, what we would like to see is, of course, 

first of all, we would like to see the funding. That would be great. 

We would be able to do things we haven’t been able to do, and of 

course, that would allow us to increase building schools. Of course, 

again, we still have the middleman involved, which is the reason 

we do not build schools as fast as we could, but all of the areas 

that we need increases in, ISEP, the O&M to keep our facilities 

from what we do have up to speed, need to be increased. If we do 

not get that, then somebody has got to face reality here, and the 

fact is that many of these requirements have got to be mitigated 

to some level that we can actually function, because right now we 

cannot.

So with that I think that is about as much as I think the Association wanted to get into the financial. The other thing is this is, 

in ending, is that we understand that the job here is very, very difficult this time. We understand that. All we are asking you to do 

is do your best. These are for the Native students that exist in the 

125 schools and across 21 states. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Tom Miller follows:] 
582
583
584
585

Mr. COLE. Thank you for your testimony, and our last presenter 

today will be Chairman Roger Trudell, the Santee Sioux Tribe. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE 

WITNESS

ROGER TRUDELL 

Mr. TRUDELL. Good afternoon, Chairman and members, Ms. 

McCollum. My name is Roger Trudell, and I am the Chairman of 

the Santee Sioux Nation in Nebraska. I am not going to read to you 

or, you know, because I did do a testimony, and that is available 

to you. You have heard from the Lakota, the Nakota, and now you 

will hear from the Dakota. Originally, the Santee Sioux are from 

Minnesota, and we were exiled from there in 1862. So that is how 

we ended up being in Nebraska. 

We have experienced exactly what we are experiencing now, you 

know, and that is the many broken promises of the government, 

you know, which led to a very, very harsh time in our history, and 

we did rebel. We probably rebelled in the wrong way, and we took 

up arms, and we fought for what we thought was right, you know. 

Our relatives were hung in the largest mass execution in the 

United States at Mankato, Minnesota, and the day after Christmas, 1862, over 300 imprisoned at Davenport, Iowa. The rest put 

on the road to Crow Creek, South Dakota, and from there to Nebraska, and it is a little better than the Everglades or how do they 

pronounce that? The Galapagos, I guess. 

So, anyway, that is why we are there. We had many friends 

along the way. They continue to be our friends. Chairman from 

Three Affiliated Tribes took many of our people in. We are not the 

largest tribe in the Great Plains, you know. We are not the largest 

land-based tribe. You know, we had many, many members at one 

time, but they are in Canada or have been absorbed by other 

tribes, re-affiliated. Sitting Bull took in a number of our people, 

and you know, we are in Nebraska. We have some relatives still 

in Minnesota, you know, who are much more prosperous than we 

are and appreciate that because they help us out every now and 

then.

Did not want to talk too much about, you know, the ’14 budget 

because, you know, we presented some things that we take exception to. When you talk about, you know, what is the impact of the 

sequestration as it is to date, the impact on the Indian House Service is in our area, you know, about 6,000 people are going to go 

without service, and these are people that you would consider Priority One people, Contract Health Service had been approved but 

some of those people that have been approved are not going to be 

served and another 1,700 applications and this was as of last Friday are going to be denied. So that is a little over 6,000 people who 

are eligible for Priority One services, and of course, I do not have 

to tell you what Priority means, Priority One. You are either not 

long for this world or you are leaving this world. So those people 

are not provided that service, you know. Where does that leave 
586

them at, and you have heard about people going ahead with treatment and personally losing their credibility with creditors and having their incomes attached and all that. It is not a good place to 

be.

Indian Health Service in my mind should have been exempted 

from any cuts as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, their direct 

service dollars I should say and the ones that go to the GA clients 

and those types of dollars, should have been held safe in some way. 

I sat in on a budget meeting yesterday with the Chairman. I heard 

about deferred service. I am still trying to figure out what a deferred service is. It means some time in the future you might get 

served if there is something available, but as it is today if a person 

walked in for GA services, they are going in there because they 

have no other resource, going in to get some food for their family, 

something, you know, something critical, and they will be deferred 

until sometime in the future. 

Another thing I am not sure of how it ever took place was at BIA 

Social Services, Indian Health Service became the provider of last 

resort. It means after all your other resources, if they are available, 

have been exhausted, then they will step in. You know, this is not 

what the treaties were about, and we are signers of the 1868 treaty, and those gentlemen that took people in, did not take it in because they did not want to fight no more. They took them in to preserve a place in the future for us. Those are our great great grandfathers, you know. They wanted to see us be around for all times, 

and we are here, and I think maybe somewhere along the line 

maybe people resent that, but we are nations within this Nation, 

and we all have treaties with the United States government that 

somehow are not being honored. 

Even Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, our 

treaties do not even talk about them. They talk about service directly to our tribal people, to our tribal members, education, medical assistance, meeting the social needs of our people. Those were 

what were promised, you know. As it is today we all stand on this 

three-legged stool waiting for somebody to either put in that fourth 

leg or kick another leg out so we do not have to worry about this 

stuff anymore, you know. We will not be around to worry about it. 

Put that fourth leg in and make us solid and that can be done 

congressionally, you know. There are laws that can be passed and 

allow the tribes an advantage in the free world, the free trade system. You know, those are the kind of things that we need to be 

looking at so we will not be in this situation when we are coming 

here to say this is how we are suffering. You know, let us have 

some advantage that allows us to generate the kind of dollars that 

we need to take care of our people, and we will not be here, you 

know. We will be taking care of our people. 

And I see the light blinking, so thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Roger Trudell follows:] 
587
588
589
590
591

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple things real quick. 

I am going to have to race because I have got actually another committee meeting, but first of all, I want to thank each and every one 

of you for your testimony and what you had to say, and the common theme runs through it. 

I am particularly not surprised but disappointed, Tex, to hear, 

you know, what you are running up to, because I know this committee really wants to see that development go ahead. We think it 

is the key to the future in the region, and it is just unconscionable 

that it is more difficult to develop wealth on Indian land than it 

is on land right next to it, and I know what you are saying is true, 

because I know a lot of the guys that are developing from Oklahoma that are up there, and they tell me exactly the same thing 

that you do in terms of how much more difficult it is to get permitting, how much more difficult it is to operate. They they would love 

to be drilling more and be more actively involved, and this is one 

where the Federal Government does not have a very good record 

which is so often the case. 

But we really do need to not pick winners and losers on Indian 

land. Let the Indians decide what they want to do with their resources, and they are their resources. That is not federal land. That 

is land we hold in trust, but that is not owned by the United States 

government. That is owned by the tribes. That is not the same as 

federal land elsewhere. It seems to me you ought to be able to decide the regulatory regime that you want to operate under and 

then we ought to replicate it. If you want to run it yourself, then 

we have an obligation to help get that set up, but we should not 

have an artificial distinction between Indian land and non-Indian 

land unless the Indian tribe wants that distinction. That is up to 

them. That is their land. 

Why we would not have the same permitting process, the same 

costs, the same speed that you can get right next door, and I do 

hear occasionally that part of our problem is every time we get 

skilled people up there that the oil companies are desperate for 

people, and you know, you have a better opportunity. But we still 

need to do an awful lot better here. I think this could be a really 

transformative event. It already has been to some degree, but it 

ought to be more. 

I would be very interested in pursuing the points you raised 

about taxation in terms of what is happening with state taxation 

and dollars not flowing back because we all know how infrastructure poor those communities are. It is actually not an advantage 

having lost our tribal lands in Oklahoma other than what we hold 

in trust, but it did mean when the state was developed, we got the 

same infrastructure that everybody else got. So let’s chat some 

more about this, but I really want to help on those areas. 

And, you know, it was probably tough to leave Minnesota, but 

cheer up. You could have been sent to Oklahoma instead of Nebraska. You would still be in the Big 12 anyway. 

Mr. TRUDELL. Better than the Big 10 I guess. 

Could I comment on one thing? 

Mr. COLE. You sure may. 

Mr. TRUDELL. Because I heard it over and over today and that 

is about, nobody actually said it but—historical trauma. That is a 
592

real, real thing. I am a Vietnam veteran, so I know about trauma, 

probably as many of the people in here. And I know sometimes it 

is not instantaneous. Sometimes it sits there for years and years 

before it comes, but I just wanted to make reference to my little 

girl who had seen, well, they had the film out about the 150 years 

of the members of our tribune being hung, but they did not have 

people there to explain what was going on. So when she came 

home, she was telling me about it. She was, do you know about 

that, Papa, and I said, yeah, but, you know, I am sorry that somebody was not there to kind of explain what was going on, you 

know, because it is the public school district, and it does not have 

a lot of tribal involvement, and I said, that did happen. I said, it 

is real. I said, you know, we did what we did because, you know, 

we felt we had to do that to feed our families and stuff. That is 

why our ancestors did that. 

But that trauma is still there when they see that, you know. It 

comes out, and you deal with these problems every day. Mental 

health I think is the largest health issue on the reservations, much 

larger than diabetes, because if you do not have good mental 

health, you are not going to be well, you are not going to take care 

of yourself, you are not going to worry about what other disease 

you have. So I think you will really want to impact reservations in 

the not too distant future then you need to address the mental 

health issue that exists there, whether it be historical trauma or 

the trauma that is happening every day in the homes. You heard 

about the abuse of the women, the abuse of the kids and neglect. 

Those have to be addressed in some very, very serious way in the 

near future, or we will not be nations anymore. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you for your observation. 

Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. In Minnesota we are revisiting the 

history. To call it an anniversary bothers me but some of our tribal 

elders have used it, too. We worked with the schools and our curriculum in Minnesota. Chairman Crooks led it up, and I think we 

told the truth, and people can see the truth differently from their 

perspectives, and our history center in Minnesota has some information out, and we can talk and get that to your daughter because 

it has been a very emotional time in Minnesota, and Chairman 

Crooks is now no longer with us unfortunately. He did a really 

good job of making sure that the whole story was told. 

I am a social studies teacher so I am really aggravated that your 

daughter did not get a good opportunity. 

I am hearing a couple of homework assignments here. Follow the 

money on the oil and gas as Tex was talking about. 

Mr. COLE. I think so. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Yes, and we need to ask the tribes to put together maybe for us on the floor, because I think we are going to 

try to set some rights here, to get some numbers of people that we 

already know are being deferred healthcare or being turned down 

and maybe our staffs can work with the tribes to get that, and then 

some examples in the education. The Obama Administration has 

put everything on hold. We need it not to be on hold. We need it 

to be gone, but I know that when Leave No Child Behind started 
593

happening, people were told that they were to take their Esther 

Martinez funds and put it into Title I. My office and other offices 

up here got involved and said, no way. If there are some examples 

you can give us of what is going on like that, you know, later on 

with our staffs, we would be indebted to you for you giving us some 

other examples like that. 

Mr. TOM MILLER. I can do that within the K through 12 and the 

BIE-funded system. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Perfect. 

Mr. TOM MILLER. We will get you that. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. COLE. Thank you. Thank all of you. 

And, Tex, just one thing. We may have, it hasn’t been decided 

yet, but we have got some folks on Ways and Means that are working on the whole Indian taxation issue, and let us check. There 

may be an opportunity to testify in front of the premiere tax writing committee. Lynn Jenkins from Kansas is kind of working on 

this. This came up in a discussion we had with a number of tribes. 

They had a whole series of tax-related issues. We may be headed 

toward an overhaul of the tax code, and it seems to me that some 

of the points you were making about the taxation would be a really 

important thing for that committee to hear. 

So we will try and work with you on that if that comes. We are 

trying to push for a number of members, both sides of the aisle. 

I think there needs to be a special hearing on Ways and Means on 

Indian, on tribal nations and taxation, and this would be, I think, 

very valuable. 

Mr. HALL. Really appreciate that opportunity. We think we have 

got the story. 

Mr. COLE. Yes. I think you do, too. It is an old story. 

Mr. HALL. We want to invite you guys to MHA in North Dakota. 

We will do a helicopter cruise through the Badlands and through 

the oil and gas fields. 

Mr. COLE. I would love to if we can figure out a way to get there. 

Mr. HALL. We will make it smooth as glass so you do not have 

to worry about any of those little bags that you have to carry. 

Mr. COLE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. HALL. I think just seeing is believe, and they took Senator 

Heitkamp down into the Badlands with that helicopter, and she 

said I did not know you had this much development. I did not know 

your roads were like, you know, so seeing is believing. 

Mr. COLE. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. We want to offer that to you. 

Mr. COLE. A pretty compelling picture you have got in this testimony.

Again, I want to thank all of you gentlemen. I know it has been 

a long day. Thanks for traveling a very far way, and thank you for 

your helping this committee understand the problems. 

The committee is adjourned. 

(595)

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS

PUBLIC WITNESSES—NATIVE AMERICANS 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. 

Good morning, and welcome to the third of our four public witness hearings over yesterday and today, specifically for American 

Indian and Alaskan Native programs under the jurisdiction of the 

Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. I especially want to welcome the distinguished tribal elders and leaders 

testifying today, and in the audience. You deserve be heard for 

more than the 5 minutes we have allotted today, and I want you 

to know that you have an open invitation to call me and my staff 

directly so we can schedule more time outside of these hearings. 

Despite a somewhat abbreviated hearing schedule this year, I am 

proud that this subcommittee is able to hold hearings on these very 

important programs. They have been and will continue to be a bipartisan funding priority of this subcommittee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table, one panel 

at a time. Each witness will be provided with 5 minutes to present 

their testimony. We will be using a timer to track the progress of 

each witness. When the button turns yellow, the witness will have 

1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. When you see 

the blinking red light, I am going to have to ask you to stop because we are on a schedule to try to get them all done. This is out 

of respect for more than your time and ours as this is a busy day 

on Capitol Hill and no doubt everyone testifying today has a schedule to keep. Members will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses, but in the interests of time, the chair requests that we keep these things moving in order to stay on schedule.

The chair also wants to remind those in the hearing room that 

the Committee Rules prohibit the use of outside video cameras and 

audio equipment during these hearings. 

The reason I am the only one here this morning to start with is, 

members on this Committee have several committees they have to 

cover and many of them are at other committee meetings and will 

be stopping in and so forth as time permits in their schedule. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Our first panel is Jaime Pinkham, James Zorn, 

Eric Chapman and Jimmie Mitchell. And we have Michael Isham, 

Jr., also here. 

Welcome, gentlemen. Jaime, you are first. 
596

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

BUSH FOUNDATION 

WITNESS

JAIME A. PINKHAM 

Mr. PINKHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jaime Pinkham 

with the Bush Foundation based in St. Paul, and I lead the Foundation’s Native Nations program, but I am Nez Perce and I am 

transplanted to the Midwest for the past 4 years. And I want to 

thank Representative McCollum for extending an invitation to testify before this subcommittee to talk about the Bush Foundation’s 

work with the 23 sovereign tribes that share the homeland with 

North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. 

And just briefly, back in 1859, Archibald Bush was chairman of 

the 3M Committee and used his personal wealth to start the Foundation, and over the last 60 years they have provided over $800 

million to support leadership and community innovations of which 

tribes have been a major recipient. 

Well, governance is one of many tools that tribes use to provide 

for their general welfare, and in 2009, the Bush Foundation 

launched a tribal program focusing on the principles of Native nation building, and it comes out of the Harvard Project for American 

Indian Economic Development and Native Nations Institute, which 

is really a process where tribes use their true self rule to design 

the governments that are most effective for them to meet their 

well-being. And so we have been working with tribes on investing 

and creating capable governing institutions to back up their authority, things like constitutional reform, judicial, executive and 

legislative processes. And the Harvard Project and the Native Nations Institute is a major partner of ours in leading this work. 

But tribal governments are the oldest and often most misunderstood and sometimes underestimated governments in this Nation 

but the Foundation has made a commitment because they are part 

of the national fabric of governments in this country and they have 

a legitimate role, not only for their Nation but for the welfare of 

their neighbors. 

And so as a foundation, when you work at this level you have 

got to respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination, which 

means that we collaborate directly with the tribal leaders in addressing their needs and conditions and creating partnerships with 

them and the partnerships vary from direct program grants to 

master agreement with Native Nations Institute where we provide 

services at no cost to the tribe as well as the tribes can pull off the 

shelf consultants or expertise. We contract directly with them. 

So there are a variety of ways that we enter into these partnerships, and tribes have really asked us to provide them with these 

nation-building conversations to help, you know, create a common 

identity within their nation about what is the role of government 

in their community, so we have been hosting conversations 

amongst the tribal leaders and amongst the tribal community to 

come up with a long-term vision of the role of government in these 

nations.
597

In addition, Mr. Chairman, one of the tools that we use is a tool 

by the Native Nations Institute called the Governance Analysis for 

Native Nations, which is an extraordinary tool that helps the tribes 

evaluate their strategic directions as well as their various governance systems within their community to figure out, you know, what 

can use some improvements and the challenges they had, and it 

comes out with an action plan that really the Foundation uses as 

trying to frame long-term partnerships with them. 

And tribal governments are also essential not only for their welfare but the welfare of their neighbors and so we have working to 

foster intergovernmental collaboration between tribal governments 

and non-tribal governments as well as intergovernmental collaboration between tribes trying to help overcome some of the conflicts 

that existed within the region but also there are mutual problems 

they want to address and collaborative efforts and moving forward, 

so we are fostering that kind of work as well. 

You know, the more we get into this, just the demand for this 

nation-building expertise and resources continue to increase. The 

tribes are asking us for more expertise, more research, even more 

financial resources to help lead this nation-building effort among 

the tribes. And so we have been investing in capacity of other institutions like the Harvard Project, the continuation of their Honoring 

Nations program, which is a very innovative approach to uncovering best practices of governance in Indian Country and sharing 

them, continue to work with the Native Nations Institute, who are 

based in Tucson, to expand their capacity to deliver services up 

here through tools, executive education as well as a governance 

database to try to put more information at the fingertips of the 

tribal leaders. 

We recognize that success in this kind of work won’t happen 

overnight and so we will continue to look for additional partners 

and resources to help support this work with a primary focus within our region, and I want to just close by saying, you know, we are 

one of many foundations in the United States working within Indian Country and by no means our strategy and approach—we are 

not saying it is the right one. There are many needs and demands 

in Indian Country. We are just one of many. However, we believe 

that we complement the work of other foundations, public and private dollars that go into tribal communities by focusing on shoring 

up tribal governance, which we hope would help provide them the 

ability to reach their goals. 

And finally, I would like to point out that I think it is worth 

sharing that public and private entities have much to gain in 

learning about the principles of Native nation building as they 

work with the political institutions of tribes because engaging 

tribes with those principles in mind can help both entities align 

their goals and their strategies. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Thank you. 

[The statement of Jaime Pinkham follows:] 
598
599
600
601
602

Mr. SIMPSON. Jim. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE 

COMMISSION

WITNESS

JAMES ZORN 

Mr. ZORN. Good morning. Thank you. My name is James Zorn, 

Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and thank you for allowing my boss to have an 

opportunity to take over for me in just a short minute or so here. 

On behalf of the Commission’s 11 member tribal nations, their 

40,000 members, their families and their communities, thank you. 

A big [speaking native language] to this Committee for its 30 years 

of support for honoring this Nation’s treaty obligations so that the 

tribes can provide for food, for their economy, for their culture, for 

their spiritual needs, to keep families together through the exercise 

of their treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. 

As you know, the rights protection implementation treaty commissions this year banded together to help tell the story of the good 

work that they do, and so if the Committee hasn’t seen this publication yet, I think, Darren, you probably have it, just to show that 

we all stand together for this line item, and Jimmie Mitchell is 

here from Cora to testify as well. So this helps tell the story of why 

these programs are important to tribal communities. So that with 

our written testimony is there for the record. 

What we would like to highlight is how these programs, as Ron 

Allen said and others yesterday from the other commissions, from 

the highest level of government internationally, nationally to states 

down to the weeds of science for the biologists like Mr. Benjamin, 

these commissions provide services to their tribes and the other 

communities to help conserve, protect and restore our national resources and their supporting habitat. And the real focus is to provide for the overall health and well-being of the tribal communities. 

So the Commission supports obviously the rights protection implementation line item at the levels that the Administration has 

proposed and that this subcommittee supported last year. It does 

not meet all the need but, hey, let us keep moving in the right direction. And this allows us to leverage other funds, for example, as 

pointed out in the departmental highlights of the budget this year, 

our cooperative work in the Great Lakes Fisheries management in 

the Great Lakes, with funding that allows us to leverage funding 

from Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies, to control things 

like invasive sea lamprey. If we could control those, harvest of the 

lake trout could almost double to provide for better economy and 

more recreational fishing opportunities. So it is money well invested that produces on-the-ground results. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, obviously the tribes support that. We would love to see that funding to continue to come 

to the tribes through the familiar mechanisms of the Self Determination Act delivery system, and again, that produces results. I 
603

know, Mr. Simpson, you have always had questions, is there a good 

plan; yes, and this is what the tribes do. So if you need to see that 

for the record, please take a look. There again, what we see as for 

tribal communities nearly 25 percent of the wild rice harvest right 

now, of state and tribal harvesters, is accomplished through restored wild rice waters, so it is very important. Obviously, contract 

support and so on. 

