<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:98864.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-9
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
98-864 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
Jeanne Bumpus, Majority Staff Director
Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements:
Beaulieu, David, president, National Indian Education
Association................................................ 25
Boyd, Roger, deputy assistant secretary, Office of Native
American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban
Development................................................ 9
Carl, Chester, chairman, National American Indian Housing
Council.................................................... 20
Cason, Jim, acting assistant secretary, Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior................................. 7
Coburn, M.D., Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma........... 5
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 6
Corwin, Thomas, director, Division of Elementary, Secondary
and Vocational Analsis, Budget Service, Department of
Education.................................................. 11
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, vice
chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 3
Grim, Charles W., director, Indian Health Service, Department
of Health and Human Services............................... 8
Hall, Tex, president, National Congress of American Indians.. 18
Hartz, Gary, acting deputy director, Indian Health Service,
Department of Health and Human Services.................... 8
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota............ 4
Liu, Michael, assistant secretary, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development 9
Martin, Cathie, deputy director, Office of Indian Education,
Department of Education.................................... 11
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman,
Committee on Indian Affairs................................ 1
Petherick, John Thomas, executive director, National Indian
Health Board............................................... 22
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming................ 4
Swimmer, Ross, special trustee for American Indians,
Department of the Interior................................. 7
Vasques, Victoria, assistant deputy secretary and director,
Office of Indian Education, Department of Education........ 11
Wright, Tom, director, Office of Native American Programs,
Office of Loan Guarantee, Department of Housing and Urban
Development................................................ 9
Appendix
Prepared statements:
Beaulieu, David (with attachment)............................ 117
Carl, Chester (with attachment).............................. 108
Cason, Jim (with attachment)................................. 35
Grim, Charles W.............................................. 33
Hall, Tex (with attachment).................................. 86
Liu, Michael (with attachment)............................... 71
MacDonald-Lonetree, Hope, delegate, Navajo Nation Council.... 130
Smith, Sally, chairman, National Indian Health Board......... 136
Swimmer, Ross (with attachment).............................. 35
Vasques, Victoria (with attachment).......................... 51
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
Present: Senators McCain, Coburn, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson,
Murkowski, and Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
I recognize the need to balance the Federal budget and
agree that cuts in discretionary spending programs are
warranted. As a fiscal conservative, I expect to support a
budget resolution that keeps discretionary spending down. That
said, I object to many of the decreases in funding that are
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for Indian
programs.
The Federal Government has continually reneged on its
trusts and moral obligations to meet the educational, health
care and housing needs of Indians. These needs far outweigh the
imperceptible contribution that the proposed cuts will make to
reducing the deficit.
Some of the proposed reductions that are ill-advised are to
those programs such as BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation Program
and HUD's Native American Housing Block Grant Program that are
managed and administered by the tribes themselves.
A recently released study by the Harvard Project on Indian
Economic Development examined 10 years of socio-economic change
experienced by Indians living on Indian lands. It concluded
that Indians' economic growth and improvements in social well
being far exceed progress being made by the overall population.
The study attributes this progress to the policies of self-
governance.
Despite this improvement, however, the report notes that
tremendous disparities continue to exist between our country's
Indian populations, both gaming and non-gaming tribes, and all
other people. These findings support the need for consistent
Federal funding for programs that help Indian tribes achieve
self-determination and that allow local decision makers, not
Federal administrators, determine how best to address local
needs.
While the proposed budget cuts many Indian programs, a
notable exception to this is in the Office of the Special
Trustee, within which the budget for historical accounting is
slated to grow by $77.8 million or 40 percent, while all around
it programs such as those funding education and substance abuse
prevention have been drastically cut or eliminated. It is
lamentable that we are in a situation that the funding for an
accounting appears to have come directly from programs that
affect the daily lives of Indians. No doubt this request for
funds to conduct a historical accounting is a result of the
Cobell v. Norton litigation.
By proposing only $34.5 million for land consolidation,
however, the Administration seems to have under-valued another
means of addressing its trust administration problems. The BIA
currently administers hundreds of thousands of individual
Indian money accounts, many of which cost more to maintain than
the value of the funds moving through them. Last year, Congress
amended the Indian Lands Consolidation Act to permit the
Department of the Interior to buy up highly fractionated land
interests in order to reduce BIA's administrative burden and
increase the size of tribal land holdings. Those amendments
authorized $95 million for land consolidation in fiscal year
2006, and $145 million a year for several fiscal years
thereafter. The primary reason for these funding authorizations
was to eliminate the very conditions that gave rise to the
Cobell litigation.
I understand that the Administration's rationale for some
of the program cuts is they did not perform well in the OMB's
program assessment rating tool, or PART, evaluations. I would
like to examine this. The accountability problems at the BIA,
however, are not helped by the sweeping prohibition on the
department's use of the internet that remains in effect by
court order in the Cobell case. The BIA has always been a
troubled agency, but it is unreasonable to expect it to
overcome this with one hand tied behind its back.
While I appreciate the need to provide security for
computerized Indian trusts, and support the efforts of both the
plaintiffs and the Department to improve IT security, I cannot
help but wonder whether confining the Bureau and much of the
rest of the Department of the Interior to paper transactions in
this electronic age is doing more harm than good to the Indian
people, and the rest of the public that the Department is
supposed to be serving.
Unfortunately, the Budget Committee has given us only until
Friday to submit our views and estimates letter on the proposed
budget. Senator Dorgan and I intend to circulate a draft letter
to all offices by noon tomorrow. We ask that all comments on
this draft be submitted by 5 p.m. tomorrow so we can submit the
letter, at least this first one, to the Budget Committee on
Friday.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I hope that
is the longest opening statement that I will ever make as
chairman of this committee. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. But I would like to reemphasize to my
colleagues that the Cobell issue impacts everything else that
we do in our programs concerning Native Americans. We have to
get this resolved or say that we will leave this to the courts
in the years and perhaps decades to come for them to settle. It
is an issue that impacts everything else that we do, and one
that I think therefore has to have a very high priority.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
DAKOTA, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
just say that I agree with much of what you have said this
morning, especially on the issue of the trust situation. It
threatens to overwhelm all of these other issues. We must find
a way to use some commonsense to address it and deal with it
because otherwise we will grapple with that for a long, long
time and it will affect all the other things that all of us
believe we ought to do.