So Chairman Isham will tell a little bit more of the story. 

Mr. ISHAM. My name is Mick Isham. Thank you for the time. You 

know, treaty rights to us, I just want to let you know what that 

means to our people. As a young guy I just considered treaty rights 

the ability to go out and get a deer or get some fish, but now as 

a tribal leader, I am faced with issues like diabetes, youth issues 

like gangs and drugs, and of course, the recession, jobs issues, and 

I really look to treaty rights as kind of the biggest tool to use to 

combat most of them, and I will give you an example. For example, 

diabetes, we are really promoting getting away from the processed 

foods and commodity-based foods and go back to our fish, deer, wild 

rice and promote healthier lifestyle that way. 

The youth gang-type issues, many of you are aware probably 

through the 1950s through the 1970s the relocation programs 

where our people were moved from reservations to inner cities for 

jobs. Well, now our people have been coming back and the youth 

have brought with them Latin Kings, Club Boys, all these gangtype issues, and to combat them, we are really promoting hunting, 

fishing and the cultural identity. I mean, for a young kid, the 

greatest high is to get that first deer, get that first musky, and to 

be able to go out and give that to your elders and fulfill your cultural needs as a Native man, that is a big pride and they can find 

their identity in that. 

You know, and of course, the recession, the treaty rights provide 

a lot of jobs because we have a lot of—under the treaty rights 

cases, we have a lot of responsibilities, count and measure every 

fish, our wardens, so we really look to our treaty rights to try to 

fulfill a lot of our needs to help us with our problems on our reservations. Thank you. 

[The statement of James Zorn follows:] 
604
605
606
607
608

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it. I find it a 

fascinating question, how come Native Americans have such high 

diabetes rates compared to the rest of the population, and the fact 

that you can go back to traditional foods is actually helping reduce 

those rates. 

Mr. ISHAM. Well, it is. My grandma, they did not have cars, they 

walked everywhere they went. They lived in the rice camps and the 

sugar camps and they also ate the wild foods. Now you got the Big 

Macs and the commodities and people driving around everywhere, 

and so we really want to promote that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Big Macs are a problem but the French fries, those 

are from Idaho. 

Eric.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

WITNESS

ERIC CHAPMAN 

Mr. CHAPMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. On behalf of our tribal chairman, Mr. Tom Maulson, 

my name is Eric Chapman, Sr. I am a tribal council member with 

the Lac du Flambeau Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 

of Northern Wisconsin. Today with me is Larry Wawronowicz in 

the audience. He is our tribal natural resource director. We appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of you today to present 

some of the issues that are of great concern to the Lac du Flambeau Band. 

I am sure some of the committee members heard yesterday the 

issues with sequestration and what it is doing to some of the tribal 

programs and, you know, I will not delve into that a whole lot because there are several other issues we want to touch on today. 

We also oppose the Administration’s proposed caps with contract 

support costs. You know, that would hurt some of our most vital 

programs in BIA and IHS. The tribe has taken great strides to provide adequate health care for our members at home, but as the 

subcommittee well knows, health care costs continue to rise and resources to address these costs have not kept pace. The tribe strongly supports the Administration’s increases in IHS budget for fiscal 

year 2014. We call the subcommittee’s attention to the needs that 

we face in areas of purchase referred care, mental health, AOD 

counseling and dental care. In each of these areas yearly, we run 

short of funds, which means critical needs for our tribal members 

including our young and our elders go unserved. For instance, you 

know, 8 months into the year we run out of these referred care 

costs so we are not able to allow these people to see specialized 

caregivers. They got to wait until that fund is replenished maybe 

4 or 5 months out of the year. That is just wrong. We realize that 

the subcommittee has been supportive in tribal health care costs in 

the past and we look forward to your continued support. 
609

Education remains a priority for the Lac du Flambeau Band. For 

our children to compete nationally and internationally, we need 

higher education to be on the forefront. Given the photovoltaics levels of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation, many of our tribal members do not have the opportunity to pursue higher education goals. 

The Lac du Flambeau Band supports increased funding for the 

BIA scholarship program along with the Administration’s newly 

proposed $3 million in programs for postgraduate studies. This 

funding is a wise investment in our future and the future of this 

country.

The tribe also supports the Administration’s proposal to increase 

funding for BIA public safety and justice programs. The challenges 

we face in Indian Country today are astronomical. At Lac du Flambeau, we now face a new situation that has arisen over the last 

couple of years. This is a threat to our public safety from a wide 

range of legal drugs including synthetic marijuana. The rapid 

growth of these drugs on the reservation has led our tribal council 

to declare a state of emergency a few weeks ago. We are taking 

broad steps to address the problem in many dimensions including 

education, prevention and rehabilitation. A key component of this 

effort involves law enforcement to arrest those who bring these 

legal substances onto our reservation and attempt to sell them to 

the young children. As we face this and other challenges, an effective law enforcement presence is vitally important for the wellbeing and safety of our people. 

In addition to serving on our tribal council, I am also the band’s 

chief conservation officer. This work involves enforcing hunting and 

fishing regulations regarding the exercise of our treaty rights. This 

work and the work of fellow conservation officer also involves being 

first responders in many emergency situations. I urge the subcommittee to support increased funding for tribal conservation law 

enforcement programs. 

Tribes have long been a leader in many instances regarding the 

protection of natural resources. The Lac du Flambeau Band has a 

comprehensive natural resource department with dedicated staff 

that have great expertise in natural resource and land management practices. The tribes’ work in natural resources protects our 

86,000 reservations for future generations while providing beneficial economic opportunities. 

With that, I guess I would like to also pledge support for the 

funding request of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to include our other natural resource requests that, you know, we want to do what is best 

for us, and the previous gentleman’s comments about, you know, 

trying to raise our members on natural foods, yeah, we can do that 

but those foods have to be clean. They have to be, you know, mercury-free and, you know, we want to do what is best for our children and our grandchildren. 

With that, thank you, subcommittee. 

[The statement of Tom Maulson follows:] 
610
611
612
613
614

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Jimmie.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, LITTLE RIVER 

BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS 

WITNESS

JIMMIE MITCHELL 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, first of all, 

I want to thank you for this opportunity because it is an opportunity, and I am not going to read from my testimony today. I am 

going to try to—you already have that and you will be able to read 

that.

As explained, a lot of us who work in tribal communities wear 

a lot of different hats, and I certainly wear a lot of different hats, 

and if you over my bio, you will see that. And one of the hats that 

I wear is working on the tribal Interior budget committee and the 

creation of the budget, and creating a budget that is reflective of 

the tribe’s needs. 

And so when I speak before you today, I think I am preaching 

to the choir because I think—well, I do not think, I know you guys 

get it. I know you hear the words that are shared at this table. I 

know the tears that are laid before you, people’s hearts, people’s 

brains and the impacts in tribal communities, and to try to explain 

it better than everybody else has, I certainly would fail in that endeavor.

I think beyond the concerns that we have with our budgets right 

now is understanding how the money works and how the revenue 

flows in and out of the budgets, and the real solution to the problems is not to continue to come to this Committee and ask you not 

to cut the budgets because you are not cutting the budgets. We look 

at last year’s budget that came through in fine fashion. We were 

very, very pleased at what we saw and we were very honored that 

it went through that process, but beyond that, it kind of—we do not 

know what happens to it, and there is a lot of finger pointing. People are saying, well, it is OMB. No, it is not. It is somebody else. 

And so we spend a lot of time trying to figure out well, who is that, 

somebody else, because nobody ever really wants to come forward 

and say well, we are the ones that changed that budget and this 

is why, and so we spend a lot of time and effort trying to understand that. 

So thinking outside of that box and understanding again how 

that money operates and understanding what it is based upon, 

which was really concessions made with all the tribes to live together, to have our sovereign nations operate side by side in what 

we believe was really probably one of the most beneficial opportunities we had at the time other than just going to war and see who 

won. Those concessions are still real and they are still valid to this 

day, and that is why we sit here today and we come here to try 

to help convey the needs that we have, but beyond that, to understand that there are still new concessions I believe that need to be 
615

made. I mean, I know this Committee is, for instance, looking at 

the Keystone pipeline, and we all look at it in tribal communities 

with different lenses. We look at it. Some are really afraid of it, 

others maybe not as afraid. But in understanding the budget and 

how Indian Country operates and money, the pot of money that we 

have right now dwindling, it seems. It is kind of vanishing before 

our eyes and there is not a lot we can do to look at that. 

I would really like to look outside of the box again and try to find 

a way to develop tariffs on these new things that will help come 

back into Indian Country to help us because I do not think anybody 

at this table has to understand the woeful conditions that we are 

being subjected to, and beyond that looking at future monies not 

being available, looking at the level and unfortunately gross number of our children who are committing suicide. Why is that? Why 

does that still occur? That is a big, heavy concession that we have 

to deal with every day, and a lot of that is because of what has 

happened to us. We look at all the pictures on the wall of Indians 

in these halls and we think wow, that is beautiful, look at that 

time. But what happened from then until now? Where are those 

pictures? We try to share some of those pictures but it is difficult 

and it is maybe even a little insensitive to have to keep dredging 

it up or have people come here and you have to explain it. Rather 

than do that, let’s find a new way, a new creative way to help infuse our budgets with new monies, new monies that are still the 

resources of this land, our shared lands. They are going to make 

impacts on us. They are going to create detriments in certain communities and certain resources, and so let’s, again, think outside of 

the box. Let’s get smarter than the problem. 

I do not think I need to say more than that other than I would 

really like to be a part of this record, that the tribes, the communities, we need to find a better way of doing business, and if this 

is the way to do it, I cannot speak for everybody but I know that 

the folks that I represent back home are certainly in agreement 

with that. Thank you. 

[The statement of Jimmie Mitchell follows:] 
616
617
618

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank all of you for your testimony. You are certainly right: we do have to start thinking out of 

the box, a much overused term, about how to solve some of the 

problems, and that is essentially what I got is that you guys do 

that a lot at the Bush Foundation and stuff, and one of the areas 

that we have been kind of concentrating on was mentioned by Eric, 

and that is education, and we have kind of overlooked Native 

American education in this country, and frankly, I have been to 

some places where it is done pretty well and other places where it 

is not done very well at all, and we have to start looking at how 

can we improve the system, and I do not have the answer or I 

would be a genius, but we need your help and input in trying to 

reform the education system so that Indian children can get the 

education they deserve in this country, and we want to work with 

you to do that. So I appreciate all of your testimony. Jim. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot improve on what you said. 

I agree with you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Betty. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to—when 

you talk about conservation, it interfaces with a lot of our other 

world that is outside of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and one of 

the things, and I know I have had conversations with some of you 

as to what do we do about invasive species. We are all concerned 

about Asian carp in the Great Lakes and our rivers and Lord save 

us if it gets into Lacs, which the walleye fishery is co-managed by 

capable DNR from the Lacs as well as Minnesota State DNR, and 

that was a treaty right battle that it was my honor to be with the 

Mille Lacs Band when we went through those struggles in Minnesota.

Having said that, I did an invasive species roundtable with the 

U.S. Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, USGS, and I invited the 

tribal leadership representation to come in, and everybody is looking at cuts with sequestration and that, but I think it really opened 

up the eyes to some of the other federal partners around the table 

just how little resource is available for the conservation officers in 

Indian Country as you are struggling with water problems, whether it is land and water you have to patrol, with bad actors coming 

in, homeland security issues and all that for those of us on the 

northern tier. So whether it is the circle of light, the Great Lakes, 

it is all interconnected for you and maybe you could talk about how 

cutting one program decimates what you are doing in the other 

program, how the dollars are going together. 

Mr. Chairman, let me further say that I just think what the 

Bush Foundation and other foundations are doing is so empowering. When I was on the city council, I had the League of Minnesota Cities. When I was a state representative, we had the state 

legislature group. The counties can get together and talk about 

best practices and talk about ways in which to formulate themselves, city managers, city administrators and all that and the 

cookie cutter approach that had been out in Indian Country so long 

there had been a subjective ‘‘here is what we think is a good idea,’’ 

you better do it. The chance to get people to really develop and put 

the needs of their community first I think is really great, and I 
619

know it is making a difference in Minnesota. So thank you for your 

testimony.

But if you gentlemen could maybe talk about how the sequester 

is impacting natural resources because it interconnects with all the 

other agencies we are funding here too. 

Mr. ZORN. It does, and you mentioned invasive species. Let’s take 

that as an example. You know, you have it from the very kind of 

high level of the Asian carp where you have this ecological separation down in the Chicago River to very on-the-ground things that 

affect everyday people who are really innocents in a way of transporting invasive species. Somebody takes their boat from one lake 

to the other, you do not have somebody on the ground who is able 

to say hey, wait a minute, you have weeds hanging from there. You 

do not have the ability to wash off those boats and do that. You 

used Lake Mille Lacs for an example. The walleye population there 

is down this year, and biologists are trying to figure it out. For the 

last 3 or 4 years, you have detected zebra mussels, you know, the 

graph on this, and I do not know if it is the right word but you 

kind of see zebra mussels, zebra mussels and then all of a sudden 

they just go off the chart. You see water clarity improving, you see 

those zebra mussels on the reefs where the walleye spawn. You 

have this interaction, and once they are there, you do not get them 

out. And you have these new modern boats, these jet boats that do 

not have propellers, you never get the water out of that ballast. 

They are always transporting around either, you know, critters or 

plants or things that help them grow. 

And so we are really wrestling with the idea, you know, you 

think of enforcement, about enforcing fish and game laws, you 

know, busting the bad guys. It is really that idea of, if we could 

have people to help say hey, wait a minute, where did that boat 

come from, you know, let’s make sure it is clean before you go from 

one lake to the other, those are some of the impacts that we are 

seeing on the ground. 

We cannot—the 2010 money that this Committee so graciously 

provided to us, we cannot get the full benefit of the opportunities 

that we wanted to do with that because of sequestration. We are 

almost back to where we were before then, and I could not expand 

my programs the way I needed to to help address those types of 

issues.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony. 

I appreciate it very much. 

It is my pleasure to invite Congressman Rick Nolan representing 

Minnesota’s 8th District to the table to introduce the Minnesota 

witnesses, and the witnesses are Carri Jones, Gregg Shutiva and 

Bruce Tafoya. Even though we have a couple of New Mexico witnesses here at this time, we have a representative that is going to 

introduce the Minnesota witness. 

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want 

to thank you, and I will try to be brief so that we can hear from 

Carri, and I do not mean ‘‘brief’’ in our good friend Joe Biden’s 

sense.

First of all, I want to thank the Committee here for hearing us. 

Education, I do not need to tell any of you, is so important, and 
620

I know the difficulty that you are encountering with our priorities 

here.

I have 13 grandchildren, and I have an opportunity to travel 

around to all the junior highs and grade schools and high schools 

through Minnesota watching the kids play baseball and basketball 

and football and golf and all the rest, and we are so very proud of 

those schools. They are functional, they are frugal but they are 

architecturally distinctive and they carry with them a sense of importance that we attach to our education. You can see by entering 

them that they have a sense of enduring importance that impresses 

children when they go into those schools. 

I have also had the fortune, the good fortune to see the Bug O 

Nay Ge Shig School, what we commonly know as the Bug School 

up in the Leech Lake Band, and clearly it is neither healthy nor 

safe for children to be in that school, let alone convey to the children there the importance that we attach to their education. And 

forgive me for reminding the Committee but the Leech Lake Band 

entered into a treaty with the United States of America back in 

1855 where they conceded great tracts of land to the government 

of the United States in return for their establishment of their reservation and their status as a sovereign nation. As a part of that 

agreement, certain annuities and foodstuffs were promised, and 

they were not delivered, and 400 men, women and children starved 

to death that winter, a great tragedy in the history of the Leech 

Lake Band and the State of Minnesota. 

So here we are, you know, some 150 years later, and I submit 

that the potential for a disaster and a loss of life exists at the Bug 

School. You know, we can all carry function and frugality to an extreme. I also had the good fortune to travel throughout the Soviet 

Union where that became the dominant priority, and we could have 

this capital in a pole building, we could educate our children in 

pole buildings. We used pole buildings in our sawmill and our Pella 

factory back home. But we need something better, and Carri can 

tell you in more detail about all the unsafe and unhealthy aspects 

of the Bug School, but as a practical matter, it is a pole building 

and it is neither safe nor healthy for the children to be there, and 

it represents a threat to their lives and it is a betrayal of our responsibility to those people and to those children in particular. 

So we are very excited about the new chairman of our reservation business committee, and we are so delighted to be able to have 

her here and we are grateful to you for taking the time to hear 

from our chairman, and I would be remiss if I did not also take a 

moment to thank Congressman Betty McCollum from Minnesota, 

who has been a champion for Native American people and the 

Leech Lake Band in particular, and especially the Bug School, so 

we thank you, Congressman McCollum. 

So without any further ado, I would like to introduce the chairman—she allows me to call her Chief Carri—but chairman of our 

reservation business committee up there, Ms. Carri Jones. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Congressman. Ms. Jones. 
621

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

LEECH LAKE BAND OF OJIBWE 

WITNESS

CARRI JONES 

Ms. JONES. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Simpson, 

Ranking Member Moran and Representative McCollum for letting 

me testify today. My name is Carri Jones. I am the Chairwoman 

of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. I am accompanied here by my 

council member, Steve White. As you guys are all aware, our reservation is located in northern Minnesota. 

Today my testimony is to focus on the high school of our Bug O 

Nay Ge Shig School. The school is administered and funded by the 

BIA. The Leech Lake Reservation, we look at an estimate of $30 

million to replace our Bug O Nay Ge Shig School. 

As Congressman Nolan has mentioned, the Leech Lake Reservation was established through treaties and presidential orders. The 

band gave up millions of acres of homeland. In return, the United 

States promised to provide the band the welfare including our kids 

with decent and safe schools. In addition, Congress passed the Nelson Act of 1889, a federal land allotment law specific to Minnesota, 

and other federal laws to take more of our land. Logging companies 

wanted our valuable white pine and homesteaders wanted our land 

for farming. In return, the United States promised proceeds from 

the land and timber sales were supposed to be used for our schools. 

Sadly, these promises have not been kept. 

The Bug O Nay Ge Shig School services over 300 Indian students 

from grades K–12. In certain instances, our students drive 2 hours 

one way and 2 hours home. Despite the challenging conditions, the 

school has won many academic awards, especially in our Native 

language program, which is the Niigaane program that has gotten 

national recognition. 

One of the things today we provided was a collage of certain pictures of our school. As you are aware, the school is housed in a 

temporary pole barn, which it was back in the 1970s when it first 

started. It was a temporary housing unit but as of today we are 

still in the same facility. The facility has severe mechanical deficiencies and lacks proper insulation. As of today, it does not meet 

the fire safety and security standards. 

Looking at one of the pictures of the computer labs, we try to 

provide computers to all of our students because of the state testing that takes place there, but as you can see, the wires are coming 

out. It causes electrical hazards so it is unsafe for our children to 

be in that area. Another area that we are looking at that jeopardizes our kids is the default HVAC system, which causes mold and 

fungus and poor indoor air quality. 

The other room that we are looking at is our science room, which 

conceals metal plates on the floor. Underneath the plates is the 

bare ground. This way the students cannot—the desks are not 

nailed down, so our students are not capable of doing any of the 

labs. With this one, they have to do a lot of labs at the tables, 

which we know is not sufficient. It does not have any of the things. 

It cannot do any of the—what is it—hook up any of the gas stuff 
622

there. So our students are not capable of producing any lab projects 

in their system there. 

The other part that we want to mention is the ceiling tiles there. 

We have to replace our ceiling tiles at least twice a year because 

of the smell that comes in, the rain, that it causes the moisture up 

there, which causes the ceiling tiles to sag and eventually fall if we 

do not replace them. So it has caused a huge expense. Right now 

we are looking at that no repairs and maintenance can keep putting a band-aid over our facility that the school is looking at to be 

replaced.

The BIA’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposes to eliminate funding 

for the schools, which is unacceptable, instead of using improvements and repairs. The change in the BIA schools construction policy, that is, to eliminate funding to replace facilities instead of focusing on improvements and repairs, was taken out without any 

tribal consultation. BIA should not be allowed to make these decisions without first consulting with tribal leaders. 

With that being said, I respectfully request the Committee’s assistance in replacing our high school facility. Our students deserve 

to attend a school where they can focus on learning instead of their 

health and their safety. And I just want to thank each and every 

one of you today. Thank you. 

[The statement of Carri Jones follows:] 
623
624
625
626
627

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. We have heard some testimony about 

the school before, and I agree that the Administration’s request essentially eliminating school construction funding is unacceptable 

and has been this to this Committee. In fact, last year we funded 

it a certain level, but when it got to conference in the Senate—actually it did not go to conference. When the C.R. went over there, 

they took the money out for school construction, which is totally 

unacceptable. I have been to some reservations in South Dakota 

and other places I am sure that I have not been yet where there 

are schools where, frankly, I would not send my kid to them. So 

we have to do something about it, and that is why I say Indian 

education is one of the real things we are going to try to focus on. 

We have been kind of focusing on Indian health care and trying to 

get contract support costs up to where they ought to be and so 

forth, but we have to focus more on Indian education. 

Betty, I call on you now because I am going to let the witness 

and the Congressman go here in just a second and then we will get 

to New Mexico. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If you are in a pole barn, you are roasting, not 

freezing and roasting as you are in Minnesota. 

This was going to be one of my earmarks before they went away, 

and anybody who says that legislative-directed funding, earmarks 

cannot serve a greater good for a community, to see what we could 

have done for the future for these children and this community. 

Let me just close with this. I had an opportunity to have a couple 

of the high school students do a cable show with me, and everyone 

was kind of nervous about how it was going to go. They took it 

over. They did a great job. They know that they have a terrible 

learning environment yet they are determined to learn, and the one 

thing about—I really am going to close with this. The last time I 

was up there, they had the elders, grandparents with the younger 

students doing cooking and language and everything else. It is a 

community school, and it has the capability, I believe, of being one 

of the best schools in the country because of the commitment that 

you and the community have towards it. 

So Mr. Chairman, I know you are going to do your best and I 

will be right there behind you the whole way. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Thank you, Carri, and thank you, Congressman.

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, real quickly, could I have consent to 

have my formal remarks made part of the record? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Your full remarks will be included in the record. 

[The statement of Rick Nolan follows:] 
628
629
630
631
632

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. Thank you. 

Now, Governor Shutiva. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

PUEBLO OF ACOMA 

WITNESS

GREGG SHUTIVA 

Mr. SHUTIVA. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and other members 

of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. 

First of all, greetings from Acoma Pueblo. I am here representing 

my tribal administration, my tribal council and especially my tribal 

community.

As this Committee understands, the relationship between the 

United States and the Indian tribes is very unique because over 

the course of history there has arisen a trust responsibility. The 

United States is to support Indian tribes in our efforts to develop 

and maintaining thriving, healthy communities. Regrettably, that 

responsibility has not been fully met although I would like to thank 

this subcommittee for frequently proposed increased funding levels 

for federal Indian programs. It is very important. I ask the subcommittee to consider what it would take to fully meet that responsibility and to stand strong in defense of America’s first commitment, which is to the Native peoples. 

Tribes are not like other groups within American society. As the 

Congressman mentioned earlier, we are sovereign governments and 

have a government-to-government relationship with the United 

States of America. As the Acoma Pueblo governor, I carry a cane 

from Abraham Lincoln, which was specifically presented to the 19 

Pueblo governors 150 years ago taking our sovereign authority over 

our lands and our people. This cane is a symbol for our status and 

of the commitment of the United States to protect and respect our 

sovereign rights as well as support the well-being of our communities. That commitment is also embodied in the federal budget. 

I would like to emphasize several points. First, BIA funding has 

declined as a percentage of the overall federal budget since 1995 

by 35 percent. In years of plenty, we received smaller increases. 

Now we must bear the full burden of sequestration, not only 5 percent, but because of the time of the year that we received the sequestration, we are facing more like a 9 or 10 percent effect. 

Second, we need support to address crumbling infrastructure and 

build critical new infrastructure. My community is bisected by a 

major transcontinental rail line. With over 80 to 100 large trains 

passing through the reservation every day, we have no bridge over 

the tracks. Acoma has experienced significant safety issues as the 

hospital is on the north side of the tracks while the school, the 

Head Start, the government and Acoma housing areas are on the 

south side. Acoma needs this bridge over the tracks. 

Third, the smaller IHS hospitals are a front line of health care 

in industry and need support. Acoma’s health facility provides critical health care services not only to my community but neighboring 
633

communities such as the Pueblo of Laguna. However, the quality 

and quantity of services offered has declined markedly in recent 

years, resulting in an adverse effect on health status of the two 

pueblos, which already suffer from high rates of diabetes and other 

serious medical conditions, more recently, a rise in lung cancer due 

to uranium mining efforts within our areas. The sequester will only 

make this much worse. 

Fourth, there is a need to increase funding for cultural preservation before irreversible development errors are made. For example, 

Acoma remains deeply concerned about the potential impact of renewed uranium mining efforts on Mount Taylor. Mount Taylor is 

a sacred mountain to our Acoma people. Acoma believes that mining companies in the United States have an ongoing obligation to 

clean up environmental damage created by past uranium mining, 

and we have plenty of that. Uranium mining tailings exist and 

they not only affect the air but they also affect the groundwater. 

It is very important to increase funding to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer program within the National Park Service to assure cultural preservation issues are fully addressed, especially 

when massive development is proposed. Uranium mining is encroaching on cultural properties of Acoma and other Southwest 

tribes.

Fifth, education. The Johnson-O’Malley program provides supplemental education services for Indian children attending public 

schools by providing student achievement and incorporating Native 

American languages and culturally based educational activities 

into the learning process. This is a worthy and popular program 

and should be fully funded. My students benefit from that. 

Finally, Acoma supports the Carcieri fix, even though we are not 

directly affected by this issue. Passing this legislation is the right 

thing to do and it will help many of our fellow tribes. 

In conclusion, I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide 

testimony before this subcommittee. Your work is of great importance to Acoma’s Native peoples and it is greatly appreciated. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Gregg Shutiva follows:] 
634
635
636
637
638

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Taylor Mountain is kind of a historic 

landmark, is it not? 

Mr. SHUTIVA. Mount Taylor is one of our sacred mountains, and 

it is also a sacred mountain to many other tribes including Laguna, 

Santa Clara, Hopi, Zuni, the Navajo, all our neighboring tribes. We 

have a cultural boundary from Acoma and we have four sacred 

mountains. One of our sacred mountains is located all the way in 

Flagstaff, Arizona. But to the north of us is Mount Taylor, and we 

have—I mean, the entire landscape of Mount Taylor is covered 

with cultural sites for us, and they are encroaching upon all of 

those, even trails. 

From the time of emergence, that is when we made our journey 

to Acoma, a place that was prepared for us, a place called Hagwa, 

and in my language, that means preparedness. As we ventured to 

Acoma, we made settlements along the way, but we also went back 

to some of those settlements for agricultural purposes, and that is 

where the threat is. There is a uranium mining company that has 

an application in right now, Roconda Resources, and they are going 

to be encroaching upon our underground water system. We have a 

perennial spring that is going to be affected by their dewatering of 

the mining effort, and I hope that you can look into that. I hope 

that you can keep that in consideration as you put your budgets 

together.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, when you mentioned it, I just knew that I 

had read about it somewhere in some books that I had read and 

stuff.

Anyway, Bruce, you are up. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

SANTA CLARA PUEBLO 

WITNESS

J. BRUCE TAFOYA 

Mr. TAFOYA. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, 

Ranking Member Moran and Ms. McCollum. My name is J. Bruce 

Tafoya. I am presently Governor of Santa Clara Pueblo, and I 

thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of my 

pueblo and the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

As you all know, I think Governor Dasheno testified last year 

also and I am kind of going to reiterate what he was saying about 

the fire of the Las Conchas. In December of 2011, the Santa Clara 

Pueblo was devastated by the Las Conchas fire, at the time the 

largest wildfire in New Mexico history. This fire has destroyed 

much of our traditional homeland and spiritual center. We estimated that more than 17,000 acres of our forestlands burnt, and 

together with earlier fires, the Oso, the Cerro Grande, all which 

originated off our lands in U.S. Forest Service national forestlands. 

That is where they all originated from. Eighty percent of our forests and a huge part of our culture has been destroyed. In addition, 

the loss of our forests has devastated wildlife, recreation resources, 

our irrigation. Because the Santa Clara canyon has been stripped 

of its vegetation, the pueblo is now at tremendous risk of flooding. 
639

The bait soil is hydrophobic now, which means it is just like this; 

it does not soak. A thousand Santa Claras live in the potential 

floodplain with hundreds of residential structures as well as our 

senior center. Our adult daycare and our tribal administration 

buildings are at high risk. We have also an emergency management plan but our elders do not want to move out. They have seen 

floods, they have seen high waters, and you know how our elders 

are. They are insistent. 

We are only at the beginning of the flood mitigation and forest 

recovery effort. We do have cooperative agreements within the U.S. 

Forest Service and the BIA, so we are thankful for that. 

The fire has raised numerous short-term and long-term concerns 

for Santa Clara and other surrounding communities, almost all of 

which intersect with the federal government. During the monsoons, 

summer season, every afternoon we will face the threat of a thunderstorm that will send torrents of water, a very high level of 

water coming down, runoff and debris, which is still coming down, 

down the Santa Clara canyon and the creek, creating a huge risk 

of flooding for our homes, public buildings and irrigation system. 

Second, we must address the environmental impacts of this fire, 

which includes the physical health impacts from the huge quantities of smoke as well as the devastating emotional impact of our 

community of such a great loss. It also includes water quality impacts of tons of ash, debris and other materials flowing into the 

Santa Clara Creek affecting our fishery, our wildlife consumption, 

agriculture and cultural uses and safety uses within our Santa 

Clara canyon due to the destabilized landscape, resulting in falling 

boulders, dead and downed trees, and this runoff flows into the Rio 

Grande, affecting water quality for communities like Santa Fe that 

are downstream. 

Just to mention, there was mention of, you know, diabetes, and 

we do use our wildlife to consume. 

Third, we are assessing how to recover from the loss of an unprecedented amount of cultural resources in sites like my colleague 

here, Governor Shutiva, mentioned, damage to sacred places to a 

loss of animal and plant species that have been integral to Santa 

Clara culture and spiritual practices for generations. 

Fourth, Santa Clara suffered extended financial impacts including not only the direct effects of the fire but also the reduction in 

arts and crafts sales and a decline in tourism, visitors to our hotel. 

Fifth, we still need fire suppression resources to protect the remaining 20 percent of our forest as we now are in a drought all 

over the country, especially in the Southwest. 

Finally, we must address the long-term restoration of the forest. 

This is a project that we anticipate will take several decades, if not 

generations, but one to which we have already set our minds and 

one of the areas we are concentrating on is education, educating 

our children, our grandchildren. So there are positions in administration, biologists, forestry, geologists, we want them to be there 

because they will know how to handle instead of contracting. We 

have our own people to do all these assessments that we are currently doing now. So this is one of the steps that we are taking to 

ensure that this is being continued because it is going to be up to 
640

them how the canyon area is going to be restored back to the original, if not a different face. 

We ask the subcommittee to support additional funding for interior burnt emergency response teams as well as additional resources for the BIA to assist the Santa Clara Pueblo and other impacted tribes who experienced devastating natural disasters. Never 

again in my lifetime will I see the spiritual homeland of Santa 

Clara canyon as my people have known it for centuries. We will devote the resources available for us to heal the land but we also turn 

in this hour of need to our federal trustee and ask for assistance 

in addressing this calamity. 

I have also another document just to go on real quick. We plan 

on doing our Santa Clara health clinic too, the issue of IHS. We 

are working. We have a planning design already going but hopefully some day there will be some funding available to help us 

build. It was supposed to only serve our pueblo but now it serves 

six to seven pueblos with a rate of 26,000 patients per year, and 

it is only a four-room facility with two doctors, one nurse, two pharmacists and a lot of it is contracted out, but we would rather see 

those services within our community. 

One of the issues that we are doing too is the Rio Grande, reintroduction of the Rio Grande cutthroat in our headwaters. We 

were in the process of doing that. We were going to bring the fish 

in. We just built our dam. We finished the last pond that was up 

there and then the fire occurred, so now we have got to start all 

over again. The efforts are being made to do that worthwhile 

project.

Energy and transmission development at Santa Clara, that is 

what we are also seeing. Establishing a Santa Clara Pueblo adult 

daycare center, that is where we need operational dollars. We have 

building state and USDA funding but we need operational dollars 

for staff because we do not want to leave our elderly by themselves 

at the homes, and there have been several incidents to where they 

have gotten hurt. So it is only a daycare from 7 to 6, I believe, and 

then either the children or the grandchildren, our nephews and 

nieces can pick up their elders. We also have a boundary dispute 

around the Rio Grande area. 

Baldis Cardaris, we want to build a joint effort with our forestry 

department doing forest mitigation because that is where a lot of 

the issue—that will be our soft boundary where we want to do restoration because we have culture sites there. 

And then wastewater projects, we have been working with the 

state but we would like federal assistance. 

And lastly, just like Governor Shutiva mentioned, we also have 

a sacred mountain and it is significant to all the tribes. We are interested in getting all the grazing permits within the national forest. There is only one holdout, but we would like to go and do stewardship and then eventually some day with your help we can have 

ownership of that mountain because it is very sacred to us. 

[The statement of J. Bruce Tafoya follows:] 
641
642
643
644
645

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it very 

much. Betty. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I think the governors did a great job, 

not only talking about their specific tribal needs but also the needs 

there. I was there a couple falls ago when you were doing the Deer 

Dance Festival. Mr. Chair, if we are going to plan a trip to Arizona, 

you do it then because you can go into everybody’s house and taste 

the chili, and everybody was so welcoming. The school needs, the 

hospital needs, I saw them firsthand, but you are doing amazing 

work, especially your focus on preschool education at all the pueblos I visited. You are to be commended for that, the investment 

that the elders are making into the next generation. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it very 

much.

Mr. TAFOYA. May I just say one more thing? I would like to welcome all of you to come out there to Santa Clara Pueblo in New 

Mexico. We would like to really show you what we are up against, 

what we have to be doing, but the invitation is always open. We 

can accommodate you at our hotel, and put some of your funding 

in there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUTIVA. And the invitation is open for Sky City as well. 

Any time you are in New Mexico, please come out to the Sky City. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Our next panel is Nancy Martine-Alonzo, Beverly Coho, David 

Martinez and Faye BlueEyes. Welcome. Nancy, you are first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER 

WITNESS

NANCY R. MARTINE-ALONZO 

Ms. MARTINE-ALONZO. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and 

members of the subcommittee, I am Nancy Martine-Alonzo. I am 

the newly elected Ramah Navajo Chapter’s Secretary/Treasurer. 

You have heard me give testimony before as President of the 

Ramah School Board, and I am here testifying with them also, and 

for the record I would like to say that Ramah Chapter fully supports the testimony that the school board will provide as well. 

Our testimony focuses on four areas, and these four areas, the 

number one being the devastating impact of the sequestration, and 

number two is the effort to retain our BIA agency located at 

Ramah, and then third is to request for additional funding, and 

then fourth is to support the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget 

and to make sure that those funds that are appropriated reach 

down to the local levels because we are experiencing the most devastating impact is on that level because the funds start with the 

headquarters, then regional, then area, then agency, then down to 

the community level, so by the time that it gets there, you know, 

we are not seeing the impact, although we are grateful for the increase in the funding that we have been receiving. 
646

The Ramah Band of Navajos, we are 3,500 members strong, and 

we reside on approximately 300 square miles. Our reservation is 18 

miles by 30 miles. And we have successfully operated 638 programs 

for over 40 years and we are very proud of that fact. The funding 

is so critical to us maintaining those programs, and what has happened with the sequestration is that it has caused elimination or 

eradication of our agency. We have a Ramah agency that is necessary because out of all the tribes in the Southwest region, the 

Ramah School Board and the Ramah Navajo Chapter operate the 

most number of 638 programs. You know, we have 638 programs 

that include natural resources and agriculture, forestry, law enforcement and detention, real estate services, transportation, facilities management, water rights and community planning programs, 

and then of course the school board also operates a whole number 

of other 638 programs as well. So we need that partnership, we 

need that interface with the agency in order to carry on the implementation of these programs. 

And what has happened in terms of the impact is that we have 

10 FTEs that work in the agency and six of them became eligible 

for retirement, and as part of BIA’s streamlining, they are offering 

a buyout to those employees that have that longevity and are ready 

to retire, and $25,000 that they give as incentive for that early 

buyout comes out of the program dollars so this year at this juncture we have, like, maybe $10,000 to $12,000 in road maintenance, 

and knowing that we are situated at a place, we have 7,000 to 

8,000 feet, we have a long duration of inclement weather and we 

need those roads to be maintained during that time for our school 

buses, for the clinic’s hospital emergencies, for our law enforcement 

and it is the only roads that service all the business needs of our 

community, so how are we going to finish the year with just 

$13,000, and that is, you know, a plan that has happened. And so 

we are asking this Committee and our Congressional delegation to 

ask them to look into how these cuts are being implemented because it needs to be fair. We understand and we acknowledge that 

as a country we have to pay for the deficits that we have but we 

want it to be fair, we want it to be proportional to what we are 

doing, and even especially at the local level, and that is what our 

testimony is today. We are finding that the reduction of the programs is affecting all of the programs that we operate right now, 

and not only the roads but also other programs that the BIA still 

has, which is fire management, and then their executive administration direction, those are also being impacted, and we have no 

choice but to contract for roads and to contract for fire management 

in order to keep the fundings intact. Otherwise they will just get 

eliminated and that is the kind of hard choices that we are facing 

in our community right now. 

Another component of our testimony covers the need to maintain 

the agency because we have over 240 original allotments and over 

3,000 inherited interest and we need to maintain the records and 

all of the protection of the allotment status for our members, and 

we know that trust services is one of the pieces that the agency 

covers right now, and so in order for us to continue to not fall into 

the lawsuit about Cobell, we need the funds in order to be able to 

maintain the agency and all of the real estate that we have there 
647

because we have a lot of different—seven to eight different land 

statues that checkerboard our reservation and so it is important 

that we keep really good records and protect the land that we have 

so far. 

We are also asking for additional appropriation in the amount of $2.8 million. We are very fortunate and grateful for the money that 

we receive to build a detention center. Some of the funds came 

from the ARA fund, some of it came from Navajo Nation, some of 

it from other federal funding and state funding that we put together, and we will be able to finish our detention center this year, 

and the funds we are requesting for is to operate that detention 

center. Currently, our facility can house only about six inmates, 

and the new facilities will be able to accommodate at least 30, and 

so we are now in a situation where we really cannot afford to keep 

it, you know, at that level, and the funds would be able to operate 

the whole detention center that is separate from, you know, law enforcement. And so if there is additional funding we receive, it can 

just go into our AFA, our annual funding agreement with the BIA 

and it can be under that line item under corrections, and so that 

is how those funds will flow. 

We have also been increasing the land size of our reservation 

and so we have a need for natural resource training facilities so we 

are able to finish that, and we need the additional funds in order 

to be able to address that. 

And so these are just some of the things and the ways that our 

agency and the community have been impacted and so we very 

much need your support and want you to help us to maintain the 

programs that we have. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Nancy Martine-Alonzo follows:] 
648
649
650
651
652

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that. David, are you next? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Beverly is next. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

RAMAH NAVAJO SCHOOL BOARD 

WITNESSES

BEVERLY J. COHO 

DAVID MARTINEZ, JR. 

Ms. COHO. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Honorable Simpson and Honorable McCollum, my name is Beverly Coho. 

I am the Vice President of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., 

from the Ramah Band of Navajos, Pine Hill, New Mexico. Good 

morning. Thank you for this time. Thank you for all the past funding. This is about our 43rd year that the Ramah Navajo School 

Board is traveling to Washington, D.C., and I will focus on five 

areas quickly, being cognizant of the time to the best of my ability. 

First, I implore upon you to exempt Indian health care and Indian education from any further budget reduction as done for the 

Veterans Affairs programs. Indian health care and Indian education, as we know, are federal government trust responsibilities 

that have emanated from the treaty obligations. 

Second, it is very important and imperative that the new school 

construction funds be restored immediately in order to provide safe 

and secure environment for education for our children. The efforts 

like Franken’s amendment need to be continued until restoration 

is achieved. Facilities maintenance needs immediate attention too. 

And then third, to minimize adverse impact on classroom productions and programs, adequate funding is absolute for student transportation. Many schools like the Ramah Navajo School Board-operated Pine Hill schools run daily bus services over many miles of 

unimproved roads. 

Fourth, contract support costs to implement contracts with Indian tribes for services should achieve full funding. Never have 

contract support costs reached the statutory limit formula. As a 

matter of fact, some are being funded at an embarrassingly low 64 

percent on the average so there is great disparity of funding of 

these federally funded programs with the tribal operated schools 

suffering greatly and therefore there needs to be a redirection of 

funds in the appropriate area. 

Finally, the local control of education by local boards, especially 

on the vast geographical area of the Navajo Nation, must be continued. Ramah Navajo School Board has pioneered the Indian Self Determination Act. As a matter of fact, former President Nixon in his 

message to Congress stated that he was modeling the ISD policy 

based on the Ramah effort and therefore Ramah is steadfast in its 

position that the government closest to the people it serves is the 

most viable and therefore we are very cautious about supporting 

any one grant concept. We do not support operation of schools from 

a central hierarchal point of central government but we support 

true local control at the community level such as Ramah, and 
653

thank you again. All the best to you. Thank you. And Mr. Martinez 

will continue. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Good morning, honorable Chairman, members of 

the subcommittee. My name is David Martinez, Jr. I am the newly 

elected President of Ramah Navajo School Board, and I have come 

to you here today to bring a message on three items that concern 

our school. 

One, we are experiencing a water crisis. Our water system has 

been outdated for—it was built in the 1970s. The other, two, is the 

possibility of building a comprehensive early childhood complex and 

our Ramah Navajo Community Elder Service Center. 