Let me also say I agree with you that much in this budget
is not adequate, and that is not a very good description, to
say not adequate. We have many in this country living on
reservations that live in third world conditions. We do not
want to talk about it very much, but let me just in a few
seconds tell you that Avis Little Wind, who hung herself at age
14 recently on a reservation, did so in a circumstance where
there was no mental health capability available to her. She
laid in bed in a fetal position for 90 days missing school.
Everyone should have been alerted to it, and yet she died.
Sarah Swift Hawk died in bed. She was a grandmother. She
laid down and froze to death. Yes, she froze to death in this
country on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Rosie
Two Bear is in a school with 150 kids, two toilets and one
water fountain; 30 kids in a room; desks one inch apart. Rosie
says, Mr. Senator, can you build us a new school?
The fact is, we have circumstances on the reservations in
this country that are desperate. We have bona fide emergencies
in housing, health care and education, and we must get about
the business of addressing them. You go to a reservation and
find one dentist working out of a trailer house, serving 5,000
people, and you ask yourself, is this what we hoped to have
happen or can we do better?
My fervent hope is that on this committee working with the
Chairman and so many other members of the committee, that we
can do much, much better. For years, Administrations have not
provided the budgets that we need in order to address these
issues. It is a matter of resources when you deal with these
issues of housing, health care and education.
Finally, in the education area, I would say this budget
says once again that the two colleges that I think are standout
colleges, the United Tribes Technical College, and the
Crownpoint Institute of Technology are not worthy and really
should be de-funded. What on earth are these priorities about?
I mean, who decides these priorities? Why should the tribal
colleges, which represent the step ladder up and out of poverty
for so many people have their budgets cut substantially at a
time when we already provide only about 50 percent of the
support for those Indian students than we do for community
college students.
So we have so much to do. We can do much, much better. I
hope that this committee is a source of hope and inspiration to
deal with these issues.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and my
colleagues on the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly agree
with you that we have to hold down the budget. On the other
hand, we have to look at these issues. I also agree with you on
the length of opening statements. I am glad to see that this
budget does deal with health care. It does deal with secondary
and elementary schools. It does deal with vocational things.
But we need to really overlook this and see what we can do.
Unfortunately, I have to go the Floor, but I appreciate
your holding this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan,
thank you for holding this hearing on the vital issue of
funding for Indian programs.
The President's budget proposals almost universally
throughout every agency that affects Indians are an
abomination. This budget proposal is out of sync with values
shared by Americans who care about children, education, strong
communities, adequate law enforcement and the opportunities to
share in America's blessings. This budget especially hurts
those with the greatest needs, those in the poorest communities
served by the weakest infrastructures, with the least access to
economic opportunity and basic government services.
Just this past weekend, I took a dirt road from Red Shirt,
SD, a tiny community located on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. The folks of Red Shirt do incredibly well
considering the lack of Federal contributions. They do the best
they can, but this community struggles, and sadly there are
hundreds of these communities like Red Shirt that exist in
Indian country that need basic essential services and
opportunity.
Despite the Federal treaty and trust responsibilities owed
to Indians, the President has proposed that Indians make
enormous sacrifices to help provide the tax breaks the
President is so passionately committed to give to the
wealthiest Americans. Indians are happy to do their part to
help their Nation with its essential needs, such as fighting
the war on terror and keeping our Nation safe. As we all know,
Native Americans serve in the armed forces at a higher rate
than any other group. But this budget tries to scrape pennies
from the programs that serve the poorest Americans, while it
fails to ask the wealthiest Americans to make similar
sacrifices.
Needless to say, I am profoundly disappointed with the
President's priorities. As an example, the BIA Indian school
facilities budget, despite the fact that we have condemned
facilities, as is the case at the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in
South Dakota, the President is proposing a reduction of $89.5
million, more than 33 percent from fiscal year 2005, for school
construction. The President zeroed out the entire Community
Development Funding Initiative Program, a portion of which was
targeted to Indian country.
He proposes a decrease in funding for Indian housing
through the block grant program by over $100 million. How can
tribes develop their economies without economic development
programs? Important to my South Dakota tribes is the
President's request pertaining to the tribal priority
allocation funding. TPA funds are used for various programs
such as Johnson O'Malley, the Tribal Work Experience Program
and others.
I am also concerned about the budget pertaining to the
Office of Special Trustee. OST's budget is growing and while I
understand the need to fund historical accounting and the
Indian Land Consolidation Program, I am concerned that OST's
budget is hemorrhaging at the cost of Indian program funding.
To add insult to injury, the Department of the Interior's
across-the-board rescission that occurs every year takes off
the top cut of all our program funding.
As testimony today will reflect, every aspect of Indian
funding is hurting. I am concerned in particular about the
school construction and again an enormous cut in tribal college
and university funding being proposed by the President. At a
time when we ought to be trying to find ways to empower Native
Americans to succeed economically in a competitive world, the
very means, the very ladder that needs to be there to allow
that to happen is being destroyed by this Administration's
priorities. We need to do better and I look forward to working
in a bipartisan fashion on this committee and on the
Appropriations Committee and on the Budget Committee to do
better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Coburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, M.D., U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Coburn. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here. I do not have an opening
statement other than to say it is an obligation to us to make
sure the money that is spent is spent efficiently. I will work
to help you put that forward.
I will be leaving for another committee meeting, and I
would ask that I have some written questions that I would like
to be submitted to the witnesses and answered by letter.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be made and
entered.
Senator Conrad.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I especially want
to welcome you and our new Ranking Member, my excellent
colleague, Senator Dorgan, to these new responsibilities.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Conrad. I am very much looking forward to working
with the two of you. I think this is going to be excellent for
the committee.
Let me just say with respect to the budget, about 1 year
ago I went to Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota and
went to the high school. In the high school, which was designed
by an architect from the southwestern part of the United
States, Mr. Chairman, I love the Southwest, but this particular
architect did not understand North Dakota winters. In one part
of that building in February, it was 75 degrees; in another
part of that building, it was 50 degrees. This was in a
February winter. It was about 10 below outside.