The water crisis—our water infrastructure was established in the 

1970s and it has been deteriorating. There is only so much 

patching we can do. We have approached various agencies for funding such as USDA and tribal infrastructure funds, the State of 

New Mexico, and we have had some of our needs met but there are 

a lot of needs that are still unmet. 

And item two and three are interrelated. A comprehensive early 

childhood education complex, we would like to build one next to 

senior citizens Ramah Navajo Community Elder Service Center. 

Currently, we are operating four programs out of our early childhood programs and they are all housed in trailer buildings. Our intention is to build two buildings together so we can utilize our 

elder community members, the knowledge of their culture and the 

language and our traditions and have them instill it into our young 

while they are still at an impressionable age and thereby continue 

our traditions and our language. And that is about all I am here 

to cover, and I would like to thank you for your time. I know we 

are kind of pressed for time here, and I have been watching my 

watch.

[The statement of Beverly Coho follows:] 
654
655
656
657
658

Mr. SIMPSON. Faye. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

DZITH-NA-O-DITH-HLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD 

WITNESSES

ERVIN CHAVEZ 

FAYE BLUEEYES 

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. Chairman, I will make the initial remarks and 

then let Ms. Faye BlueEyes continue. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Ervin 

Chavez, School Board President of Dzith-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community School Board on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, New 

Mexico. With me is Faye Blue Eyes, Finance Director, who will be 

presenting our testimony on behalf of the school. We will focus on 

three areas of concern to our school in the fiscal year 2014 request 

for BIE. 

Our school requests the following, all under BIE category. One is opposing $16 million reduction for Indian School Equalization 

Formula funds account. Two is $109 million in facilities appropriation and $76 million in facility maintenance. Three is $73 million 

to fully fund the Tribal Grant Support costs, and Faye will continue that. 

Ms. BLUEEYES. Good morning. Our school has been in service 

since 1968 and we have a K–8 program serving 220 students and 

59 students are in the dorm. Our mission is to make a difference 

in the educational progress of our students, and we believe that all 

of our students are capable of achieving academic success. However, we have struggled with chronic underfunding of our educational and related programs. We oppose the $16 million proposed reduction to ISEF funds for 

a new school program that is called the Turnaround Demonstration 

Program that would provide funds for BIE-funded schools that are 

in restructuring status. Based on our experiences, we found these 

programs do not work at the school level because of the huge paperwork that is imposed on us for these funds, and this takes away 

teaching time from the students. Then we do not understand why 

the U.S. Department of Education gets extra funds for their new 

programs with new monies while our ISEF funds will be reduced 

to fund this new initiative. We strongly oppose this plan because 

as we have previously testified, the ISEF funds we currently receive are already pressed. We urge you to recognize that despite 

our best efforts to stretch each and every dollar, such a drastic reduction in ISEF funding may result in even more schools not being 

able to provide the quality academic programs and instruction necessary to meet the academic needs of our students. 

We urge your funding for facilities maintenance in the amount 

of $76 million and facilities operation in the amount of $109 million 

and restore $17 million for new school construction. As we previously testified, our school is unfortunately among the poorest 

rated facilities. Without a significant increase in facilities maintenance funding, we will not be able to make much progress in ad-
659

dressing the many health and safety problems at our school. The 

water lines contain so much sediment in the pipes due to the corrosion that bottled drinking water must be brought in for the students, an additional cost that most other schools do not have. The 

BIA last estimated the costs for a new school for us would be $19.1 

million, yet funding for new school construction has been zeroed 

out. The $17 million was to be used to correct the deficiencies at 

the school location but we only saw $441,000 in the budget. What 

happened to the $16.5 million? Unless the facilities operation and 

maintenance costs are funded at a realistic level, we will not be 

able to provide our students and staff a safe and healthy environment. We ask you to support the NCAI recommended $76 million 

for maintenance and $109 million in facilities operation funding 

and restore the $17 million for new school construction. 

Lastly, we ask funding tribal grant support costs in the amount of $73 million. Tribal grant support costs, formerly known as administrative cost grants, are funds provided to tribally operated 

schools to cover the administrative or indirect costs associated with 

the operation of the school. Currently, 125 of the 183 BIE-funded 

schools are operated by tribes or tribal school boards. In fiscal year 

2012, the funding available for tribal support met only 64 percent 

of the need. For fiscal year 2014, the BIE requests a $2 million increase which they estimate will provide tribal support of 67 percent 

of need. This is still way below 91 percent contract support costs 

that will be provided to non-school BIE contractors if Congress provides the full $230 million contract support request. Due to the tremendous shortfall, our schools are struggling financially to make 

ends meet. We ask that Congress fix the inequity between tribal 

grant support and contract support cost funding by fully funding 

us. We urge Congress to provide the levels of education funding 

that will enable us to provide a quality education in a safe and secure environment for our students. Thank you. 

[The statement of Faye BlueEyes follows:] 
660
661
662
663

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Betty. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I just thank you all for your testimony, and I 

think we heard yesterday, Mr. Chair, loud and clear that this idea 

that the Department of Education came up with without consulting 

the tribes is, I know Tom said it was a no-go for him, it is for me, 

and I think the more the Committee hears this, the more likely we 

are to speak back to the Administration sharing your concerns. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you all for being here today and for your 

testimony. I appreciate it very much. 

Our next panel is Ben Shelly, Leroy Shingoitewa, Walter Phelps. 

Ben is first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

NAVAJO NATION 

WITNESS

BEN SHELLY 

Mr. SHELLY. So I get to be the first one. I would like to say good 

morning to everybody here. My testimony this morning will focus 

on two major items. First, tribal funding is a sacred trust, responsibility and legal and moral obligation that should not be subject to 

sequester. Second, limited economic development has made us rely 

solely on federal government and is due in large part to federal 

burden of tribal development. You heard that all morning. 

The Navajo Nation relies heavily on federal funding program. 

Approximately two-third of our budget comes from federal source 

through a grant program and 93638 contract. Budget cut means 

hardship. Tribal budget becomes the worst kind of collateral damage. Tribal leaders understand the economic problems of our country but solving our Nation’s budget problem with shotgun cut is not 

good policy. 

We ask you to fulfill the treaty obligation and trust responsibility 

and look to you to help us develop our economic and invest in our 

infrastructure so we are not at the mercy of the federal government. There are several ways to do this in budget and legislative 

process.

First, the federal government gets rid of the burden that delays 

economic development. Our current unemployment rate is 55 percent. Per capita of our members’ income is approximately $7,200. 

Regulatory burden obstructs development and discourages private 

investment. Developing on trust land is as difficult as developing 

in a national park. We are not a national park. We need you to act 

to change this. 

Second, basic health care services are critical in our remote area. 

For most of our citizen, IHS is the only health care facility option. 

We ask the funding for IHS not to be allocated in a way that shortchange facility construction and direct service. 

Third, sustainable economic development requires a highly educated workforce. The Navajo Nation awards scholarship to over 

3,500 students. Some of these comes from BIA higher education 

grant program. The money is often delayed due to continuing resolution. We go through that a lot. To fix this problem, Congress 
664

needs to fund this line item. Other educational programs are operated this way. 

Fourth, the lack of fully funded federal contract under 93638 

means we are subsidizing the federal government. In the recent 

Ramah and Salazar case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal 

fully funded must be appropriated, not taken from other tribal program.

Finally, we need to safeguard our tribal laws and law-and-order 

system. Having a well-funded judicial branch and public safety department means that we as tribe are guaranteed security of residents and visitors as well as attract opportunity and investment. 

Our tribal court on the Navajo Nation are considered a benchmark 

of tribal court system. We cannot continue to operate and implement critical piece of federal law such as tribal laws and order 

without full support and funding. Additionally, the chairman of the 

Navajo Hopi Land Commission will go into greater detail regarding 

the former Bennett Freeze area issue but I want to stress to the 

committee the importance of addressing that ongoing hardship created by the federal government, created by the federal government 

on the Navajo Nation. Right now, thousands of Navajo are living 

lives of unbelievable hardship because of federal action. 

In conclusion, tribes have underfunded for decades and these are 

not entitlement, they are payment for land given up to the United 

States. The Navajo Nation is doing its part investing in infrastructure and creating partnership across nationally, locally and in private sectors. We need the federal government to do its part. We 

have a job to do: deficit of the Nation, the United States as a 

whole. But, you know, the Navajo Nation wants more energy independence. We want to create jobs, we want to create revenue for 

our Nation. Give us that. What is the way to do it? The way to do 

it is lift some of those red tape. The federal government has been 

sitting on us for decades. We have not got up yet to be more independent. We are asking the federal government to remove those. 

Direct funding is one way of doing it. That creates jobs on the reservation. The 55 percent that are unemployed will take care of 

that. The revenue that we need for our Nation, we can bring general fund in to make money. We have abundant natural resources—sun, wind. We have all of those to make it happen. So 

help us with that. The job creation, revenue for our Nation is there 

for us. All we need is some help from the federal government. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ben Shelly follows:] 
665
666
667
668
669

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Leroy. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

HOPI TRIBE 

WITNESS

LEROY SHINGOITEWA 

Mr. SHINGOITEWA. Thank you. My name is Chairman Leroy 

Shingoitewa of the Hopi Tribe. Good to see you again, Chairman 

Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. Say that again. 

Mr. SHINGOITEWA. Leroy Shingoitewa. It is a Polish name so it 

is really easy to pronounce. And to Ranking Member McCollum, it 

is an honor to be here today, and the rest of the Committee. 

Today I would like to discuss two of our top priorities: law enforcement and the education. With regards to law enforcement, I 

will discuss our request for increased funding for the Department 

of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs funding and the tribal 

detention centers and implementation of the Tribal Law and Order 

Act, our own Hopi code and the Violence Against Women Act. We 

also have two requests to increase funding for education. First we 

will discuss the ongoing need for funding for BIE schools, tribal 

schools. We will also describe the difficulties for BIA schools that 

they will face because of the sequester. 

In regards to law and order, the Hopi Tribe consists of 1.5 million acres and 13,000 enrolled citizens. Hopi is a direct service 

tribe. We do not receive any gaming profits of any kind and yet we 

are experiencing a public safety crisis on our reservations because 

of our justice system is not working properly. This is not only for 

the Hopi Tribe but I also speak on behalf of other tribes throughout 

the United States. The Hopi Detention Center is the root cause of 

part of this crisis on the Hopi reservation. The Hopi Detention Center is a BIA-owned facility and it serves our communities of 12 villages. Until 2004, the facility used to allow both juvenile and adult 

detainees to be in that center, and this caused a problem because 

in 2004 the center prohibited the housing of both juvenile and 

adult detainees, and when the Hopi authorities arrested a Hopi juvenile, the choice was to take them to Holbrook, Arizona, which is 

an hour and a half away, or for more serious, to take them into 

Colorado and New Mexico for housing. And this caused a problem 

for many of our law enforcement because of the amount of people 

we have available for transport. And additionally, the detention 

center continues to house adult offenders and it is rated for a capacity of 68 prisoners. We have on many occasions gone as high as 

100 prisoners because we have no other place to put these offenders. The overcrowding results in inmates being released before 

their sentences are completed, and this is to also try to house the 

most dangerous felons that we have that are charged to stay within 

our facilities. The sequester is going to make it worse. We have 

also been informed that in 2014, the Hopi facility will be required 

to house prisoners from off the Hopi reservation. Although the BIA 

has responsibility for providing law enforcement services on the 
670

Hopi Indian reservation, the Hopi Tribe is proactively seeking 

funds to build a new detention center. 

We have developed a conceptual design for the new Hopi Justice 

Center and are doing what we can to find funding for this facility 

but we strongly believe that the federal government should be our 

partner in this effort, and Chairman McCollum, you recall that we 

had a discussion of this earlier asking you to come visit with us, 

and we extend that invitation again. So we are asking this subcommittee to direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct an assessment of the Hopi Detention Center and make recommendations 

to this Committee regarding whether it needs to be replaced. 

The Tribal Law and Order Act, the Hopi Code, the Violence 

Against Women Act and their enforcement—the Tribal Law and 

Order Act of 2010 was a huge step forward for Indian Country, providing the tribes to exercise expanded authority to prosecute crimes 

on their reservations. Although there was no federal funds available to implement the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act, 

the Hopi Tribe knew that it needed to exercise the expanded authority granted by the TLOA and we became one of the first tribes 

in the country to implement this Act. We are also currently in the 

process of making the necessary adjustments to our Hopi Code to 

provide the exercise of expanded authority granted by the Violence 

Against Women Act reauthorization, which was signed on March 7 

of this year. We did this without promise of any funds or assistance 

from the federal government but the exercise of this authority cost 

a great deal of money. We are requesting of this Committee that 

they make increased funding available to tribes for programs that 

are enhanced using this expanded prosecution and sensing authority authorized by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the 

Violence Against Women Act and Reauthorization Act of 2013. 

The education issues that I mentioned, the most critical issue 

facing the Hopi people is the need for a stable educational system, 

both stable and reliable education facilities. The Hopi Day School 

and the Hotevilla Bacavi Community School must be replaced to 

ensure the safety of our students. These two schools currently 

serve students from four Hopi villages. In 2006, the Bureau of Indian Education facilities management issued a determination that 

both school buildings were in poor condition. The BIE stated that 

the school buildings were deemed unsafe and did not and could not 

meet current building codes. To date, nothing has been done in regards to these facilities. 

Now we are faced with a new educational crisis. The BIE recently informed us that the impending proposed cuts of approximately a million dollars to Hopi education to four schools on the 

Hopi reservation: Hopi Day School, Hotevilla Bacavi Community 

School, Winitapi Day School and the Hopi Junior-Senior High 

School. It has been indicated that the high school and junior high 

school alone will lose $500,000. This is a lot of money to our Hopi 

tribal education program. I am an educator by trade, and when I 

heard this, I knew one of the first things that is going to happen 

is our teaching salaries will be depleted, and now we have to make 

adjustments.

To the Committee, this is to inform you that the Hopi schools 

have always made AYP over the last 6, 7 years, and this means 
671

they made the average yearly progress, which was required of us 

in our state and by federal government. We cannot—our system 

cannot sustain this type of cuts. These budget cuts will severely affect the quality of education and teacher retention at all four 

schools. We are requesting that the BIA be directed to replace the 

Hopi Day School, the Hotevilla Bacavi Community School and that 

funds be made available for their construction. Additionally, we are 

seeking restoration of funding for our schools operating on the Hopi 

reservation that BIE has cut. 

You know, the Hopi tribe faces many challenges today. We value 

our communities, our history, our beliefs and our traditional values, and we strive to provide the best for our people, but we are 

not afraid of hard work and we are not afraid to go forward and 

try to find ways of improving our communities and our systems 

and our tribal government. We are willing to invest everything we 

can to meet these needs but we need your help from the federal 

government.

There is one other thing that I want to bring up. I know that 

there is testimony going to come a little later but for the record I 

would like to also indicate that the Hopi Tribe has learned that 

there will be a request for the continued funding of the Hopi Navajo Relocation Office in Flagstaff, Arizona. The Hopi Tribe at this 

time supports Senator McCain’s efforts to close that office. For one, 

we believe that all the things that have taken place out of that office should have been completed, should have been done, and therefore the office is no longer needed. 

I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and if there any other questions I will be glad to 

answer them. Thank you. 

[The statement of Leroy Shingoitewa follows:] 
672
673
674
675
676

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Walter. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

NAVAJO HOPI LAND COMMISSION 

WITNESS

WALTER PHELPS 

Mr. PHELPS. Chairman Simpson, Honorable Ranking Member 

McCollum, good morning. My name is Walter Phelps. It is a great 

honor to come before you today and to speak with you about what 

is perhaps one of the most difficult chapters of the Navajo Nation’s 

federal tribal relations. 

As a member of the 22nd Navajo Nation Council, I serve as 

chairman of the Navajo Hopi Land Commission. This commission 

serves to address matters pertaining to the Navajo Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 that mandated the relocation of more than 10,000 

Navajos and addition the former Bennett Freeze, a federally imposed construction and community development restriction in western Navajo area for over 40 years. 

Although the legal disputes in both situations are for the most 

part resolved and behind us, there still remains a large and ongoing toll on Navajo families affected by these experiences. Despite 

the suffering and hardships stemming from the relocation law and 

the lengthy, drawn-out construction freeze, I would like to focus my 

comments on an instance where I have personally witnessed hope, 

resilience and perseverance. 

Three summers ago, while I was campaigning for my current office, I met a disabled single parent and her three children. This 

Navajo woman and her children were living in a severely deteriorated shack. The roof had caved in, and the only thing that kept 

it from completely collapsing was a skinny pole in the middle of the 

room. Her dwelling was not a house; it was literally a shack. It had 

no insulation, a couple openings that resembled windows, dirt floor, 

a wood stove for cooking and heating, and a blanket over the 

entryway. We also learned that a school bus came to this home so 

that the children at least were attending school. Still, the situation 

was very depression, and the mother had pretty much resigned 

herself to her plight. Upon learning about the condition of the family’s home, my supporters were so moved that they committed to 

solicit donations and build her a small-frame house. Within a span 

of 4 months, the team raised funds, solicited material donations 

and volunteered labor enough to build her a 16 feet by 20 feet oneroom house with a foundation and a concrete floor. You might wonder why more could not have been done for this family, perhaps so, 

but something uniquely positive did happen to this Navajo woman. 

A mother who was once despondent and deprived of pride and dignity all of a sudden saw that miracles do happen. She somehow realized that she was not alone and she could take control of her life, 

the future could be brighter for herself and for her family. 

Within the months that followed, this woman took financial risk, 

began to make sacrifices which enabled her to build additions to 

her new home so that today she now lives in a house twice the size 
677

that we initially built for her. Let us be reminded that under the 

Bennett Freeze, this would have been both impossible and illegal. 

However, today there is a solution for communities and families of 

Western Navajo Agency but we must strive together to plant the 

seeds of hope that make the difference. I therefore urge the subcommittee to allocate $20 million into the 

BIA Housing Improving program funding for much-needed housing 

and related improvements within the former Bennett Freeze area. 

In addition, we also ask the subcommittee to support legislation 

that would help us attract private sector development, streamline 

federal regulations while providing cost-saving measures. 

Over the past several years, Congress has funded the Office of Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation in the neighborhood of $8 million 

per year. Although it is apparent that the purpose and role of the 

ONHIR appears to be nearing completion with an estimated number of approximately 200 families remaining eligible for benefits, at 

an average of 16 hours per year, this may take another 20 years 

before every eligible Navajo receives the promised relocation benefit. As such, we propose that the subcommittee consider a costsaving measure by an immediate allocation of $18 million to expedite the relocation benefits for the remaining eligible Navajo families as opposed to spreading the benefits over the next 20 years. 

We also ask the subcommittee to request for a GAO analysis to 

help us better understand whether there are any improvements in 

efficiencies that could be made with the relocation program. Also, 

we would like to follow up with you about seeking this Committee’s 

support in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget 

for a commitment that funding will not be compromised if ONHIR 

were to be folded into the BIA in the future. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know what you were planning to visit 

Navajo Nation this past summer. Although these plans fell 

through, we would certainly welcome coordinating another trip for 

you and any of your members to begin laying the groundwork for 

future much-needed hearings pertaining to the relocation and the 

former Bennett Freeze. 

Thank you for the opportunity for this testimony. 

[The statement of Walter Phelps follows:] 
678
679
680
681
682

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony. 

We plan on rescheduling the tour, and I am glad Senator McCain 

is—we will let him solve this problem. But I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The next panel is Henry Pino, Franklin Hoover 

and Angela Barney Nez. Henry, you are first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

BLACKWATER COMMUNITY SCHOOL 

WITNESSES

HENRY PINO 

FRANKLIN HOOVER 

Mr. PINO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the students, the families and the staff of the Blackwater Community 

School, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about the 

Bureau of Indian Education and the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs that affect our school. 

Blackwater Community School was built by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs in 1939 to serve students living on the Gila River Indian 

reservation near Coolidge, Arizona. The BIA operated the school 

until 1996 when the Blackwater Community School Board of Trustees began operating the school under the Tribally Controlled School 

Act. Myself and two other members of the school board of trustees 

attended Blackwater, and my children and grandchildren have attended the school. I have served on the board of trustees since 

1993. Blackwater now teaches students in grade kindergarten 

through 5th grade as a BIE grant school and an Arizona charter 

school in 1994 to the current enrollment of over 385 students in 

kindergarten through 5th grade plus 40 parents who participate in 

the school’s Family and Child Education, FACE, program. 

Blackwater is one of the few schools in the BIE system that constantly achieves adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind. In 2011, Blackwater was the first school in the Bureau system to be recognized as a national Title I Distinguished School of 

the Year. In 2012, the school’s principal, Ms. Jacqueline Power, 

was recognized as the National Distinguished Principal of the Year 

by the National Association of Elementary School Principals. Most 

recently, Blackwater was honored by the International Reading Association as an Exemplary School of the Year. Achieving success at 

Blackwater has not been easy, and the board is very concerned 

about how the current budget issues will impact our students. Mr. 

Hoover will now address some of those challenges in detail. 

Mr. HOOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Blackwater is a very 

successful school. 

I am Franklin Hoover, and I am proud to be associated with 

Blackwater Community School, which is a successful school in the 

Bureau system, and that success in the Bureau system is consistently punished, and we will explain how that works. 

When the school was started as a grant school in 1996, the Bureau put in place the moratorium that currently exists on expand-
683

ing grade levels at school. For a K–2 school, that does not make 

sense, so one of the first things the board did was put in place a 

state-funded charter school at the same location, serving grades 

now 3 through 5. After Blackwater put the charter school in in 

1999, the committees started adding a new moratorium on adding 

charter schools at Bureau funded schools. One of the things that 

we would request is that those riders that are still in effect right 

now prohibiting grade expansion and prohibiting charter schools be 

eliminated from the legislation. 

We are also facing the impacts of the budget cuts right now. Because it is a charter school, the impact aid cuts, which are outside 

of this committee’s jurisdiction, have already hit the school this 

year. Next year, the cuts to the Bureau funding will hit the school. 

We are particularly concerned about the proposal to reduce ISEP 

by $16 million to create a new turnaround demonstration program. 

For a school like Blackwater that succeeds, the school feels that 

it is being punished in its success by having its funding reduced, 

and to have those funds diverted to schools that are not succeeding. 

We agree that schools that are not succeeding need additional supports and they need additional services, but those services should 

not come at the expense of schools that are actually performing 

under this system. 

Like every other school in the Bureau system, Blackwater Community School has unmet facilities needs. The school is located 50 

miles southeast of Phoenix. During the beginning months of school 

and the ending months of school, the temperatures outside are 

typically well over 100 degrees. The school has never had a gym. 

There is no indoor space for the students to play in. The recess and 

PE classes are held on basically a dirt field that is not big enough 

to play a regulation soccer game. The Bureau has recognized this. 

The facility was built in 1939. The Bureau recognized in 2008 that 

there is a need to build a gymnasium with some additional classroom space. It is now 2013. There is no funding available. The 

thought that the funding has been zeroed out is offensive to, I 

think, every educator that is in the building right now. That is an 

issue this committee needs to address. There needs to be significant funding for the unmet facilities needs within Indian Country. 

I see that our time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Franklin Hoover follows:] 
684
685
686
687
688

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Believe me, I understand the problem 

about grade expansion and the problems that that has been created 

with that prohibition, so we will be addressing that this year, hopefully, in the bill. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Angela. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

DINE ́ BI OLTA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION, INC. 

WITNESS

ANGELA BARNEY NEZ 

Ms. BARNEY NEZ. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simpson, 

and a gentleman named Jonathan Steele. Thank you for having us 

here today and hearing us out. 

My name is Angela. I am a director for the Dine ́ Bi Olta School 

Board Association, and I realize that I was listed as the Immersion 

School, and I tried to have that corrected with the staff here. So 

I did turn in the form. I know they need the funding, and I know 

they have the problems, and I really do hope that they resolve their 

issues as well. 

I am here from the Navajo Nation. I live in New Mexico and I 

work in Arizona, so it is like at the Four Corners area. Our school 

board association represents all of the elected Navajo school boards 

on the Navajo Nation, and we are federally funded in terms of 66 

schools. Thirty-four are granted to the people that you have heard 

from this morning, and many others, and I am here today especially in concern of those that are federally operated. Out of the 66, 

we have 32 that are federally operated. 

We are very concerned about tribal support costs. That has been 

stated eloquently here by some of our colleagues also, and that $72 

million in funding needs to cover their needs. Many times, they get 

diverted or shortfalls occur because there is a lack of funding and 

we start holding other accounts to manage, make ends meet. Student transportation funding, Navajo Nation has roads that are 

managed out of the counties, the state counties, and we work very 

hard with them; however, they are still a very high need. One of 

the things I wanted to bring out about transportation is that the 

way that the school buses are regulated on Navajo for our schools, 

they use diesel fuel. Many times, the diesel fuels are at locations 

in the border areas, so the rural schools have to drive many miles 

to gas up with diesel fuel and drive back and make the bus rounds, 

and then maybe middle of the week go back and fuel up again. So 

the costs of those and the costs of the rural—and the isolation factors are high, and that we would like to get in parity with the national average of at least $3.50 per mile. The funding for that is 

estimated at $52.8 million. So I wanted to bring that out, because 

that is more evident in our schools than anywhere else or anything 

else, aside from facilities and ISEF. 

The ISEF program is mandated under Public Law 95561, and it 

takes care of the teacher salaries and all of the needs in the class-
689

room, including the textbooks. I want to mention that $431 million 

is the level of need for that category. 

I am going to try to go through this as quickly as I can. 

Facilities, O&M, I have an e-mail that I wanted to share with 

you because it is so important. As of April 18, we received an email from our tribal utility authority that our schools are going to 

not be able to make the payment because of a thing called the overall budget has been exceeded. And the way that our schools are 

funded, they are electronically inputted into the Bureau system. 

The causes—if the sequestration numbers are in, which they are, 

at 11 percent, then it causes the system to not make any payments. 

And as of the 18th, that has occurred in all of our schools. And evidently, 187 kids had to be sent home from the Red Rock Base 

School.

So I wanted to mention those, and then in our testimony, you 

have a list of schools that have pending construction funding requests that are pending from fiscal year 2010, that go into fiscal 

year 2011, and are still there. And there are 18, 19 schools that 

are in this category. Many times, the construction funding that 

gets awarded begins to try to break down other things in order to 

get to construction. So that is a problem and we would like to get 

those funding for construction restored. 

I have a table, Mr. Chairman, that I really would like for you to 

look at. It is in our testimony, and Jonathan has it on the table. 

We have a shortage of 301 teachers because of the 11 percent cut 

in our schools. It—$13.8 million has been cut from the BIE-operated schools, based on the 11 percent. So each school has been giving up teachers, counseling, they have been sharing business technicians. We are trying to meet the mandate for special education, 

for NCA accreditation, residential needs, food service, and transportation.

One last comment. One last comment. We are very much the proponent of local control of education. Local control and local autonomy and local participation of parents in the community is of utmost importance to our school board association, and we feel that 

that is the ground grass roots level that needs to be an active participant in the overall structure if the BIE is going to realign or restructure. We believe realigning is administratively okay, but restructuring requires formal consultation with our Nation. 

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate being here. I am an Army veteran and also a breast cancer survivor, and sometimes you think 

what is really, really important? It is the way that our government 

is going to adhere to what we have to live with out in our communities, and we feel government-to-government is so important, and 

we all participate in what that becomes in the end for the betterment of our communities and our children. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Angela Barney Nez follows:] 
690
691
692
693
694

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and thank all of you for your testimony.

I agree with you that while there are things that need to be done 

in the educational area with BIE to improve it, nothing is going to 

be done unless it has the support of tribal leaders around the system, so that is something that we hope to have them working on 

with tribal leaders, and see if we can improve this situation that 

we are in. 

Thank you all. 

Next panel is Phillip Ahmsaty, Elbridge Coochise, Irene Cuch. 

Phillip is first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

CASA BLANCA COMMUNITY SCHOOL 

WITNESS

PHILLIP AHMSATY 

Mr. AHMSATY. Chairman Simpson, my name is Phillip Ahmsaty. 

I am a member of the Gila River Indian Community, and I sit on 

the Board of Trustees for the Casa Blanca Community School, a 

tribally controlled grant school authorized pursuant to P.L. 100– 

297.

I want to address the condition of our school, Casa Blanca Community School, the strides of our students, what our students have 

done in the face of poor conditions, and the problematic effect of sequestration on funding and our continuing ability to educate our 

kids.

I would like to extend a deep gratitude for this opportunity to address the committee. 

Casa Blanca Community School serves 254 students at the moment, from Kindergarten to 4th grade, with an expected rise in attendance for the coming year. Unfortunately, our school is old, having been built in the ’70s, with glaring problems with the school 

buildings. Portable and permanent buildings house our students. 

The condition of these buildings is unsafe, with portable buildings 

having significant flooring issues. Students being placed strategically around the floor issues is very unsafe for them. We have to 

move the kids around so they don’t step on the soft spots and possibly injure themselves. The permanent buildings have door issues 

that are not functional and beyond repair. One of the permanent 

buildings has drainage problems, causing damage to the base of the 

building, and this is very sad, but 50 percent of our permanent 

structures contain asbestos. 

We know none of these repairs are cheap. On March 11, 2013, 

the committee analog in the Senate would eliminate the BIA’s 

school replace program. This continuing resolution is consistent 

with the Department of Interior’s original fiscal year 2013 budget 

proposal eradicating the school replacement program entirely. 

Casa Blanca Community School believes the total school replacement program needs to continue. Casa Blanca Community School 

is one of 63 schools out of the 183 Bureau-funded schools on the 

BIA index of schools in poor condition released in 2009. Funding 
695

for facility operations and maintenance should be 100 percent of 

need and should occur consistent with the calendar for receipt of 

other school grant monies. 

Other problems contributing to the increased deterioration of 

grant school facilities is a lack of adequate need-based funding for 

facilities, operations, and maintenance. Casa Blanca School has received approximately 50 percent of needed funding for operation 

and maintenance. This should be 100 percent. 

Secondly, our students have made recent significant progress in 

light of some of our issues with our school buildings. Attendance 

has increased. There are significant improvements in reading and 

math. Technology has helped—been the key to success for our students. iPads have been used, Promethean active tables, and laptops 

are helping increase the improvements. The Board strongly believes student improvement will increase and be magnified as we 

transition to the common core curriculum and standards. Arizona 

common core curriculum asked as to integrate slants to student 

teaching. We do not have any science-ready facilities in our school. 

We are working with the Gila River Indian community to secure 

funding for an additional facility the Board could designate as a 

science lab. This is one example of why this committee should commit to higher funding for our grant schools. 

For our students to be competitive with other school systems, 

adequate funding is needed for our children to get a quality facility, 

equipment, and teachers. 

We also want to talk about to eliminate the Interior and Related 

Agencies appropriations for riders prohibiting grade expansion. We 

want to expand to 5th grade. As I have said, we have gone from 

Kindergarten to 4th grade. We want to increase to 5th grade, giving our children a better chance as they move on in their educational lives. 

Lastly, sequestration and resulting expectant funding cuts will 

hinder parity in our students’ competitiveness. BIE has advised us 

to prepare for an anticipated 10 percent cut in funding for the coming school year. Budget planning will be difficult when coupled 

with increasing student enrollment. This year’s school suffered a 

loss of approximately $260,000 in funding. These funding cuts, 

when combined with the underfunding of other existing and known 

needs will have a devastating effect on our school. 

Sequestration may result in increasingly late grant payment. 

Casa Blanca School receives 80 percent of its administrative costs 

grants. The remaining 20 percent is due in December of that school 

year. Over the last 3 years, payments were not received in a timely 

manner, some of them coming in as late as April, and in one case, 

July.

The Board believes the timeliness of grant payments will slow 

even more due to personnel reductions. We are urging this committee to require grant payments to be made on time, which requirements in federal law are doing slow. 
696

In conclusion, we ask the committee to recommit to fully and 

adequately providing funding for Indian education. The Gila River 

Indian community children, those of other native communities 

throughout the United States deserve nothing less. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Phillip Ahmsaty follows:] 
697
698
699
700
701

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate it. Thank you. 

Elbridge and Ralph Gonzalez. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

INDEPENDENT TRIBAL REVIEW TEAM 

WITNESS

ELBRIDGE COOCHISE 

Mr. COOCHISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Elbridge 

Coochise, and unlike my chairman, who has an Irish name or 

whatever he has called it, my Coochise name is a Hopi name. 

I am here on behalf of tribal courts in Indian Country that are 

funded through Bureau of Indian Affairs. There are approximately 

300 operating court systems in Indian Country. The Bureau of Indian Affairs funds partially 184 of those court systems. This does 

not include the Alaskan systems, and there are about 140 of those 

that are either funded through DOJ or elsewhere. 

First of all, we would like to thank the committee in fiscal year 2010 for the $10 million that was appropriated. For many years, 

the Bureau funding was at $14.4 million each year, and trying to 

spread that over 184 courts. With that $10 million increase, it 

helped, but I notice in fiscal year 2012 that it went back down 

again to $23.4 million. We support the President’s recommendation 

of $1 million, where it would just bring it up to the current level. 

So the review team strongly recommends enhancing increasing funding to tribal courts, and also with that, adding $10 million to 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted amount. And then, of course, we request that the $58.4 million that was authorized under the Indian 

Tribal Justice Act and it was reauthorized in 2000, but to date, no 

funding has ever been granted from that act itself. 

Our recommendations for the increase are several-fold. The hiring and training of—and two big issues in the last few years, compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, compliance 

with the Violence Against Women Act that was passed this year, 

and salary increases for existing judges and court personnel, and 

state of the art technology for the tribal courts. Unfortunately, 

many of the courts still use basically cassette recorders to record 

their proceedings. The security and security systems, it is basically 

nonexistent. There are only a few courts that have systems because 

of the cost. And of course, the code development, which is mandated by the TLOA and the VAWA, and then the financial codes. 

So the costs of carrying out justice in Indian Country is increasing, 

but the money is not going along with it. 

Ralph Gonzalez is here. We are part of the five-member team 

that did—for about 7 years, we did reviews of tribal courts, and 

then we went back with what we call corrective action and assisted 

28 of those tribal court systems to fix those recommendations we 

made in the reviews, and our last review we did in June of 2011. 

But the two big issues I think that is hampering and Chairman 

Shingoitewa mentioned, the TLOA, because it requires law trained 

judges, barred attorneys for prosecutors, and public defenders to 

operate, and most of that is costly. We do not have that many 
702

barred attorneys living on Indian reservations. And then the 

VAWA Act that was just passed, while it is limited in the domestic 

violence arena, it also mandates that non-Indians who are charged 

with domestic violence within Indian Country are entitled to the 

full benefits of the U.S. Constitution, which differs from the Indian 

Civil Rights Act, because in that there are several factors, one of 

them being juries are usually 12 persons under U.S. Constitution. 

Indian Civil Rights Act has only six-person juries. And then anyone 

charged, a non-Indian has the right to an attorney if they cannot 

afford one. Well, the Indian Civil Rights Act, it says you have the 

right to an attorney, but you have to pay for your own. The government does not have to pay for it. And then the other addition, 

which goes into code revisions, is that the jury pool is to be made 

of the cross section of community members, including non-Indians, 

and so a number of tribes will have to modify their codes and have 

non-Indian sitting in. 

This last year—I have been retired for a number of years now, 

but I have been pro temping in dealing with jury trials for the last 

year. The tribe where I am sitting is only from enrollment, and it 

is hard to—the last year, at one point it had 12 jury trials set up, 

and not one went because we did not have enough people that 

would be able to sit. So those two factors, I think this year we need 

to see the tribal court funding greater. And the other thing, in our 

review process, in the assessment, the BIA only funds about 26 

percent of the operation costs of tribal courts, even today. And so 

any increase will be a help, and that is what we are recommending 

that this committee appropriate at least $10 million, because the 

President’s recommendation of $1 million, if you spread it over 184 

courts, it is not going to go very far. 

So with that, thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Elbridge Coochise follows:] 
703
704
705
706
707

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Did you have something to add, Ralph? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Just a very brief statement is that in reviewing, 

as part of the review team, over 95 courts, I have never seen that 

a tribal government has ever created a tribal court with the objective of it failing. They always want to see the tribal court, in fact, 

succeed, but they cannot achieve that level because of lack of funding.

Tribal courts are a business. You have to have money to pay for 

salaries. You have to have money to pay for juries, as Mr. Coochise 

said. So do not forget when any act is developed by the Congress, 

the COPS program or any of the other ones, that tribal courts need 

the funding stream also. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Irene. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

UTE TRIBE OF UTAH 

WITNESS

IRENE CUCH 

Ms. CUCH. Yes. I just want to say in my language, [speaking native language]. That means greetings, and good morning. Mr. 

Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to testify. My name is Irene Cuch. I am the Chairwoman of the 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. Our 

reservation is located in northeastern Utah, and is the second largest reservation in the U.S. 

My testimony focuses on two very important issues for the tribe: 

energy development and law enforcement. 

Congress needs to begin taking Indian energy seriously. Over the 

last 5 years, the congressional committees built a record about the 

need for additional staff, staff expertise, and improved energy permitting process. Over this same period, some of the Administration 

have looked under every rock for additional funding and ideas to 

reform the bureaucracy. 

All this effort and not much has changed. We already told Congress and the Administration what is needed. The answers to these 

problems are not so difficult. A prime example is energy staffing. 

Our reservation is about 4.5 million acres, has 70-year history of 

development, and the tribe has become a major domestic oil and 

gas producer. We lease about 400,000 acres for development. We 

have 7,000 wells which produces 45,000 barrels a day, 900 million 

cubic feet gas per day. 

Despite the value of our resources to the tribe and to domestic 

energy production, we have only two or three Bureau of Indian Affairs staff working on permits. It can take longer than a year to 

get a single well permitted on our reservation. Energy companies 

often tell the tribe that the federal permitting process is the single 

biggest business risk factor they face. It is no secret that they are 

limiting their operations, based on number of permits federal agencies are able to process. This also limits the tribe’s financial growth 

and the services we can provide to our members. 
708

We need dramatic changes so that we can provide for our communities and increase domestic energy production. We ask that you 

provide Interior the funding and resources necessary to organize 

staff into Indian energy development offices, or one-stop shops, 

business already being done for federal lands. 

Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows Bureau of 

Land Management to conduct a pilot project to improve federal permitting coordination. Just a few weeks ago, a Senate committee approved a bill to expand these offices. This is exactly the kind of 

support that we need for Indian energy. However, the President’s 

2014 budget proposes more funding for BLM to develop oil and gas, 

but not Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The President proposes $23 million increase for the BLM to promote oil and gas development on federal lands. Meanwhile, Indian 

energy funding will stay at $2.5 million. The President’s choice to 

fund BLM over BIA is a shame. This subcommittee should give 

BLM’s $23 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This funding is 

needed to fulfill the Federal Government’s responsibility to ensure 

the most beneficial use of our reservation homelands. 

Congress must also increase tribal law and order enforcement 

funding. In recent years, Congress passed a Tribal Law and Order 

Act and Violence Against Women Act to affirm tribal authority to 

keep our reservations safe, but without police officers, jails, support 

systems, we are basically right back where we started. We have 

eight federally funded police officers trying to cover the second 

largest reservation in the United States. This leaves us with only 

two or three officers per shift to cover an area three times larger 

than the State of Delaware. 

To make matters worse, about 10 years ago, our tribal jail was 

condemned. We waited and waited for Bureau of Indian Affairs to 

replace our jail. After seeing criminals let go and tribal members 

abused in county jails, the tribe said enough is enough. We are currently using $35 million of our own funds to build a new justice 

center. This is not right. The United States must live up to its treaty and trust responsibilities. 

We are pleased that the President is requesting an additional $5.5 million for law enforcement in the Indian Country, but once 

this funding is distributed nationwide, it will do little more than 

cover the increase in gasoline prices for our patrol cars. The tribe 

asks for 10 times this funding. Maybe then we could start to police 

our reservations the same as you would like your own communities 

policed.

We ask that Congress dramatically increase its support for the 

essential services tribal governments provide. If Congress would 

support Indian energy development, we would have more tribal 

funding for our government services, just like the $35 million we 

are using to construct a new justice facility. The money we earn 

from energy development helps us fund our government and provide services for our members. 
709

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. Nothing is more important to the tribe than keeping our members safe and developing energy resources to provide for the long-term economic security of our 

members, children, and grandchildren. I will be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The statement of Irene Cuch follows:] 
710
711
712
713
714

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank all of you for your testimony today, and 

look forward to working with you to address some of these problems. Some of the laws we do pass obviously pass on additional 

costs that need to be taken care of when we do that, so I appreciate 

it very much. Thank you. 

Our last panel of the morning is Carole Lankford, Tracy ‘‘Ching’’ 

King, Lester Randall, and Brian Patterson. 

Do we have everybody? 

Carole, you are first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 

WITNESS

CAROLE LANKFORD 

Ms. LANKFORD [speaking native language]. Mr. Chairman. My 

name is Carole Lankford. I am vice chair of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the 1.3 million acre Flathead Reservation in western Montana. I have submitted a detailed written statement as well as some supplemental materials. 

Almost half of our reservation is forested lands, and we are supportive of the Administration’s proposed budget for BIA TPA forestry, as well as a forestry increase intended to move our forests 

towards parity with the other federal forest budgets. We support 

the Administration’s request for cooperative landscape, conservation, and the Administration’s request to combat invasive species, 

as well as funding to engage our youth in natural sciences. 

I am here today to emphasize one program in particular within 

the Interior Department’s Office of Wildland Fire is the Hazard 

Fuels Reduction Program, HFR. This program removes or modifies 

vegetation to reduce wildfire risk, reduce the risk of severe and 

dangerous wildfire, and lessens post wildfire damage. We conduct 

inventories of fuels, prepare sites for treatment, and implement 

treatment practices. The Hazard Fuel dollars are split among the 

various DOI land agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The DOI budget justification says, and I quote, ‘‘Hazard fuel reduction can be the most effective way to protect community values 

to restore forest and grassland health, improve firefighter and public safety, and potentially reduce large fire suppression costs.’’ Mr. 