It really made it very, very hard to have an environment
for learning. To add to the difficulty, the school was built on
an open classroom concept, so there were no walls separating
the classrooms. Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan knows this story
well, you could not hear yourself think there, much less listen
to a teacher to learn.
When I look at this budget and I see school construction
cut 57 percent, and I see tribal colleges cut nearly 20
percent, I see United Tribes Technical College have its funding
eliminated, which is really one of the bright spots in our
State in Indian country. This college is reaching out to young
people and giving them a chance. The best thing that I see
happening in Indian country are in these tribal colleges, in
these institutions of learning. It is the one bright spot. It
is the one place I go where you can see people having a sense
of achievement and a sense that they can make a difference.
I remember attending the graduation of a number of the
tribal colleges, and for the first time in my own career
feeling a sense of hope about what could occur. I look at this
budget and it is not building on hope; it is destroying hope.
That should not be what we are about.
Goodness knows, nobody has given more speeches about the
need to reduce deficits than I have. I do not think that
anybody feels it any more passionately than I do. I believe we
are on the wrong course. But a budget is also about priorities.
This budget for Indian country really must be fixed. We are
talking about a modest amount of money and the needs are great.
I thank the Chair. I thank the Ranking Member.
The Chairman. I thank my friend from North Dakota. I know
that we will have ample opportunity to engage in discussions of
priorities. I think we are in agreement that these budget cuts
are probably really both unfair and unsustainable, but I would
also hope that we would realize over the years that we have
enormous waste and mismanagement. You just described it. That
is why this Harvard study on self-governance is an important
document. If the tribe had been governing itself, I doubt if
they would have built that school like you just described. The
more self-governance that the tribes will adopt, and I think
Mr. Swimmer here, who has been involved in this for many years
would agree with it, the more efficiently they will conduct
themselves and the more progress they will achieve. It is the
old welfare dependency situation, and I hope that working
together we could make that a priority since it seems to be the
only way the tribes have been able to improve, or the most
significant way that tribes can improve is through self-
governance. I think we will have plenty of time for hearings
and discussion on that.
I thank my colleague from North Dakota. Please, go ahead.
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment. The
Budget Committee is set to meet in just a few minutes, so I
would like to excuse myself and ask that my full statement be
made part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection. I think our Native
American friends think they need you more there than here.
Thank you.
Our first panel is Jim Cason, acting assistant secretary
for Indian affairs of the Department of the Interior,
accompanied by Ross Swimmer, special trustee for American
Indians; Charles W. Grim, director of Indian Health Service,
Department of Health and Human Services, accompanied by Gary
Hartz, the acting deputy director of Indian Health Service;
Michael Liu, assistant secretary of the Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
accompanied by Roger Boyd, the deputy assistant secretary,
Office of Native American Programs [ONAP's], and Tom Wright,
the director of ONAP's Office of Loan Guarantees, Department of
Housing and Urban Development; and Victoria Vasques, assistant
deputy secretary and director of the Office of Indian
Education, Department of Education, accompanied by Cathie
Martin, deputy director, Office of Indian Education, and Thomas
Corwin, director, Division of Elementary, Secondary and
Vocational Analysis of the Budget Service of the Department of
Education.
Welcome to all. Mr. Cason, we will begin with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JIM CASON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROSS
SWIMMER, SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Cason. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
discuss the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget for Indian
programs in the Department of the Interior. Ross and I are
providing a joint statement to reflect our joint approach to
managing Indian programs within the Department of the Interior.
The Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget reflects
historical commitments and reflects the dialog regarding
current priorities for Indian tribes, Interior and OMB. Some of
the noteworthy elements of our budget are the impacts of the
Cobell litigation that you mentioned already, which shifts
significant resources to trust programs, historical accounting,
and litigation support. It reflects the recognition of work
completed and settlements that have been implemented, a
continued strong commitment to the construction of Indian
schools, but a recognition of the increased balance of
unobligated funds in that program. When combined, the Indian
affairs and OST's budgets reflect about the same level of
funding that Congress provided in fiscal year 2005.
Ross and I have been working closely together during the
past 3 years on improving the performance and results
associated with our Indian trust programs. I am looking forward
to the opportunity to work on other important Indian affairs
programs.
Mr. Chairman, let me apologize in advance for the need to
leave about 1 hour from now. I have been requested to testify
in the House Resources Committee on the Cobell litigation and
the prospects for fashioning a full and fair settlement of the
issues there. I know that that is of great interest to this
committee as well, and Ross and I are committed to working with
this committee to explore that issue further.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cason follows:]
The Chairman. Dr. Grim, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED
BY GARY HARTZ, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Mr. Grim. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. I would like to add my congratulations to
Senators McCain and Dorgan for assuming these leadership roles,
and I look forward to working with you on Indian health issues.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to present the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for Indian Health
Service. I will summarize my written statement and ask that it
be entered into the record please.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Grim. As part of the Federal Government's special
relationship with tribes based on treaties, executive orders,
judicial determinations and statutes, the IHS delivers health
services to more than 1.8 million American Indians and Alaska
Natives. Care is provided in more than 600 health care
facilities throughout the country. We also fund Indian health
organizations in 34 sites in urban areas across the country.
The budget before you today is a result of tribal and urban
Indian consultation during the past year. In fact, the
Department has been consulting with tribes and urban Indian
organizations for 8 years no on budget formulation and we have
found the process quite useful not only to the tribes and urban
Indian organizations, but for the Department as well.
The Department has a better understanding of the health
needs of Indian country based on the input provided by tribes
and urban Indian health organizations through this process. The
President's budget request for the IHS totals $3.8 billion, a
net increase of $72.1 million above the fiscal year 2005
enacted level. The request will allow the IHS, tribal and urban
Indian health organizations to maintain access to health care
by providing $31.8 million to fund pay raises for Federal
tribal and urban employees; $79.6 million to cover inflationary
cost increases that are experienced by the health delivery
systems; and to address the growing American Indian and Alaska
Native population.
We will also be staffing and operating costs within this
budget for six newly constructed health centers in the amount
of $34.8 million. Once these health centers are fully
operational, primary care provider visits will increase by 75
percent over what they were prior to the construction. In
addition, we will be able to provide more comprehensive health
services in those locations.
Additional tribal contracting under the Indian Self-
Determination Act is supported by an increase of $5 million for
contract support costs for new contracts estimated to be
received in fiscal year 2006.
Consistent with HHS-wide policy, the IHS fiscal year 2006
request for facilities focuses on maintenance of existing
facilities, and no funding is requested to initiate new
construction projects. A total of $3.3 million is included to
complete the construction of staff quarters at Fort Belknap
service unit in the Billings area. Upon its completion, the
project will provide 29 units of staff quarters for Harlem and
Hayes outpatient facilities in Montana.
American Indian and Alaska Natives will also benefit from
several provisions in the Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act that was enacted in 2003. The
Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage program when
implemented in January 2006 will extend outpatient prescription
drug coverage to American Indian and Alaska Native Medicare
beneficiaries and increase Medicare revenues at our ITU
facilities.
Other sections of the Act expand benefits covered under
Medicare Part B and allow the IHS and tribal health programs to
pay for additional medical care by increasing its bargaining
power when buying services from non-IHS Medicare hospitals.
The proposed budget reflects the Federal commitment to
providing high-quality medical and preventive services as a
means of improving the health status of American Indians and
Alaska Natives.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer any questions
that the committee might have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Grim appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Liu.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LIU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY. OFFICE OF PUBLIC
AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS; AND TOM WRIGHT,
DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF LOAN
GUARANTEE
Mr. Liu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and
members of the committee. I want to thank you for inviting me
to provide comments on the fiscal year 2006 Administration
budget for HUD's Indian housing and community development
programs.
Let me say that progress in the area of housing in Indian
country is being made through HUD programs. For example, during
fiscal year 2004, tribes and their TDHEs used their IHBG grants
to build 2,115 new housing units. Each new housing unit gave
shelter to a family. If all of this building were used to
relieve overcrowding, then it would have reduced the incidence
of overcrowding in Indian country by 4.5 percent. This is based
on the 2000 census showing over 47,000 Indian families living
in overcrowded conditions.
The Department is working on a measure to precisely track
reduction in overcrowding, and we are committed to working with
Indian housing block grantees to establish a set of measures
that illustrate the program's outcomes. While there is still a
long way to go, we expect to see overcrowding reduced by at
least one additional percentage point in the coming year,
allowing approximately 450 additional Indian families to have
decent housing. We need to sustain this momentum and we believe
that the 2006 budget helps us do that.
For several years now, I have updated you on the progress
tribes and tribally designated housing entities, or TDHEs, have
made toward the obligation and expenditure of funding. For
fiscal year 2005, the Office of Native American Programs has
enhanced its performance measures and continues its expansion
of the access information system to ensure we are able to
accurately report on the rate of fund obligations and
expenditures. The Department is consulting with tribally
elected leaders and TDHEs for their input so we may improve and
streamline the data collection through the required Indian
housing plan, the annual performance report, and the annual
status and evaluation report for the ICDBG program.
I am now more confident than ever that the majority of
tribes and their TDHEs are obligating and spending their grants
in an expeditious manner. The Department's electronic line of
credit control system shows that more than 82 percent of all
grant funds appropriated between 1998 and 2004 have been
expended by grantees.
Now, as for an overview of the budget request for 2006, the
President proposes a total of $594.9 million specifically for
HUD programs that serve Native Americans, including American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Of this total,
$582.6 million is authorized under the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act. Of the NAHASDA funds,
approximately $517.7 million is for direct formula allocations
through the Indian Housing Block Grant Program; $4.8 million is
proposed for NAHASDA's Title VI Tribal Housing Loan Guarantee
Fund for credit subsidy and administrative expenses. This will
leverage in one fiscal year $37.9 million in loan guarantee
authority. The NAHASDA allocation also includes $57.8 million
for the Native American Housing and Community Development Block
Grant Program. Finally, there is $2.458 million available under
NAHASDA for training and technical assistance to support these
programs.
There is also $2.65 million in credit subsidy for the
section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund, which will
provide $99 million in that one fiscal year in loan guarantee
authority. The Native Hawaiian community will receive through
the Department of Hawaiian Homelands $8.8 million for the
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program and $882,000 for
the section 184(a) Native Hawaiian Home Loan Guarantee Fund,
which will leverage approximately $35 million in new loan
guarantees.
As for technical assistance and training, there is a set-
aside of $2.7 million which will provide the initial training
and technical assistance to most grantees, enabling them to
function effectively under NAHASDA. The President's request
also includes $353,000 to provide the management and oversight
of the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program.
Specifically, on the issue of the National American Indian
Housing Council training and technical assistance, tough
decisions had to be made, priorities had to be made. No funds
were requested under the Indian Housing Block Grant training
and technical assistance set-aside for the NAIHC, as the
Department believes they have sufficient funding. The NAIHC's
current balance from the Indian housing block grant set-aside
is $5.35 million. In addition, the NAIHC has a $4.56 million
balance from prior budget set asides for technical assistance
and training. We are working closely with the NAIHC to put
these resources to work in a more expeditious manner.
We have a very positive story to tell about our loan
guarantee programs, especially for the section 184. The in
effect carryover and combined amounts for fiscal year 2006 will
provide for over $250 million in loan authority for that
program, more than sufficient for the volume that we
anticipate. In fiscal year 2004, we in fact increased the
number of mortgage loan guarantees to 622, up from 271 in
fiscal year 2003. The loan volume also increased at a similar
rate from $27 million to $67 million, all in 1 year. In total,
we have done over 2,000 section 184 loan guarantee mortgages,
over $212 million to provide homeownership for Native American
families throughout the country. We believe the section 184
program will continue to play a vital role in keeping the
President's commitment to create 5.5 million new minority
homeowners by the end of 2010.
To assist us in this process we have been working very
closely with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development Office to formulate new
agreements and partnerships to facilitate the title processing
of required documents in Indian country.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude. I am available to
answer any questions. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Liu appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Vasques, welcome.