Chairman, if it is the most effective way to protect communities 

and forests, why is there a proposed $90 million reduction? 

We think this is ill-advised, and as you have done in the past, 

we hope you will restore this item. We urge that Hazard Fuel Reduction Program be restored to the 2010 level of $206 million. We 

and all other tribes we have heard from are strongly opposed to the 

so-called Hazard Fuel Priority Allocation System, HFPAS, formula. 

While the Office of Wildland Fire is under pressure from Congress 

and GAO to deal with the duplication of administrative work, they 

instead came up with this absurd HFPAS formula and completely 

neglected the Executive Order 13175 and developed and implemented HFPAS without tribal consultation. When they rolled out 

the formula, it proposed to cut our Hazard Fuel Program by 94 per-
715

cent. Other tribes with large forests faced even larger cuts. We and 

they raised heck and had some funds restored, but the formula is 

totally flawed and biased against other tribes, especially those surrounded by national forests, as those forests are discounted because 

they are owned by the Forest Service, an agency of the Department 

of Agriculture, but not within the Department of Interior. 

We must wonder if this is the same Interior Department that 

just finished paying $1 million to tribes for mismanagement of 

trust assets resource, because the HFPAS formula will do much 

damage to our trust resources and leave us no choice but to file 

suit for breach of fiduciary responsibility. We wonder if this is the 

same department that has touted the policy of government-to-government and meaningful consultation with tribes. 

Mr. Chairman, the first consultation with HFPAS formula took 

place last month, 2 or 3 years after the HFPAS formula has been 

used to gut the Hazard Fuels Program. 

We have appended to our testimony letters that we wrote to the 

DOI last year as well as letters from our Senator, from other 

tribes, and from the Intertribal Timber Council, and from the BIA 

Northwest Region Office, all objecting to the unfairness of the 

HFPAS formula. 

I ask this committee to direct DOI to a bend in the HFPAS formula, or to alternatively and preferably simply direct that 25 percent of the Hazard Fuel Program dollars be allocated to the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. This figure is based on historical averages and 

then taking into account the priority of protecting trust lands. If 

DOI wants to use the formula for allocating among the other land 

agencies whose land is not held in trust, that is fine, but the BIA 

should get no less than $50 million, or 25 percent. 

Beyond their essential economic importances, tribal forests sustain habitat for fish and wildlife, produce food, medicine, fuel, and 

materials for shelter. Healthy forests are essential for a healthy 

tribal economy and our culture. If we continue to suffer reduction 

in the Hazard Fuel Reduction Program funds, the resulting fires 

will cause severe problems on our home land. 

I also want to turn and point out to this picture back here, it is 

the Bitterroot National Forest which butts up against the Flathead 

Indian Reservation. We do not want our forests to look like that. 

We take care of things at home. 

So we really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today, 

and I also brought Ron Swaney in case we have questions. He is 

our fire management officer. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Carole Lankford follows:] 
716
717
718
719
720

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. 

Tracy.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY 

WITNESS

TRACY ‘‘CHING’’ KING 

Mr. KING [speaking native language]. I said my name is Holy 

White Horse. Mr. Chairman, thank you, members of the committee. 

I came here on behalf of our budget request, and I want to bet you 

a nickel that I could solve our issues with one penny. I was looking 

on the Internet looking at some of the—like each quarter, corporate 

America shows you how much money they made. I believe one company, somewhere around $20 million they made last year or 2 

years ago in the second quarter. So I said, I am going to take my 

penny and divide it into 32 parts, 32 pieces, and if you give me 1/ 

32 of that penny from a tax or something from that, I would get 

$6,250,000 in one quarter, which is $25 million per year. So I kind 

of upped the ante on all parties get super back money for election 

purposes, according to the Supreme Court law, that is legal. So I 

believe somewhere around $1.1 billion spent on elections, I think 

it was, and if you give me 1/4 of this penny, of that $1.1 billion, 

that is $2,750,000. So this simple penny could resolve many of our 

issues we have at home. 

Last March at our regular council meeting, we had a young lady, 

she was 15 years old, come to the council, wanted to be on the 

agenda. She was from the Hays Lodgepool Schools on a reservation. She said I am tired of drugs, tired of meth, and I want the 

council to do something about it with meth. I am tired of suicide, 

and I am tired of our people suffering. So I said, you know, I will 

bring you next time I come to D.C. I want to bring you to be my 

lobbyist. And she sent a very powerful message to us as a council 

and to the community. So even though last year when I said I see 

frustration during the sequestration, I said that last year. 

One of the things that a lot of us that live in the trenches and 

see people every day that are suffering because there are no jobs, 

we see our veterans suffer from post traumatic stress, and so we 

need a lot of help for them, and get them into the system of working and feeling good about themselves. A lot of our testimony on 

roads, maintenance, forestry, we are all very short-funded. It is not 

really fun when you are sitting on a council and we have a major 

drug problem and people coming up from Mexico selling drugs, 

when our lives as councilmen, as law officers on reservations are 

threatened, to be shocked. 

So those things are real, and I hope that someday that you would 

come and visit. I invite you to Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 

and give you a tour of what our needs are. We are trying to deal 

with a lot of our issues, our health issues. We just do not have the 

funding that would give us that opportunity. And so I am hoping 

that our budgets that we are asking for could be full. If it was not 

for Sacajawea in the 1800s in the Lewis and Clark expedition, a 
721

lot of—Lewis and Clark would have starved, because of a lot of 

tribes helped and in January of 1806 fed them buffalo. And so 

there is a history of we help, and there are a lot of war veterans 

at home that need help. And so we just would like the return. 

And my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

[The statement of Tracy ‘‘Ching’’ King follows:] 
722
723
724
725
726

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Lester.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

WITNESS

LESTER RANDALL 

Mr. RANDALL. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Lester 

Randall, and I am the vice chairman for the Kickapoo Tribe in 

Kansas. Our tribe is located near Wharton, Kansas. We have a 

total population of 1,634 members. I am also honored to serve on 

the Tribal Interior Budget Committee. 

Through the meetings I have attended for the Tribal Interior 

Budget Council and the tribal budgeting process, I have developed 

a greater understanding of the critical needs faced by all tribes 

throughout the 12 native regions: putting our people back to work, 

ensuring they have accessible, affordable healthcare, and providing 

quality education to all the membership are our most important 

priorities.

These are the ugliest times we have faced as tribal leaders, and 

that is why I am here today. 

The following are some of the Kickapoo Tribe’s priorities. The 

most critical issue facing the Kickapoo Tribe today is the lack of 

reliable water source on the reservation. I handed your staff some 

pictures that show our only water source, the Delaware River. In 

the past, we have had to haul water on our reservation to support 

our residents, businesses, and tribal programs. And if the current 

drought cycle continues, we may very well have to repeat that. 

We have been involved in a 30-year struggle to secure federally 

reserved water rights, to turn those water rights into wet water in 

the form of a reservoir. We refer to this as the Plum Creek Project. 

In 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the watershed 

agreement between the Kickapoo Tribe and the watershed district. 

We had to file a lawsuit to have the watershed condemn the land 

needed for the reservoir. We ask for the continued assistance of the 

BIA in the form of financial resources and support of our litigation 

and settlement efforts, and for the funding necessary for construction. We support the BIA’s fiscal year 2014 increase of $1.5 million 

for rights, protection litigation, and support. 

Our next priority is an increase in funding for Indian Health 

Services. We are asking for $20 million to construct a new, full 

service health clinic and dental facility. There are four tribes in the 

State of Kansas, and all four tribes utilize our clinic, as well as 

other Native Americans in Kansas. Our current tribal clinic was 

built in the late 1980s as a daycare and a Head Start building. I 

also handed your staff some pictures showing the deficiencies of 

that facility. The lack of funding for contract health results in a situation where our tribal members are not seen in the clinic for preventive health, but only for critical care and treatment of illness. 
727

This is destroying the health of our Kickapoo people and those who 

utilize our facility. 

As tribal leaders, ensuring that our children are provided a quality education is another top priority. The Johnson-O’Malley program has been a valuable source for our children by providing 

some of the following educational needs: tutoring services, school 

supplies, athletic equipment, and prep courses, just to name a few. 

These expenses continue to be a hardship on our often poverty level 

students and their families. We support the increase in funding for 

the JOM program. 

We also operate a Kickapoo Nation school, a K through 12 institution located on the reservation. We support the increase of 

$537,000 for BIE elementary and secondary schools. Many of our 

tribal members attend the region’s tribal post-secondary institution, Haskell University, Southwestern Indian Polytech Institute, 

also known as SIPI. In the recent years, cost of tuition, books, and 

other school expenses has increased dramatically. We support the 

proposed increase of $6.2 million for BIE post-secondary schools. 

Finally, I would like to talk about the sequestration and how it 

has had an effect on us. The sequestration has had a significant 

impact on Indian Country and our tribe. These cuts create a burden on tribal governments as we are searching for ways to stretch 

dollars between equally critical tribal programs. Currently, these 

cuts have reduced healthcare funding and higher education monies, 

money to effectively operate the Kickapoo Nation School. We have 

also been forced to restrict housing energy assistance, the money 

for vocational assistance, and training programs. Also, funding for 

social services has been cut, and we have already made cuts to our 

Head Start program. The sequestration has delayed prospective 

economic development endeavors indefinitely. The cuts to our community are a major violation of the trust responsibility of the Federal Government, and a breach to the treaty obligations. 

The federal trust obligations have been significantly and historically underfunded. The result of any further cuts would be devastating to the operation of the tribal governments across the country and the communities in which they serve. 

I respectfully request Congress to pass the 2014 fiscal year budget appropriations bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Lester Randall follows:] 
728
729
730
731
732

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, appreciate it. 

Brian.

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES, INC. 

WITNESS

BRIAN PATTERSON 

Mr. PATTERSON [speaking native language]. gets my Oneida 

name, Big Fire. I give greetings to good heart, good mind. Thank 

you, Chairman Simpson. Hopefully the same sun that is shining 

today is shining in the homeland of the great beautiful State of 

Idaho. I would also like to recognize the Honorable Representative 

McCollum, and express my heartfelt gratitude to you for recently 

taking time out of your schedule to sit with our USET children 

during a close up visit and provide your thoughts, leadership, and 

your demonstrative commitment of concern in well-being for the 

children of the United South and Eastern Tribes family. 

I am the President of the United South and Eastern Tribes, 

USET. We are a family of 26 federally recognized tribes from Texas 

to Florida up to Maine. While we hold a wide geographic area, we 

have a wide platform on economic and social issues. We have tribes 

with highly developed economies, as well as tribal family within 

our family with little or no economic development. However, we remain united in our mission in advancement of the fulfillment of the 

sacred trust responsibility. So I am very much appreciative and an 

acknowledgment of gratitude for you taking your time assembling 

this full scope of leadership in these 2 days of hearings. As our 

teachings tell us, those who touch our people’s lives to be an expression of gratitude is given, so I acknowledge that. Thank you for 

assisting us in our quality of life, and the honor you have bestowed 

upon me, allowing me to testify on behalf of the leadership of our 

USET tribes. 

My main point today is that any discussion regarding the funding of federal Indian programs should be framed in two principles: 

first, the fulfillment of the sacred trust responsibility, and second, 

by American values. Values, as defined by our founding fathers, as 

written into the United States Constitution, and also values that 

were recently recognized as recent as the 100th Congress when 

they recognized the historical debt that my confederacy gave to this 

country in the demonstration of enlightened Democratic principles 

of government in that declaration. So we acknowledge that as an 

American value, a value of patrimony for this great country. 

With regards to the trust responsibility in as recent as 1977, the 

American Indian Policy Review Commission stated, and this official 

commission demonstrated how far the trust responsibility is supposed to reach. The purpose behind it, and I quote in part, ‘‘the 

purpose behind the trust is, and always has been, to ensure the 

survival and welfare of Indian tribes and its people. This includes 

an obligation to provide those services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and self government, and also includes those economic and social programs that are necessary to 
733

raise the standard of living and social well-being of the Indian people to a level comparable to the non-Indian society.’’ 

With regards to American values, the federal budget should reflect the best of these values. For example, under sequestration, 

the Veterans Administration hospital system is exempt from budget cuts. That effect demonstrates a great American value, fulfilling 

the commitment, the honor, and obligations to those who put their 

lives on the line to defend American freedom. We are glad that our 

Indian people are also into these American values. We have suffered the highest fatality rate per capita and highest engagement 

level than any other people’s per capita. However, I would also 

point out it is not an American value that the Indian Health Service is not exempted, putting the life, health, and well-being of generations of native people at risk in a system that already strains 

to deliver basic healthcare. Similarly, the sequestration exempted 

many low income programs such as family support programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, demonstrating the great 

American value that we will leave nobody behind when it comes to 

the basic needs. We applaud this effort, and in fairness and direct 

correlation, but it does not stop there. Indian Country should be 

held harmless across the board in exchange for our land, our water. 

The sacred promise was made and codified in treaties and other sacred obligations. This country has given its word to Indian Country.

But yet, sequestration applies fully to virtually all federal Indian 

programs, even though many native communities suffer the worst 

in social economic statistics in the country, largely due to federal 

action and policies in place over the past 200 years. The application 

of sequestration to native programs is not an American value. 

Viewed from the framework of the trust responsibility and American values, USET submits the funding for federal Indian programs 

is not discretionary, but rather, mandatory, a sacred obligation. 

Federal Indian programs should be consistently funded at a rate 

that exceeds the rate of inflation in order to achieve real progress 

in closing the service gap for native people. Shockingly, by example, the BIA budget has declined as a percentage of the total federal budget by 1/3 since 1995. Additionally, the BIA has received 

the smallest percentage increases since fiscal year 2004, among the 

six largest agencies within the Interior. It seems that Indian people 

find ourselves in a system that represents unfairness as we have 

to compete and it often presents a conflict when it comes to people 

versus funding type of platform. So USET respectfully ask that this 

subcommittee support funding increases for federal Indian programs.

In the 111th Congress, we are very much appreciative of the effort of this subcommittee in your advancement of a clean Carcieri 

fix. USET asks that you renew this commitment, this effort for fair 

and equal treatment of all tribal nations, and in addition, support 

the PATCH Act patch, which would reverse the Supreme Court’s 

decision that provides that even up to 6 years after land has been 

taken in the trust, a suit can be brought challenging that decision. 

We appreciate the leadership. We are very grateful, and we ask 

that you renew that effort to pass a clean Carcieri fix, for both of 
734

those holdings are severely hampering the social and economic development in Indian Country. 

Beyond your role as subcommittee members, I would like to 

broach tax rights and parity, as it can assist in the self-determination of Indian people. With the stress on the federal budget, tribal 

tax rates become even more important, both for economic reasons 

of self-sufficiency and a matter of sovereignty. USET is working on 

a proposed tax legislation that will address a number of inequities 

in the tax system, including the lack of parity for tribal governments. We ask this subcommittee to be supportive in our efforts as 

we work on addressing the larger budget picture for all of Indian 

Country. It seems that these issues, along with Carcieri and 

PATCH Act serve as disincentives for our ability to advance our 

agenda.

The USET family, we recognize the challenging times for our 

country. The historic record demonstrates that nobody has sacrificed more for America than Indian Country; therefore, we ask 

this subcommittee create a budget based on American values that 

reflect a trust responsibility and fair dealing for Indian tribes. 

I am very grateful to sit with you today. Thank you. 

[The statement of Brian Patterson follows:] 
735
736
737
738
739

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Betty.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well Brian, I think you summed it up well. Sequestration did not reflect American values, and I know the chairman and many of us are working on that. 

Thank you all for your testimony and for your understanding 

when I stepped out for the few minutes I did to attend another 

hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you all for being here today. I think it is 

the first time we have heard testimony on these Indian hearings 

about the need for fuel reductions. It is a concern we have also 

with the budget, believe me, and tomorrow we will be talking to 

some agencies about that. 

So anyway, I appreciate all of your testimony very much. Thank 

you. Hearing will be adjourned. We will be back at 1:00 p.m. 
740

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Committee will come to order. 

Good afternoon and welcome to the fourth and final public witness hearing over yesterday and today specifically for American Indians and Alaska Native programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. I especially 

want to welcome the distinguished tribal elders and leaders testifying today and in the audience. You deserve to be heard from 

more than the 5 minutes that we have allotted today, and I want 

you to know that you have an open invitation to call on me or my 

staff directly so that we can schedule more outside time if necessary.

Despite a somewhat abbreviated hearing schedule this year, I am 

proud this subcommittee is able to hold hearings on these very important programs. They have been and will continue to be a bipartisan funding priority of this subcommittee. 

The chair will call each panel of witnesses to the table one panel 

at a time. Each witness will be provided with 5 minutes to present 

their testimony. We will be using the timer to track the progress 

of each witness. When the button turns yellow, the witnesses will 

have 1 minute remaining to conclude his or her remarks. When you 

see the blinking red light, I am going to have to ask you to stop 

or about in that neighborhood. This is not out of disrespect or anything but out of respect for more for your time and for ours as this 

is a busy day on Capitol Hill, and no doubt everyone testifying 

today has a schedule to keep, including members of the committee. 

Members will be provided an opportunity to ask questions of our 

witnesses. In the interest of time, the chair requests that we keep 

things moving in order to stay on schedule. We will also have votes 

they tell me now between 1:00 and 1:30 or whatever, so we would 

like to get the testimony of the first panel and before we have to 

run off for a few minutes to cast votes. 

Our first panel is from Oklahoma. Do you want to introduce the 

first panel since they are from your state? 

Mr. COLE. Bill John Baker, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; Chief Thomas Gamble, the Miami Tribe; and Lieutenant Governor Amber Bighorse-Suitor of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. All from the great State of Oklahoma. Bill is first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

CHEROKEE NATION 

WITNESS

BILL JOHN BAKER 

Mr. BAKER [speaking native language]. Chairman Simpson, Mr. 

Cole, Ms. McCollum, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Bill John 

Baker. I am principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee 

Nation is proud of what we have accomplished under self-governance. We are proud partners with the Department of Interior and 
741

we are pleased the Department and this Administration continues 

to support tribally owned businesses. 

However, we continue to be disappointed that the Government 

does not meet its obligations. It does not treat sovereign tribal nations the way it treats other federal partners. The United States 

has a legal obligation and trust responsibility to 566 tribes. This 

responsibility was established by treaties and agreements where 

sovereign tribal governments agreed to cede the land in exchange 

for federal commitments. If the government would meet its responsibility or even come close, we could provide even more efficient 

levels of healthcare, education, and housing. 

Policies of self-determination have worked well for our nation. 

Just recently, the Nation and the Cherokee Nation businesses announced that the next $100 million of our business profits will go 

toward expanding our healthcare system. The Nation supports 1.2 

million patient visits annually. As a comparison, it is slightly more 

than John Hopkins community physicians. 

We are going to build health clinics and a hospital creating jobs 

in our communities while shortening lines and ultimately providing 

better healthcare for our people, people like Debbie, a Cherokee citizen who lives in the Vinita, Oklahoma, who recently was diagnosed with diabetes. She worried about affording treatment for 

such an expensive disease, but because of our new clinic, she is 

able to receive care in her hometown. If our budgets had not been 

reduced because of failure to fully comply with contract support 

costs or projected losses due to sequestration, we could do even 

more.

This is not trust issue; it is a civil rights issue. Indian tribes are 

the only federal partner forced to pay these costs up front. When 

the Federal Government does not fully pay contract support costs 

to tribal partners, it means we have to reduce services we provide 

to our people. 

I am thankful that IHS received an increase in the President’s 

budget. However, I am frustrated that the same budget also proposes a cap on IHS and BIA contract support cost payments. The 

Federal Government is not treating us like other federal partners 

and is failing to meet its trust responsibility and fully fund programs like IHS. 

This is only a backdrop to the current cuts due to sequestration. 

The Congressional Research Service states that certain tribal and 

Indian trust accounts—all prior legal obligations of the Federal 

Government—and Indian Health Service and facilities should be 

exempt from sequestration cuts. 

Why was Indian Health Service not protected when Social Security, Medicaid, and numerous other programs were exempt from sequestration cuts? The Cherokee Nation spends a federal dollar better than any federal agency ever could. The Nation audits are 

clean; our treasurer operates our finance department with a standard of excellence in efficiency and effectiveness that should be rewarded. Instead, the Cherokee Nation is forced to cover the shortfalls caused by Congress forcing us to reduce direct services, quality care, and funding for our healthcare programs. 

The Cherokee Nation has been successful in providing for our 

citizens, but there is so much more we can and will do if the Fed-
742

eral Government will honor its legal duty to sovereign tribal governments. We asked the Federal Government to fully fund IHS 

support costs, support our schools, assist with safe and affordable 

housing, and start treating Cherokee Nation the way it treats other 

federal partners. 

Furthermore, I urge this committee to strongly oppose efforts to 

impose a cap on contract support cost. Neither I nor other tribal 

leaders should have to stand before this committee reminding the 

United States of its obligations. These are outlined in agreements, 

treaty after treaty and law after law. I urge you to fulfill the trust 

obligation owed to the Cherokee Nation and to every other tribe in 

Indian Country. [Speaking native language.] 