STATEMENT OF VICTORIA VASQUES, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY AND
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CATHIE MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION; AND THOMAS CORWIN, DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL ANALYSIS,
BUDGET SERVICE
Ms. Vasques. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman
and members of the committee. On behalf of Secretary Spellings,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss
our fiscal year 2006 budget request for Department of Education
programs that serve our American Indian and Alaska Native
students.
I also request that my written statement be entered for the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Vasques. I am Vickie Vasques, the assistant deputy
secretary and director of the Office of Indian Education. As
you stated earlier, I am accompanied by my colleagues Tom
Corwin and Cathie Martin.
I am proud to say that my passion and personal commitment
to education began with my father, former tribal chairman of
the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians.
In April of last year, the President signed an Executive
order to assist American Indian and Alaska Native students in
meeting the challenging student academic achievement standards
of the No Child Left Behind Act in a manner that is consistent
with our tribal traditions, languages, and cultures. The
Department's work on implementing this Executive order will be
highlighted at a national conference this coming April 6 and 7
at Santa Ana Pueblo in New Mexico. This conference will focus
on issues affecting the implementation of NCLB within Indian
country. I would also like to invite the members and the staff
of this committee to please join us at this national
conference.
As you know, 3 years ago the President launched the most
important reform of public education by signing into law the No
Child Left Behind Act. This law is based on stronger
accountability, more choices for parents and students, greater
flexibility for States and school districts, and the use of
research-based instructional methods. The overall goal is to
ensure by the year 2013-14 school year every student, including
our American Indian and Alaska Native students, will be
proficient in reading and math.
States, school districts and schools are working hard to
implement NCLB, and the early returns are promising. A study
from the Education Trust showed that in States with 3 years of
comparable data, 23 of the 24 States increased student
achievements in reading. We are also moving in the right
direction for our Indian students. The gap between Indian
students and white students in reading achievement grew smaller
in 13 States and remained the same in 2. In math, that gap
narrowed in 14 States, widened in 2, and remained the same in
2.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget builds on the NCLB
Act by extending its principles and reforms to the high school
level. In too many schools across the Nation, the longer
students stay in school, the more they fall behind, with far
too many students dropping out. The 2006 budget request
includes almost $1.5 billion for a new high school initiative
which will help to ensure that every student, including our
Indian students, not only graduates from high school, but
graduates prepared to enter college or the workforce with the
skills he or she needs to succeed.
This is especially important for Indian students who
continue to be disproportionately affected by poverty, low
educational attainment, and fewer educational opportunities
than our other students. The 2006 budget request for the
Department supports the President's commitment to provide
resources to help improve educational opportunities for all
students.
Indian students will continue to benefit from the
implementation of NCLB, as well as new initiatives to improve
the quality of secondary education. Overall, our estimates show
that the Department programs would under this fiscal year
proposed budget in 2006 provide approximately $1 billion in
direct support specifically for American Indian and Alaska
Native students.
In addition, significant funds are provided to Indian
students who receive services through our broader Federal
programs such as ESEA Title I grants to LEAs and our IDEA state
grants. The Department recognizes the implementation challenges
facing some of our Indian students in our rural communities and
is committed to working with our local, state and tribal
governments to resolve these issues and has provided
flexibility to rural districts in implementing the provisions
of the law.
The President's budget request for the Department's Office
of Indian Education programs is $119.9 million. These programs
include formula grants to school districts, competitive grants,
and national activities for research and evaluation on the
education needs of our Indian students.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
committee, and my colleagues and I will be happy to respond to
any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Vasques appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cason, why are you proposing to take a pause in Indian
school construction?
Mr. Cason. Mr. Chairman, it is a reflection of the
escalating of unobligated funds in the school construction
program. Over the last 4 or 5 years, counting the 2005 budget,
Congress has been very gracious to provide about $1.5 billion
of additional funds to the Department of the Interior for the
purpose of school construction. At the pace that the Department
of the Interior has actually constructed schools has left us
with an unobligated balance just under $200 million. So the
thought on the part of the Department was to basically continue
our commitment, but at a lower level while we worked our way
out of the unobligated balance problem.
The Chairman. There is a cut in Indian water settlements
despite the fact that there have been several of them that have
been made, agreements.
Mr. Cason. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that in
the cut on the water settlements, that was a reflection of
settlements that had actually been implemented. We are in
continuing discussions with a variety of Indian tribes about
other claims for water settlements. Once we reach a position
where a settlement is agreed to, we will have to ask for
appropriations for those.
The Chairman. Mr. Swimmer, in the case of the $135 million
for historical accounting activities, about $95 million will be
expended on individual Indian money accounts that are involved
in the Cobell lawsuit. Is that correct?
Mr. Swimmmer. Yes.
The Chairman. What will Indian country get for the $95
million?
Mr. Swimmer. The continuation of the historical accounting,
according to the plan that the Department submitted to the
court in January 2003. This plan which is a comprehensive
accounting is we believe the statute-required. It is an
accounting for individual account holders that had accounts
with the Department with the Indian Affairs, that went back to
the time of the 1994 Reform Act, and from the time that those
accounts were set up. The money is used for a transaction-by-
transaction accounting, to develop an account statement for
each individual Indian account holder, and then at a certain
level of accounting, that accounting would be we would use a
statistical sampling to get there. But we had estimated that
the cost of that accounting would be approximately $335
million. The money that we are asking for is simply to go to
the next phase of the accounting and complete certain
accounting that we are engaged in now.
The Chairman. Do you agree with me about self-governance?
Mr. Swimmer. Absolutely, Senator. As you may recall in my
previous period at the Department, I was one of the proponents
of the Self-Governance Act itself, and strongly support self-
governance, as does the current Secretary.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Grim, as you know, this committee expended a lot of
effort last year to reauthorize the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act and we intend to pick up that again this year.
I would like you, if you would, for the record to provide me
with the recommendations that you think need to be made in the
legislation so we can get full Administration support.
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir; okay, we will do that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Vasques, the budget proposes a reduction in the
Department of Education of about 2.9 percent from 2005. How
will the tribal and BIA schools be affected by this cut in
light of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act?
Ms. Vasques. Sir, most of our Indian students that are in
our BIA schools are being served by our title I and our Special
Education Program. Those two particular programs have received
an increase of about a total of $1 billion that goes directly
to the BIA to serve those students.
The Chairman. So they will have no trouble having
sufficient funding to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act?
Ms. Vasques. Yes, sir; I feel it is sufficient.
The Chairman. Mr. Liu, you want to move the CDBG from HUD
to Commerce. That is the Administration's proposal. Under the
law, 1 percent of CDBG moneys are reserved for Indians. Does
the Administration propose to continue the 1 percent set-aside?
Mr. Liu. We are planning to continue approximately $58
million as part of the Indian housing block grant set-aside, as
part of HUD's budget. Because of the nature of the change, I do
not think the percentage still would hold, but the
administration of the program would stay within HUD within the
Office of Native American Programs as it is currently being
managed right now.
The Chairman. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I also thank the witnesses for appearing. Let me ask a
series of questions of the witnesses. The testimony, Mr. Cason,
that you offered indicated that the Administration has a
continued commitment to Indian schools. Let me ask a question
first, I guess, about something I mentioned in my opening
statement, the recommendation that we abandon the funding for
the Crownpoint Institute of technology and the United Tribes
Technical College [UTTC]. As you know, the Interior Secretary
has visited UTTC at my request and found it to be a wonderful
institution, but each year the budget that is sent to us, or
the appropriation request that is sent to us from the
President, eliminates the funding for United Tribes Technical
College. Can you tell us why?
Mr. Cason. Yes, Mr. Vice Chairman; UTTC and Crownpoint are
schools that receive funding from other sources, the Department
of Education. When we take a look at our budget and the
priorities that we have, the Department of the Interior takes a
look at the 27 tribal colleges and universities that are funded
through our programs. We also take a look at Crownpoint and
UTTC. They end up having funding from other sources, the
Department of Education.
When we take a look at the comparable funding between what
the tribal colleges and universities get under our lines
authorities and what UTTC and Crownpoint get under theirs, it
is our sense that we need to prioritize the funds that come
through our appropriations for the tribal colleges and
universities.
Senator Dorgan. But you have also requested a decrease in
funding for tribal colleges. Is that not correct?
Mr. Cason. I am not positive, Mr. Vice Chairman. It is my
understanding that the amount of funding that we are looking
for is about stable. I am not sure if there is a small change
in one direction or the other.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Cason, I am positive.
Mr. Cason. Okay.
Senator Dorgan. You are requesting a cut in funding for
tribal colleges. The reason I mention that is you describe the
commitment to tribal colleges as a basis for suggesting you
perhaps do not have the money for UTTC and Crownpoint. I must
say that the evidence is that we are, I believe, only at about
50 to 60 percent of that which we commit in support for people
that are attending community college, versus those who are
attending tribal colleges.
I would agree with my colleague Senator Conrad that it is a
wonderful investment, the tribal college investment. Senator
Burns and I have pushed very hard on the Interior Subcommittee
to increase some funding requests in recent years for tribal
colleges. It is a fact that the tribal college funding request
is down.
Let me just say again that I think from a priority
standpoint, I think that the investment in tribal colleges is
proving to pay dividends. I think Senator Domenici would say,
and I would certainly say, that UTTC and Crownpoint are
evidence of those great successes as well. While I believe we
will be able to put the funding in for those two institutions,
I hope that at some point in the future the Administration will
see fit to include funding requests in their budget.
Let me ask Dr. Grim, let me say that I deeply appreciate
the commitment of so many people working at the Indian Health
Service. I go around to these clinics and facilities and you
have some very committed people. I understand why all of you
are here, and that your job is to support the President's
budget request. That is why you are here.
Yet, I know from my observations, and I know from evidence,
that we are required to provide funding for health care for two
groups of populations. One is our trust responsibility for
American Indians, and the other responsibility is for Federal
prisoners. I also know that we spending about twice as much on
a per capita basis for health care for Federal prisoners as we
are for meeting our trust responsibility for American Indians.
I think you see that when you go around and take a look at the
IHS and tribal clinics and the conditions, despite the valiant
effort of some wonderful professional people out there.
So I look at that, and I say we are really underfunded with
respect to health care. I mentioned Avis Little Wind, who hung
herself, a poor child that really lost hope and had serious
emotional problems, but there was not enough mental health
capability available. There were not the skilled people
available to be able to provide services to her, so a young
girl dies.
How do we deal with that? You are obviously, you cannot be
satisfied that we are meeting the needs with this funding, are
you?
Mr. Grim. I actually am very pleased with the 2006 budget
request that came forward for the Indian Health Service. As I
said earlier in my oral remarks that it really represents I
think the requests of tribal leadership across the Nation. We
consulted with them and have for some years. One of the things
that they have told us is that the population growth in the
Indian communities, as well as the inflation that each of our
budget sub-line items has had to absorb over the years, is
something that they felt was higher priority, as well as making
sure that the pay increases for all the employees were in
there.
I think if you take a look at the 2006 budget for the
Indian Health Service and you look at it line item by line
item, you will see some fairly significant increases for
programs that in past years have had relatively flat budgets.
So I think it is a good budget this year. Many programs are
going to have increased capabilities because of it.
Senator Dorgan. So you are well satisfied that we are
meeting those needs. I talked to the chairman some while ago.
We are going to do some work I hope especially on the issue of
teen suicide. A reservation not far from my home had three teen
suicides recently. I mentioned Avis Little Wind. As I went up
and met on that reservation where Avis Little Wind lived, I
discovered that there just were not the resources available,
the psychologists, the psychiatrists, not available. They had
to beg and borrow a car to take somebody to a clinic someplace
because there was no vehicle available, let alone a health care
professional.
I am a little surprised that you are well satisfied with
the request level of funding because I deeply admire your work
and the work of the service, but, I am not satisfied that the
resources are available to deal with the issues. I hope we can
talk about that at some point later.
Mr. Liu, on the housing issues, the chairman asked the
question about the block grants. When all is said and done,
where are we with respect to housing, this budget versus
previous budgets, in terms of housing on Indian reservations?
Mr. Liu. For the Native American Housing Block Grant
Program, relative to the intense competition within HUD for the
housing dollar, the Native American Housing Block Grant Program
was not at the bottom rung. There was a cut, no doubt about
that.