[The statement of Bill John Baker follows:] 
743
744
745

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Gamble. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013 

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

WITNESS

THOMAS E. GAMBLE 

Mr. GAMBLE. Thank you. I would like to address the panel here, 

Chairman Simpson, Mr. Cole, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Pingree. Okay. 

We are the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and we are located in the 

very northeast part of the state. We share Ottawa County with 

nine other tribes, which are in some ways helpful, in other ways 

competitive in nature. Our population bases in areas are quite low. 

So what we have tried to do overtime is to economically develop to 

work with the shortfalls that we have been experiencing over the 

last decade in IHS budgets and in BIA budgets and HUD budgets 

and all the other ones where we depend on for a lot of our growth 

over the years. 

Economic development in this part of the country is somewhat 

harder to do than maybe in most areas. One reason is due to population and the other one is that Ottawa County is home to the largest Superfund site in the United States, so that inhibits growth of 

our people that would talk to us for businesses. It is just not an 

attractive area. So we still very much rely on the federal budgets 

for environment, for healthcare, for nutrition, for many of the services that do what we call essential government services. Essential 

government services is what we owe the membership of the Miami 

Tribe.

So that is why we are here today. We are here today to say it 

takes time. It takes a lot of time to become self-sufficient and support 4,200 tribal members with our main goal being the education 

of our youth where we have established a number of scholarships 

and number of relations so that they get the opportunity to get secondary education. Hopefully, by that time our economic development goals will be met and then the graduating kids can come back 

and maybe work for the tribe. 

And that is our goal to work this way is to build a community 

that has been left in history with the relocation of the Miamis in 

the early 1800s to Kansas. And then our short history in Kansas 

was 40 years and a lot of pressure came into Kansas due to the 

Civil War. And again, we were relocated in the 1890s to Ottawa 

County, and that was going to be our last move, and I pretty sure 

that that is going to be the last place that we are. 

You know, I would like to strongly ask, you know, that tribal programs throughout the states be exempt from sequestration and 

that we get to the 2014 budget so that we can have a good look 

at what tasks are ahead of us. And we will continue our goals of 

economic development and self-determination and self-independence through economic development. We just do not know how long 

it is going to take. 
746

Some of the essential government services are safety. We have 

a number of programs in Alcohol Abuse Awareness, Indian Child 

Welfare, and now, the Violence against Women. We are underfunded to do this. Even though we fully fund our tribal courts, our 

police protection, and law enforcement, they are in adequate in 

ways. Also, in the environmental department or the environmental 

outlook with Superfund site and the contamination of lead, cadmium, and zinc, we would like to continue our efforts to protect our 

homelands and people that live on them from having to ingest lead 

or cadmium. And I think Congressman Cole is very familiar with 

that area. They are working hard but it is still a long way away. 

The ability for nutrition is one that we would like to and we will 

provide 500 to 550 meals a day and 120 meals would be just the 

shut-ins. Some of their best nutrition comes through that program, 

and so it would hurt us hard if we had to come up with that kind 

of money. 

So I see stop. Am I stopping? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, you have got a little bit of time. We have a 

little leeway. 

Mr. GAMBLE. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. SIMPSON. A little. 

Mr. GAMBLE. But the main thing is here, as Principal Chief 

Baker said, is, you know, diabetes is running rampant within Indian Country and these federal monies and the nutrition programs 

are designed that these diets are not of that nature. We are starting to see a lot of diabetes development in children, type II diabetes 

in children under the age of 14. So that is a lot of help that they 

need because if it is a poor diet that causes a short life or an unproductive life. 

[The statement of Thomas E. Gamble follows:] 
747
748
749
750
751

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Lieutenant Governor Suitor. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES 

WITNESS

AMBER BIGHORSE-SUITOR 

Ms. BIGHORSE-SUITOR. Good afternoon. My name is Amber 

Bighorse, and I am the Lieutenant Governor of the Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes in Oklahoma. As you will see from my testimony, 

the tribes utilize federal appropriations to provide central government services that reach most if not all of our tribal members, the 

majority of whom are impacted in some significant way in terms 

of health, safety, and welfare. 

The services that we are able to provide through federal funding 

are a direct expression of the treaty and trust relationship between 

the tribes and the United States. Forced spending cuts arising from 

the 2013 sequestration undermine the U.S.’s trust, treaty, and statutory obligations to Indian tribes. What we are facing and what we 

are most impacted by are cuts to Indian Health Services and the 

BIA. Cuts to these departments affect our tribes, tribal members, 

and Indian communities in very significant ways because we offer 

programs that are made possible through that funding. 

The programs that our tribes offer include Emergency Medical 

Services, Community Health Representative Program, which is a 

program that provides homemaker services, health education, and 

case management advocacy for tribal members’ healthcare. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of our Community 

Health Representative Program. For instance, this program helps 

people who have diseases make it to their appointments. It helps 

with transportation. That is a very basic thing but that a lot of people cannot afford, a lot of our tribal members. 

There is a lot of poverty in Indian Country and we cover nine 

counties. We have people that live in rural Oklahoma that have to 

get to central Oklahoma, which is where the medication and the 

treatment is, and they simply do not have a way to get there and 

that is something that we provide, just home to chemotherapy, 

home to dialysis. That is something that is very important that we 

need to be able to continue that many of our tribal members are 

on the edge of requiring hospitalization, but with a little bit of assistance, they are able to stay at home, and that reduces 

healthcare costs. 

We have a Diabetes Wellness Program. It provides service to 10 

counties. It provides education necessary to prevent, treat, and live 

with diabetes. We also have a Health Education Service Program. 

It educates on causes of diseases such as diabetes, diseases that 

are epidemics in Indian Country—obesity; heart, kidney, and liver 

disease; alcoholism. We provide services to at-risk students who are 

facing crucial life issues like adolescent drinking, sexual relations, 

and suicide, and these are very, very important subjects. We provide medical equipment and supplies to diabetics. 
752

All health professionals agree that prevention is the key to lowering healthcare costs, and that is why these programs are very 

important to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes. We have our Diabetes Wellness, Health Education, and our Community Health Representative Programs. They provide those preventative services. 

We also have Indian Child Welfare Program and Child Protective 

Services. They investigate alleged child abuse, provide protection 

services, find foster placement and adoption services. And our 

Elder Care Program, which is very important to the Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes. As everyone knows, the elderly are vulnerable. 

Many have fixed incomes. They are unemployed and they cannot 

seek employment because of age or health status. And so there is 

health issues that need to be addressed, including one of the things 

our Elder Care Program does is help prevent evictions. They provide rent, shelter, utilities, money for medication, things like that 

so that our elders can live without pain and without suffering in 

their later years. And those are the services that we provide. 

The other services that we provide through our 638 contracts 

with our grants and contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

are educational. We have a Head Start Program, vocational rehabilitation, which helps disabled people receive training and job 

placement, transportation to and from jobs. We have a Housing Improvement Program that provides funds to build and renovate 

homes so that people will have decent, safe, and sanitary living. 

We provide shelter for homeless and other people that have no 

other immediate source of housing assistance. We also have General Education Assistance so that people can receive GED assistance and assistance with education. 

I would just like to thank you, Chairman, members of the committee for listening. The subject of cutting off services to Indian 

Country, in our minds, it is repugnant, because the community is 

already underserved. And we know that the repercussions of these 

budget cuts will long outlive the call for sequestration, and so we 

think and it is true that Indian Health Services and BIA, they 

should be exempt. I think everybody feels that way that is here 

today.

And as I said, the U.S. Government has that trust responsibility 

to Indian communities. We have tribal members that squeaked by 

with ambulatory services that we offer medications, just these very 

basic services. But these are people that are affected. They are children, our elders, our disabled, our needy. They are affected. And 

we would just like for you to keep those people in mind as you are 

proceeding with these budget hearings. 

[The statement of Amber Bighorse-Suitor follows:] 
753
754
755
756
757

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. BIGHORSE-SUITOR. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Tom. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of comments and 

then I have got a question or two. 

In Oklahoma all three of these are wonderful tribes, but they are 

also our partners and they have independent businesses, they are 

big employers, they are a lot of things. So I think sometimes the 

dimension of that gets lost, particularly Chief Baker’s tribe is the 

second-largest tribes in the United States. Could you quickly, just 

so the Committee would know, tell them about the size of the population, your annual budget, the number of people you employ, and 

a little bit about some of the partnerships that you have with counties and state governments where, frankly, you bring resources and 

expertise to your neighbors? 

Mr. BAKER. Always a great opportunity to talk about the Cherokee Nation. You know, we have 328,000 members, 120,000 of 

them are right there in our 14 counties, another 40, almost 50,000 

are in the rest of Oklahoma. The rest are scattered around districts 

all over the United States. We have got a lot in California, we have 

got a lot in Texas, and in every state in the Nation, we have Cherokee citizens. We had a budget, an economic impact last year of 

$1.2 billion. God has been good to us and we have taken, you know, 

5 percent of our casino profits and put it into supplementing contract health costs because it is so underfunded by Congress, but it 

is so important to the saving of lives of our people that we are putting our money where our mouth is. 

Like I said, we are going to take $100 million and put into building clinics. We cannot afford to wait for the Federal Government 

for a partnership to build this because we can do so much better. 

And so we are willing to do our part to make it better. 

You know, we directly employ 9,000 people in northeastern Oklahoma. No pun intended, we are the largest economic engine in 

northeastern Oklahoma. We indirectly employ about 13,000 people. 

The University of Oklahoma City did an independent survey. We 

are the fourth-largest employer in Tulsa even though we have no 

jobs in Tulsa because of the things we buy, the services that we 

give. The reach of the Cherokee Nation into Tulsa makes us the 

fourth and maybe the third now. I think third was American Airlines, so maybe we are third now. 

Mr. COLE. Probably catching up fast. 

Mr. BAKER. So, you know, and we had, like I say, 1.2 million 

healthcare visits last year that the state knows that if we did not 

do it, if we said, hey, we are out of the healthcare business, that 

the State of Oklahoma could not absorb the number of healthcare 

that we take care of each and every year. And, you know, we have 

got the doctors. You know, we are building a 100-bed hospital out 

of our money because the hospital we have is a 28-bed hospital that 

was built in the ’70s for 30,000 patient visits, and we had 300,000 

patient visits last year. 

Mr. COLE. Just the scope is just pretty amazing, the impact in 

Oklahoma. So these are again three of our very best tribes. 
758

Mr. BAKER. And so we need your help. You know, we are not 

asking for a handout, but those contract support costs are desperately needed. 

Mr. COLE. You will be happy to know under Chairman Simpson’s 

leadership and Chairman Moran before him, we have done a lot, 

and this committee is extremely sympathetic and shares your point 

of view pretty much across the board on those things. So everybody 

here will do everything they can on both sides of the aisle to be 

helpful because we recognize those are obligations and we intend 

to do everything we can to make sure they are fulfilled and kept. 

Mr. BAKER. Bless you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We just need some help on the other side of the 

Rotunda.

Mr. COLE. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is not the other side of the aisle here; it is the 

other side of the Rotunda. 

Mr. COLE. It is true. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree, do you have—— 

Ms. PINGREE. Yes, thank you. It is very good to hear from you 

all. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We thank you for being here today and for your 

testimony, and we will obviously take it under consideration when 

we try to fashion a budget this year, but as Tom said, Indian 

Health Services, we are starting to look more at Indian education 

and some of the other things that have been left on the drawing 

board or whatever that they are going to need some help. And we 

will do all we can. So it is appreciated. Thank you. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you all. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let’s call up our final panel of the day, Kirk 

Francis, William Harris, Byron Nelson—was he not a golfer? Rosemary Morillo and Colley Billie. Which one is Byron Nelson? Now, 

did you not win a lot of tournaments? 

We are probably not going to make it all the way through the 

panel before we get called over for a couple votes, but we can come 

back and do it as soon as we—it means you will probably have to 

wait around for us for a few minutes while we could do that though 

if you do not mind. 

Ms. Pingree, did you want to introduce—the first tribe is from 

Maine, right? 

Ms. PINGREE. It is. And as all of my colleagues here know, I am 

very new on this committee and learning a lot and I appreciate the 

testimony of everyone who is come before us, but I am particularly 

happy to have Chief Francis from the Penobscot Nation coming 

here to talk to us about Maine, and I know he has got plenty of 

things to say, so I will not speak for him, but I will say I think 

that Maine may continue to be the only state in the Nation where 

our legislature has tribal representatives who sit in the legislature. 

They are elected—oh, no? 

Mr. FRANCIS. Oh, you mean as the tribes? 

Ms. PINGREE. Members of the tribes. So the Penobscot Nation, 

the Passamaquoddy and the third one, Maliseet. So when I served 

in the legislature 20 years ago, they are literally members of our 
759

legislature kind of like the territorial reps here. They do not have 

all the voting powers. They are elected by their own tribes, and it 

was a great learning experience for me 20 years ago to serve along 

to members of the tribe in my time there. So they have been great 

citizens of our state and work very hard and I am honored to have 

someone from my home territory to represent us here today. Thank 

you. Thank you for giving me that chance. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. Thanks. 

Chief Francis, you are first. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

PENOBSCOT INDIAN NATION 

WITNESS

KIRK FRANCIS 

Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Mr. 

Cole, Ms. McCollum, and of course our great Congresswoman 

Chellie Pingree. I appreciate that introduction. 

And as mentioned, my name is Kirk Francis. I am the chief of 

the Penobscot Indian Nation in the great State of Maine and I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. 

First, I know we are at the tail end of a long couple of days, so 

I sure I will echo a lot of the concerns you have already heard. And 

I would like to start by talking about the increased funding for Indian healthcare. 

You know, as a government, our most basic and most immediate 

responsibility is the healthcare of our people. And sadly, at Penobscot Nation, we are far behind where we need to be. Penobscot Nation, along with other Wabanaki Tribes in Maine, conducted a 

health assessment survey in 2010, the largest such survey east of 

the Mississippi on Indian people. And it showed a lot of things in 

terms of health disparities, but also high rates of diabetes, blood 

pressure, heart disease, asthma, extremely high compared to the 

general population. 

Penobscot Nation’s health clinic serves about 3,400 tribal patients. However, it is only funded at about 1,400 of those patients, 

60 percent below our needs. 

As I point to the poster there, you will see a young gentleman 

and some other tribal folks that we have been extremely proud to 

be able to service through extensive preventative care programs. 

Prenatal care we put a tremendous amount of focus in. Moms are 

usually faced with a tremendous amount of problems from a disparity level in terms of gestational diabetes and high infant mortality rates, so this is an extremely important part of what we do. 

And I am afraid sequestration will eliminate the progress that we 

have made in these areas of elder care and all of those vital 

healthcare programs that we are running in terms of preventative 

care have set us back a little bit. And as a result, you know, the 

little guy you see there and many others will have very little 

chance of receiving full healthcare treatment throughout fiscal 

years.
760

But because we are funded at only 40 percent of needs, we are 

forced to make those tough decisions, often at about the halfway 

point of each fiscal year. You know, Penobscot Nation supports the 

President’s proposed increase for IHS in fiscal year 2014, but we 

ask that you support the Indian Country budget, which requests a 

$500 million increase. 

Beyond our most immediate need of improved healthcare—and 

all these things really tie together as root causes—as chief, one of 

my top priorities really has been improving our economies within 

our tribal communities. Creating a self-sustaining economy at Penobscot Nation and throughout Indian Country is critical to the 

survival of tribes but also to reach in full self-determination. 

You know, when our administration took office in 2007, our community suffered at a 46 percent unemployment rate. Thanks to our 

focus on economic development, we have been able to cut that rate 

to 16 percent today. 

So I point to the poster again, and you will see that we are very 

proud of our citizens’ commitment now to high school graduation. 

Those rates are at the highest levels we have ever seen, and greater interest among our people to get post-high school education and 

focus on long-term career opportunities. Our challenge as tribal 

leaders now is keeping up with those demands and creating those 

opportunities.

But despite our best efforts, you know, 16 percent unemployment 

is still extremely high, and today, I ask for your help in addressing 

two barriers to economic development: one, the lack of trained and 

educated workforce; and two, the lack of access to capital and financing for reservation projects. Our tribal government and our 

economy need a well-trained, well-educated workforce to run our 

very complex tribal governments and businesses that exist within 

our reservations. 

To achieve this goal, my first request is that you would consider 

restoring the BIA scholarship funding to the fiscal year 2010 levels 

of $34.5 million to address the gap in American Indian higher education. This cycle of poverty is a significant barrier for Indian people and it is no different at Penobscot. Unlike some communities, 

kids cannot simply rely on their families to be able to meet this 

burden. So as a result, many of our students turn to the BIA Scholarship Program to help fund their post-high school education. Unfortunately, that program has been consistently cut in recent years, 

and I hope you can consider looking at that to restore some of that 

funding.

In addition to education, we must be better at training and getting our people better equipped for their careers and their future. 

Penobscot participates in the Administration for Native Americans’ 

Workforce Development Initiative for job training. Penobscot was 

able to use BIA’s Job Placement Training Program and funds to 

meet ANA’s matching requirements. So these two programs mesh 

quite well together. The construction initiative in its initial 

stages—and as we sit here, it is underway—has helped more than 

40 tribal members in these first few months gain vital job skills 

and placement. So my second request is that the Subcommittee increase funding for BIA’s Job Placement Training Program. 
761

Finally, I want to discuss the need to access capital and grow our 

communities. The Treasury Department has reported that there 

was a $44 billion gap in investment to Indian Country. These are 

untapped jobs waiting for financing. Banks and financial institutions simply want to invest in reservation economies without incentives. The BIA’s Economic Development Program has done great 

work in trying to overcome some of these barriers. Within this shot, 

the Indian Loan Guarantee Program has proven to be a great resource to access investment capital. The BIA loan guarantees financing of $13 to every $1 appropriated. Nearly all projects created 

jobs in areas of high unemployment, and unfortunately, the fiscal 

year 2014 budget calls for a $2.1 million decrease. 

So my final request to this subcommittee is to reject the President’s proposed cuts for economic development and the BIA Loan 

Guarantee Program. Instead, I hope these programs could at least 

be restored to the fiscal year 2011 levels. 

All of Indian Country thanks this committee for your work in 

shielding health, education, and public safety from the most severe 

cuts we are facing. But as the United States continues to rise out 

of this recession, it is critically important that Indian Country is 

not left behind in this economy. 

So today, that concludes my testimony, and on behalf of the Penobscot Nation, I extremely proud to be here and appreciate all of 

your time. Thanks. 

[The statement of Kirk Francis follows:] 
762
763
764
765
766

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you for your testimony. And we have got 

that boat going on now that I mentioned. We have got two votes, 

one as soon as we get there and then one right after that. So we 

probably ought to go do the vote and come back and we will finish 

this panel as soon as we get back. So if you can hang out, we would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. MORAN. For what it is worth, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 

to mention that Ms. Pingree has lobbied me pretty heavily on behalf of the Penobscot Nation. So it is very nice to see you. We have 

been anticipating this. 

It is good to see you, sir. 

Mr. HARRIS. It is very nice to see you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. We will stand in recess. We will be back in 

a few minutes. 

[Recess.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Back in order. 

Next, we have Chief Harris. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION 

WITNESS

WILLIAM HARRIS 

Mr. HARRIS. You knew who I was. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Surprise. I have got them right here. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, the fact that you looked my way startled me. 

On behalf of the Catawba Nation, thank you for this opportunity 

to testify before this subcommittee. My name is William Harris. I 

am the chief of the Catawba Nation. 

Since time immemorial, the Catawba have lived in the Piedmont 

along and upon the Catawba River specifically. In ancient times, 

the Catawba lived off the land and the river hunting, fishing, and 

farming. However, these pursuits of the past are not sufficient to 

enable the tribes to survive economically today. I am here today to 

urge this committee to invest federal dollars in programs that support economic development for smaller tribes that have limited resources but, like the Catawba, are committed to achieving economic 

self-sufficiency.

Our settlement agreements specifically refer to the policy of the 

United States to promote tribal self-determination and economic 

self-sufficiency, and it is about fulfilling this promise of support for 

economic self-sufficiency that I appear before you today. 

In the 2000 census, the Catawba Nation had a per capita income 

of just $11,096. The estimated current unemployment rate among 

the Catawba is more than double that of the State of South Carolina, which itself has employment in double digits. 

The Catawba Nation is one of a handful of federally recognized 

tribes that do not enjoy the range of sovereign powers possessed by 

the majority of federally recognized nations. Under the terms of our 

settlement agreement, we possess what I would term second-class 

tribal sovereignty. In our case, the state government has enormous 

civil and criminal jurisdiction on our lands far in excess that com-
767

monly accorded to states of other nations. This state jurisdiction 

has ended up greatly limiting our ability to develop our economy. 

For example, we are not authorized to establish gaming operations 

pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Instead, we are 

limited to bingo halls, neither of which are in present operation 

due to the fact that the state has adopted the lottery. 