Senator Dorgan. How big is the cut?
Mr. Liu. It is about 6.3 percent, but if you compare it to
another program I manage within HUD, the Public Housing
Program, the capital fund for public housing took almost an 11
percent hit. Some of the context of this has to do with our
section 8 tenant-based program within the Department, which has
escalated at such a pace that frankly it has eaten into every
other program area of HUD. Congress recognized this at the end
of 2005. It had to cut every program at HUD except for section
8 by over 4 percent. We hope to get reform this year so that we
can alleviate to some extent the pressure within our housing
area.
Senator Dorgan. But there is a cut in housing of 6 percent?
Mr. Liu. Yes; 6.3 percent in the block grant.
Senator Dorgan. I mention it again, I really think again
from my tours of reservations, we have a real serious problem
with respect to Indian housing. I think it is almost a crisis.
I have toured housing units again that are third world
condition. When we look at this, the priorities that I see are
comparing needs here to needs elsewhere.
I will finish up, Mr. Chairman, by telling you that this
morning I was looking at a little project in the budget that
was recommended to have double funding. It is called Television
Marti to broadcast television signals into Cuba. They want to
double the funding for it now. We have spent close to $200
million on it, and we send television signals to Cuba to tell
the Cuban people how wonderful things are in America, and
Castro jams all the signals. So we send signals no one can
receive. We have done it for about 15 years and we are going to
double the funding for it.
When you look at that sort of thing, and then you say,
okay, they want double the funding to send television signals
no one can receive in Cuba, and you want to cut funding for
housing on Indian reservations, I say, well, there is something
really screwy about this, to use a term of art.
So look, all of you are here representing a budget. I
understand that. There are some things in this budget that I
think make sense; some that I think are vastly shorted in terms
of the priorities. Mr. Swimmer, I am with the chairman. We
really need to find a way to get our arms around this issue and
find a way to put it behind us in a way that is fair to
everybody so that we can get on with some of these other
significant priorities. I hope that we can make progress. I
know the chairman is very committed to that, as am I, but you
have to have all the stakeholders involved and find a way to
negotiate and reach a consensus.
So let me thank the panel. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me just say again that we
intend to give this Cobell issue a shot. If it does not work,
we are going to move on. We are not going to have it drag out.
I am serving notice to all parties and participants if they
want to go 10, 15, 20 years in court, that is fine with me, but
we are going to give them a one shot opportunity because I am
not going to let it tie up this committee the way it has in
years past. I have great confidence in Mr. Swimmer and others
who are involved in this issue.
Mr. Cason, I think we are about 2 minutes from your hour.
So I thank the panel and I thank you, and I am confident we
will be seeing you a number of times in the future as we
address these issues. Thank you for appearing here today.
Our second panel is Tex Hall, president of the National
Congress of American Indians; Chester Carl, chairman of the
National American Indian Housing Council; John Thomas
Petherick, executive director of the National Indian Health
Board; and David Beaulieu, president of the National Indian
Education Association.
Let us begin with an old friend of the committee's, Tex
Hall, the president of the National Congress of American
Indians. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF TEX HALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN
INDIANS
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear to
testify before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and
present the views of the National Congress of American Indians
on the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request for
Indian programs.
This is my first opportunity to speak publicly with the new
leadership of this committee. I would like to say publicly how
much all of the member tribes of the National Congress
appreciate both of your service. Chairman McCain, it is an
incredible honor for Indian Country to once again have your
leadership on this very important committee to us. Vice
Chairman Dorgan is from my home State of North Dakota, and I
cannot tell you how proud all of us in North Dakota that you
are on this committee and this leadership position, and
representing not only us, but Indian country as well.
We are very glad you are having a hearing on this topic,
Mr. Chairman, and look forward to working with you and Vice
Chairman Dorgan to ensure that the critical programs and
initiatives authorized and supported by Indian country and this
committee are funded at levels which will ensure their
effectiveness.
As we know, on February 7, President Bush submitted a
budget to Congress that included numerous proposed cuts for
Indian programs. The budget would continue to trend of
consistent declines in Federal per capita spending for Indians
compared to per capita expenditures for the population at
large. This year's budget request reduces effective funding for
tribal governments and instead funds a trust reorganization
that tribes have opposed, with proposed reductions for programs
such as TPA, which is tribal priority allocations; education;
contract support for self-governance; housing; infrastructure;
land consolidation; and the elimination of funding for tribal
colleges such as what you mentioned, Senator Dorgan, United
Tribes College of Bismarck and Crownpoint Institute in New
Mexico.
The President's proposed budget is $108 million below the
fiscal year 2005 budget for BIA programs. The request cuts
$86.9 million from BIA construction. Overall, the Indian
programs targeted for reduction include Indian housing would
receive the largest cut of $105 million in Indian housing.
Native American housing block grants would be cut overall by
$44 million and section 184 home loans cut by more than 50
percent. And the request cuts $85 million from Indian health
service facilities construction budget.
While Congress has authorized important projects such as
the Dakota Water Resources Act, Mni Wiconi. These projects have
been underfunded or not funded at all. My friend from North
Dakota, Congressman Earl Pomeroy put it like this: Indian
nations are the last to get funded and the first to get cut.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, on behalf of Indian
country, I am asking for your leadership to put an end to this
practice of cutting and this Federal trend of reducing Indian
budgets. At NCAI, we are all too aware that discretionary
domestic programs such as ours are often seen as the easiest to
cut, but when these cuts are made, they are made with our
money, and that is wrong.
The United States, as we all know, has a solemn and moral
duty to honor its treaties and fulfill the trust responsibility
from the United States. The tribes of NCAI are deeply
disappointed this budget does not support strong self-
government and self-determination. As you know, many tribal
governments are exactly like State and municipal governments,
providing critical services, shaping values, and promoting jobs
and growth in Indian country. Though Federal spending for
Indians has lost ground compared to the U.S. population at
large, tribal self-governance has proven that the Federal
Government that invests with the tribes pays off.
As Senator McCain mentioned, the Harvard Project on
American Indian Economic Development, this study shows that
reservation communities have made remarkable gains in the last
decade, and these gains are attributed to self-determination.