We are also allowed certain electronic play devices on our reservation if the state authorizes them. Since the state authorizes casino cruise ships, we believe that we should have the same similar 

games on our reservation. However, the state is in opposition. Betraying is part of the bargain when we settled our land disputes. 

Now, at great cost, we are seeking to vindicate our rights in the 

South Carolina courts. 

The Catawba Nation has found the Energy and Mineral Development Program of the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development at the BIA to be especially helpful. We have used it to fund 

a feasibility study for a 1 MW photovoltaic system, which has a 

particular analysis, testing and surveys related to energy efficiency 

and renewable energy for four administrative buildings on our reservation.

These are other areas where the tribe needs funding support. In 

addition to energy development, the Catawbas are looking to establish a convenience store that will allow tribal members quick access 

to groceries and supplies without the undue burden of traveling 15 

miles round-trip on country roads to Rock Hill. 

It is programs like these that enable smaller tribes like the Catawbas who have limited or no economic development to take control of their future and have a hope that the next generation of Catawba will know a more prosperous life in this generation. 

The Catawba Nation is a member of the United South and Eastern Tribes, which in itself represents 26 federally recognized tribes 

in the south and the east. I have included in my written testimony 

USET priorities. These include the Carcieri fix. The Catawbas do 

not have a Carcieri problem but we urge the Subcommittee to take 

up the cause of overturning the wrongful opinion of the Supreme 

Court in this area. I urge the Subcommittee to support this and 

similar programs of use to smaller, less economically developed 

tribes.

And I thank you for this opportunity. 

[The statement of William Harris follows:] 
768
769
770
771
772

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman Nelson. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE 

WITNESS

BYRON NELSON 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the 

subcommittee, for this opportunity. 

As a vice chairman, I was kind of pushed into the lurch here that 

the chairman came down the Hill and then I had to come in. So 

please bear with me. 

As kind of a side note, my grandfather changed his name in 1903 

from Picktaw to Nelson, so I have no connection with the golfer. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thought you were famous there for a minute. 

Mr. NELSON. To kind of give you an idea of my tribe, it is located 

in northwestern California, in a deep, 7 mile-long-by-4-mile-wide 

valley with the Trinity River running through it. The immediate 

surrounding mountains reach 2 to 4,000 feet above the valley. The 

reservation boundaries, which contains the Hoopa homeland, were 

set by a peace and friendship treaty in 1864 after a 5-year battle 

with the U.S. Government and U.S. military. We have 3,000 members today and the reservation is 12-by-12 miles square. It is the 

largest reservation in California. 

You will hear some numbers here that I am about to give you, 

but as far as dollars, this will give you an idea on our financial 

needs. I will first start out with the ambulance service that we 

have for our K’ima Medical Center. K’ima means good medicine in 

Hoopa. The ANA responds to nearly 1,000 calls a year and provides 

a vital link to residents to our medical center and the next-closest 

hospital nearly 80 miles away. Third-party insurance and IHS reimbursements and do not cover the cost of this program. This lifeline has a budget shortfall of $470,516. 

I will move on now to the Wildlife Suppression. Wildlife Suppression is vital in Hoopa Valley as our community is surrounded by 

thick forests and steep terrain. The BIA funds our program via an 

escrow account, which is a logistic and bureaucratic bottleneck. 

BIA funds a program at $175,000 a year but then only reimburses 

the actual cost years down the road. Congress should instead allocate to the tribe directly and use the same 10-year average suppression costs. These monies are already appropriated to federal 

agencies. They do not trickle down to the tribe in time to allow it 

to undertake adequate suppression activities. The tribe requests 

$561,689 in allocation to it directly, which is the 10-year average 

cost of suppression. 

Next comes the improved waste treatment and water supply. 

Wastewater treatment is an urgent problem on the reservation. All 

homes and businesses are served by septic systems, but this has 

contaminated the water supply. The tribe is out of compliance with 

EPA standards on wastewater treatment and needs to resolve the 

problem valley-wide. Replacing septic systems is wasteful as they 
773

are inadequate even when uncompromised and will require too 

much maintenance. Hoopa Valley has a planned wastewater treatment system to be completed in three phases for a total need of 

$26,938,980. We urge the committees to fund this important project 

for the tribe. 

Next comes internet connection, providing internet connection for 

the valley residents. It is important that residents of the Hoopa 

Valley and nearby communities have access to the internet for educational, economic development, and healthcare purposes. We plan 

to construct a fiber-optic network connection at the cost of $15 million that will connect our valley to an existing fiber optic line. We 

respectfully request the committees fund this project to enable the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe to grow its economy. 

Securing the tribe’s energy needs, the tribe relies on nonrenewable and fossil fuel sources which are provided by outside entities 

and are costly. A tribal priority is to become energy independent 

using renewable energy sources, including solar power and micro 

hydroelectric generation. Our budget for this proposed energy development is $25 million, which we request for equipment purchase 

and installation, engineering, and startup costs. 

Fully fund contract support costs. The tribe has compacts with 

IHS and BIA to run programs and shortfalls in contract support 

cost is a perennial problem. We echo the calls of others to reject 

the Administration’s proposal to limit contractor’s contract support 

costs contract-by-contract. This is a penalty for engaging in self-determination. Instead, we urge Congress to fully fund contract support costs for IHS at $670 million and the BIA at $242 million. 

Hoopa Valley commends the Congress for passing the Tribal Law 

and Order Act, which we aim to use to assume concurrent criminal 

jurisdiction. There is little funding for hiring officers or staff for 

this, however. We have a good working relationship with our state 

and local law enforcement agencies, but our tribe’s officers rely on 

tribal resources alone. The tribe currently needs $1.5 million for 

operations and salaries of our law enforcement officers, which we 

request in order to meet promises of the Tribal Law and Order Act. 

I thank you for this opportunity today. 

[The statement of Byron Nelson follows:] 
774
775
776
777
778

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Morillo. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS 

WITNESS

ROSEMARY MORILLO 

Ms. MORILLO. Good afternoon, Chairman Simpson. And good 

afternoon, Subcommittee. It is good to see all of you here today, 

and thank you for this opportunity. 

My name is Rosemary Morillo. I am the chairwoman of the 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. I have provided a written testimony for the record. 

Soboba has approximately 1,200 members. Soboba is located in 

Southern California in the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains 

next to the city of San Jacinto. 

I am here today to testify for the need for appropriations to federal programs and Indian Country. I will discuss funding to the following agencies and programs: Department of the Interior for the 

timely processing of Fee-to-Trust applications and to exempt Feeto-Trust consortium employees from furloughs; and Bureau of Education to support Soboba’s Noli Indian School. 

Funding for tribal programs should be protected from sequestration and budget cuts due to the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to tribal nations based on treaties, agreements, and the relinquishment of land by tribes to the Federal Government. Tribal 

programs should not be treated as discretionary. Rather, these programs should be mandatory based on the Federal Government’s 

promises to tribes. 

It is essential that Congress fully fund the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in order for tribes to take 

land into trust. Taking land into trust is one of the most important 

functions the Department undertakes on behalf of what are the 

recognized American Indian/Alaska Native tribes whose homelands 

are central to their people’s health, safety, and economic well-being. 

This important function helps tribes like Soboba regained their aboriginal homelands. 

Soboba currently has an application before the Department of Interior to take the Horseshoe Grande land into trust. Fee-to-Trust 

applications taken an unduly long time to process, costing tribes 

jobs and money. It is important that Congress continue to prioritize 

the timely processing of Fee-to-Trust applications at the Department of Interior. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Fee-to-Trust staff should be exempted 

from furloughs because they are funded by the California Fee-toTrust Consortium member tribes through Memorandums of Understanding. Tribes fund the work of Fee-to-Trust staff through tribal 

priority allocations. In 2010 the consortium was an honoree of the 

Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. 

In California, Bureau of Indian Affairs specific regional staff who 

work on Fee-to-Trust acquisitions are set to face eminent furloughs 
779

due to the sequester. The Pacific Regional Office already has a 

backlog in processing Fee-to-Trust applications. Most tribes in California do not have sufficient land to meet current housing, community, and economic development needs, and a significant number 

are landless. I request your support to make these employees exempt from furlough. 

To support grant programs to continue the operation of the Noli 

School, Soboba runs the Noli Indian School. There are 150 native 

students at Noli representing approximately 27 tribes. Students 

are bused in from local reservations sometimes traveling up to 2 

hours each way. Noli School teaches culture and language. Classes 

currently, Noli is facing a 6 percent federal cut and would lose 

200,000 of its budget. Any further cuts will force the principal to 

fire staff and teachers. 

Congress needs to fully fund the Indian Student Equalization 

Program, which provides the core budget for Bureau of Indian Education elementary and secondary schools by covering salaries for 

teachers, aides, principles, and other personnel. Indian Student 

Equalization Program funds are often reallocated to cover the program cuts in other areas of education. 

I thank you for your time today. 

[The statement of Rosemary Morillo follows:] 
780
781
782
783
784

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Chairman Billie. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS 

WITNESS

COLLEY BILLIE 

Mr. BILLIE. Thank you. My name is Colley Billie and I am the 

chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Thank you 

for providing me the opportunity to testify today. 

With me today are Tribal Elder Wayne Billie, Miccosukee Student Representative Linda Osceola, Tribal Member Priscilla Cyprus Buster, Student Coordinator Melissa Garcia, Tribal Member 

Michael Frank, Tribal Member Houston Cyprus, Water Resources 

Director James Erskine, Fish and Wildlife Director Rory Feeney, 

and my assistant, Melissa Pittman. 

Of the Miccosukee people for hundreds of years and our commitment to its restoration is unwavering because protecting our home 

in our traditional ways of life depends on it. My testimony focuses 

on the following two priorities: One, stopping the massive Skyway 

bridging on the Tamiami Trail adjacent to tribal lands; and two, 

ensuring that EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Army 

Corps of Engineers prioritize improving water quality in the Everglades.

To give you an idea of the Everglades, we are putting up a satellite map. Here are the tribal lands. Can you point them out? 

Thank you. And point out the Everglades National Park. Also 

Tamiami Trail. Point out where the Everglades National Park and 

the Army Corps are constructing the bridges. Also, can you point 

out where Miami and other urban areas are? That is on the East 

Coast. Also, point out to where the areas where the sugar orange 

and cattle farms are. These farms generate high levels of phosphorus and other pollutants. Also, areas designated to be 

stormwater treatment areas to treat the polluted water, but they 

have never been sufficient to clean the water and the Everglades 

and Miccosukee lands. Also, Lake Okeechobee, where water from 

the historic river started before man reengineered it. 

Over 100 years ago the water flowed from Lake Okeechobee to 

Florida Bay. As you can see, we live in the heart of the Everglades. 

Given the enormous cost of Everglades restoration in these tight 

fiscal times, taxpayer dollars should be used wisely and effectively. 

However, we see a disjointed approach on projects resulting in decisions that harm the Miccosukee people. One of these projects is the 

massive Skyway bridging of the Tamiami Trail. The tribe strongly 

opposes this. 

With the near completion of the one-mile bridge at a cost of $81 

million, the National Park Service is now requesting an additional 

$30 million in fiscal year 2014 to begin a new 2.6 mile bridge that 

is estimated to cost at least 110 million. In addition, a further set 

of bridges is authorized for another 2.9 miles that will bring the 

total cost to over $310 million. These Skyway bridges are unneces-
785

sary and a waste of taxpayer dollars. National Park Service claims 

that bridging is needed to improve water flow into Everglades National Park. 

However, the trail already has a set of culverts underneath it 

that will convey water into the park if they were simply cleared 

and maintained as intended. Adding swales and culverts where 

necessary would considerably increase the flow of water and help 

to produce a natural sheet flow at a fraction of the cost. Culverts 

are found throughout the Everglades. Studies have shown that 

they work. 

Further, there are no plans to comprehensively move the massive 

levy that runs parallel to the Tamiami Trail. The bridging is only 

connecting the park to the L–29 Canal and not to the broader Everglades. This is not ecological connectivity. 

Also, it is not clear that the water that will flow under the onemile bridge into the park will not seep back into the L–31 North 

Canal on the eastern side of the park creating flood concerns and 

a circular flow of water back into L–29 Canal and into the park. 

This is not restoration. The effectiveness of the one-mile bridge 

should be determined before building another costly bridge. 

For fiscal year 2014, National Park Service has requested $30 

million as a one-time contribution. ‘‘This is to leverage funds from 

other sources.’’ Yet, there is no agreement with the State of Florida 

or any other source to cover the remaining $80 million to finish 

this project, let alone the remaining bridge that will surely cost 

more than 110 million. 

National Park Service has also acknowledged a backlog of over 

$11 billion in deferred maintenance. Yet, National Park Service opposes to spend $30 million of its proposed fiscal year 2014 $116 

million construction budget on a new construction project. Given 

the effects of sequestration and the continued limits on the budget, 

this project does not make sense, especially considering that it will 

not achieve its intended purpose. 

The tribe’s second priority is the need to improve water quality. 

In the L–28 Canal system dumps water into Miccosukee land that 

often has over 100 parts per billion of phosphorus, 10 times the 

EPA-approved standard. 

Our land is being used as a de facto stormwater treatment area. 

It has caused devastating impact to our lands and the entire Everglades ecosystem. Even if the bridging is constructed, Everglades 

National Park cannot accept this dirty water into the park. Addressing contamination in the L–28 canal system must be a top priority for true restoration of the Everglades. All options for resolving 

this must be considered in any final resolution must be consistent 

with the tribe’s policy and way of life. 

I am leaving for you today resolutions from the National Congress of American Indians and the United South and Eastern 

Tribes opposing the bridging and supporting the restoration of the 

water quality of the Everglades. 

In closing, we respectfully ask that no more funding be appropriated to bridge the trail and that the Committee consider implementing the cost-effective culvert and swale approach. In addition, 

we ask the Committee support efforts to address the poor water 
786

quality of the Western Everglades and the L–28 canal system. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Colley Billie follows:] 
787
788
789
790
791
792

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. We are 

now open for questions. I just wanted to say welcome to Rosemary 

from my county in Riverside, California. Thank you for coming out 

today.

And with that, Jim, do you have any questions? 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. I do not really have questions. We are 

going to have to pursue the issues that Chairman Billie has raised 

with regard to this bridge with the Park Service. Clearly, we have 

differences of opinion with the Everglades Trust, and I think it is 

very important that the Miccosukee Tribe share with us their perspectives, which, had you not come and joined this panel, we really 

would not have been aware of it. And we appreciate the time you 

have taken and those who represent you. 

I wanted to just say a word about the Catawba Nation. This is 

a situation that John Spratt, former colleague from South Carolina, 

who was the chair of the Budget Committee apprised me of. I do 

not know that there is an Indian tribe on this continent really that 

has not been discriminated against in some manner or other, but 

the treatment of the Catawba Nation by the State of South Carolina has been particularly brutal. The Catawba actually served as 

guides to George Washington and are loyal to our founding nation, 

and yet the state took over 2,400 acre reservation from them, prevents them from having any kind of economic activity, does not let 

them have casinos, does not even let them do anything really that 

would generate revenue. And it has just been a terribly unjust situation.

You know, and it just goes in my mind why there needs to be 

federal intervention because you cannot count on at least some 

states being reasonable and equitable. And the Catawba Nation 

has particularly suffered discrimination by their state officials. So 

I just wanted to put that on the record. If anybody from South 

Carolina is listening, they should know that there are some people 

who were aware of the horrible treatment that this tribe has received from the state. 

And I mentioned Penobscot, which gets better treated by the 

State of Maine. I just wanted to make those random comments, Mr. 

Chairman. And I appreciate again the panel. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thanks. I want to associate myself very much with my 

good friend’s remarks, quite frankly. As normal on these issues, he 

is spot on target on all of these issues. 

I just again want to thank all of you for traveling this way. And 

Rosemary, it is good to see you. I have had the privilege of seeing 

that school and it is a marvelous institution. It is really a great 

place to visit. 

But I want to thank all of you for traveling all this distance, and 

it is enormously helpful to the Subcommittee when you do because 

it brings these things into focus for us and obviously for our staff. 

So I know sometimes you wonder whether or not it matters, but 

believe me, it does. 

I know in the case of the Catawbas, there was actually testimony 

here that put Mr. Moran and myself in a position to help a little 

bit your predecessor and solve at least some of the federal aspects. 
793

But you are quite right; the degree of your sovereignty I think has 

been consistently violated. There ought to be some sort of federal 

remedy to that. 

One of you mentioned the Carcieri issue. I believe it was you actually, Chairman. And that is another case where we have allowed 

states to oversee and create effectively different classes of Indian 

tribes. And there really should not be different kinds of Indian 

tribes in terms of their relationship with the Federal Government. 

It ought to all be equal across the board and strictly governmentto-government.

And so we have got some big issues in that regard to try and 

work through, and in this committee at least, you will see them 

handled and approached in a very bipartisan fashion. So we look 

forward to working with you each on your individual issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. And this is been a very enlightening 

couple of days here. I learned a lot and I have to say that the unity 

in which Indian Country addressed and supported the needs of all 

the children and all the elders of Indian Country from the horrific 

mistake that was made both on Impact Aid, which affects children 

and schools, as well as what happened with healthcare. You have 

heard us repeatedly say we stand committed to try and solve that 

problem. So the beautiful scenic lily pad picture, folks, that is not 

a scenic picture. Lily pads should not be there and those cattails 

should not be there. Where there are that many cattails, then there 

is one heck of a lot of pollution. And the cattails are taking over 

the natural habitat because Mother Nature—that is Mother Nature’s filtration system, and she only starts destroying her habitat 

trying to clean it up when it is in imminent crisis. 

And so long before I was on this committee because I remember 

hearing it on the news and everybody was congratulating themselves on what we were doing with Everglades restoration, and I 

think this committee—because we work on water quality, we work 

on Park Service, you know, all these pieces are kind of in our jurisdiction, we should take a real hard look and see what really has 

happened to improve the water quality into the Everglades because 

that is not a good picture at all. 

And then the other question I would have, because we have limited resources, if the Park Service has another budget, the money 

that they have set aside for doing this bridging and tens of thousands of dollars and millions of dollars and there is no matching 

fund out there, I think we ought to know that there is no matching 

fund because I do not know what happens in our limited budget 

if we set that money aside in the State of Florida and nobody else 

is coming in to do the match when we have so many pent-up needs. 

So I would like to understand how this match works better and 

maybe staff can enlighten me through a phone call or something. 

What happens if we set aside this money to do this bridging and 

then it does not happen and we have so many other projects? Well, 

then, the Park Service in other areas are putting it towards cleanup, if we lose the opportunity to do some real good with that money 
794

because I am concerned that the match is not there. And even Jarvis in his testimony has said that it is not there. 

So I think we need to understand that a whole lot better as we 

put our budget together, what is there and what is not there. And 

I say this as a state legislator. Sometimes they say, well, you know, 

it was like chicken-and-egg. We can leverage the money if you put 

it in first and then, no, the feds have to move first to leverage the 

money. No, the states have to move first to leverage the money. 

Well, money is tight and I do not know that we have money just 

to be sitting on the table with all the needs we have heard here 

today, with all the needs that we have heard from the Park Service, all the needs in our jurisdiction that we would have any money 

kind of setting out there where it will not be put to its high, most 

cost-effective use. 

So maybe staff can explain to me how leveraged money works 

and what happens to it if it is not leveraged in time. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will just echo many 

of the remarks that my colleagues have already made here today. 

And thank you. This was a fascinating and very diverse from all 

parts of the country with multiple different challenges that I think 

this committee needs to be looking at. So thank you all for bringing 

your very different testimony. And thank you in particular to the 

chief from my home state. 

And I do want to just echo I know you and I had a chance to 

talk before, and I want to say that some of the issues that you 

brought forward are the ones that this panel has been hearing 

about, particularly the sequester and the healthcare costs, which 

are patently unfair to Indian communities in ways that we have 

held harmless in the sequester and the rest of the population. So 

I know that was something you emphasized. 

And I also just want to say how impressed, you know, as I mentioned I first got to know the tribes at length serving in the legislature 20 years ago because of the tribal reps who served in our legislature, and I think you and so many others have done an incredible job using the resources that have been available. And while we 

still have 16 percent unemployment in your community, it is down, 

and you have done a lot with economic development. And I am glad 

that you mentioned some of the places today where access to capital and job placement, all the things that we really have to do 

more with and make sure that you have available. 

And I do not know if there is anything else you would like to 

add, but I just thought you did a great job today. 

Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Well, thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And I thank all the witnesses for coming here for the last 2 days. We had 85 witnesses who spent money 

and time to come out here and to testify. I was here most of the 

day yesterday. Unfortunately, we were all having conflicting hearings and so forth throughout the Congress, and so we wish we 

could have all been here at the same time. 
795

But we have heard various accounts from various tribes from 

around the country who have very different points of view and perspectives but have a commonality of understanding that the Federal Government has a responsibility to meet our responsibilities to 

the tribes. And even if we do have difficult budgets to work with, 

we still have responsibilities we have to meet. And this is a relatively bipartisan committee, and we will do the best we can under 

the situation that we are in. 

So with that, again, thank you for coming out. And this hearing 

is adjourned. 

(797)
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
(i)
ii
iii
iv
v