However, substantial gaps remain per capita on income of
Indians living on reservations, is still less than half of the
national average. Indian unemployment is still double the rest
of the country, and there is a lot of work that self-
determination, which has made progress, has still yet to do.
In short, tribes have prove success in addressing the long
enduring social and economic disparities on Indian
reservations. This warrants continued investment into our self-
determination.
Health care and housing services, like law enforcement,
were guarantee to us by a treaty. We already paid for that, as
we know, with the 3 billion acres of ceding of land. As
Congress reshapes its 2006 budget, NCAI continues to urge its
commitment. We have recently launched a National Center for
American Indian Research and Policy to deal with the part of
the program assessment rating tool that OMB is requiring.
I do want to conclude with three key areas in the budget
that the tribes have targeted. First, tribal leaders have
identified law enforcement, justice and homeland security as
key concerns in the 2006 budget. As DOJ implements drastic
programmatic changes, NCAI calls on Congress to ensure law
enforcement activities in Indian country are supported through
sufficient funding essential for full realization of the
tribes' government.
Second, tribal resources continue to be diverted to the
Department of the Interior's reorganization which tribes have
opposed and which fail to take into account the need for local
flexibility and the results of the 2(b) study which was
recently completed by the Department of the Interior. Until a
better plan which reflects true consultation with tribes who
know best what works with trust management at the local level,
a moratorium must be placed on funding further reorganizations.
A much more effective use of funds would be focused on
funding of ILCA, the Indian Land Consolidation Act. No
increases were requested for the ILCA fund from the 2005
enacted level, which would be about one-third of the authorized
2006 level. The investment in land consolidation would do more
to save on future trust administration costs than any other
item in the trust budget.
Finally, self-determination programs throughout the budget,
initiatives that Congress and the Administration have expressed
consistent support for, have not only failed to receive needed
funding increase, but face cuts which will deeply hurt tribes'
ability to effectively assume local control and the shrinking
TPA, tribal priority allocation, budgets; inadequate 638 pay
cost increase; insufficient contract support funding; and
grossly underfunded administrative cost grants.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have at
the conclusion.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Hall appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carl, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHESTER CARL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN
HOUSING COUNCIL
Mr. Carl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan and other distinguished members
of this committee. My name, as noted, is Chester Carl. I am
happy to be back before this committee once again as chairman
of the National American Indian Housing Council.
On behalf of the members of National American Indian
Housing Council and its board of directors, I would like to
thank you for this opportunity to address you today on the
President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006.
There is not much I can say that has not already been said,
or anything I could present that would better illustrate the
need of Indian country. Everyone here knows the crisis that we
as Native Americans face and Native Americans are three times
more likely to live in overcrowded conditions than any other
Americans in the United States.
Native Americans are more likely to lack sewage, water
systems; more like to lack telephone lines and electricity than
other Americans. We have pleaded our case over and over with
statistics and heartrending stories. Today, what has it come
to? The last time I testified at an Indian Affairs budget
hearing was 2002. That was the first year we began to see a
decline in the Indian housing budget after several year of
surplus and growth.
Today, it is much different. The President's fiscal year
2006 budget proposes the smallest amount of funding for Indian
housing programs since the implementation of NAHASDA.
The tribes' access to funding for basic housing would be
reduced by more than $100 million. I heard the assistant
secretary say the budget will be cut by 6 percent, but in doing
my simple math, I am coming up with $108 million that would be
reduced from the NAHASDA allocation.
John F. Kennedy once said, man holds in his mortal hands
the power to abolish all forms of human poverty, and to the
third world nations, developing nations struggling to break the
bonds of misery, JFK pledged our best efforts to help
themselves. The world has not changed in the last 40 years, as
we see in the current efforts in Iraq. But how disturbing that
the Federal Government had to look outside its own borders to
identify human need, to justify continued dedication of
billions and billions in funding to improve living conditions
of the Iraqi people, when so many of our American Indian and
Alaska Natives daily endure the same third world conditions.
Where are the best efforts to help Native Americans help
themselves? Certainly not in this budget. We understand the
need to protect our borders. Native Americans have made
significant patriotic commitments to ensuring the freedom of
all people as Native Americans have the highest percentage of
military service of any ethnic group in the Nation. Our
proposed initiative today will seek to honor the dedication of
our Native American veterans. But I believe I speak for all
members of the National American Indian Housing Council when I
express my frustration and anger at the national priority shift
to aid people 8,000 miles away, being paid for by those
Americans who least can afford it.
While assistance to the Middle East is admirable, America
seems to never have understood the urgency of the need to lift
people from poverty and ignorance and despair here at home in
order to strengthen this country. The poverty rate for Native
Americans continues to hover at 26 percent, over 50 percent in
my own Indian nation, is more than double the poverty rate for
the general American population.
We understand that fiscal year 2006 will be the tightest
budget in history, but we also understand that in making these
decisions, Congress has to keep in mind that inflation has
steadily risen over the last 4 years. For the Native American
housing block grant, the President has proposed $582.6 million
for fiscal year 2006. This is a devastating blow, particularly
in light that the proposed set-aside for Indian community
development block grant is now identified as a set-aside of the
NAHASDA block grant.
In enactment of NAHASDA, I do not believe there was ever
other authorization by Congress to have a set-aside authorized
in the community block grant. I believe also that, Mr.
Chairman, you thought in the enactment of NAHASDA that
negotiated rulemaking be part of that legislation. I believe
that you stood behind the tribes to recognize the government-
to-government relationship. Not only is the Indian community
block grant not authorized under NAHASDA, the Federal agency
failed to even consult the tribe on making that move. From day
one on the enactment of NAHASDA, we have yet to consult with
HUD on how the Act could be implemented.
I stand by Tex Hall in modeling NAHASDA after Indian Self-
Determination Act for this very simple reason. Yesterday, we
met with OMB and HUD officials. They basically said, in order
for you to succeed, you have to measure social changes; how
NAHASDA has made social changes. But we are faced, Mr. Chairman
and honorable committee, many of the housing authorities will
be facing shutdowns of their doors if there is not increased
funding.
So what we are asking is that we model NAHASDA on the Self-
Determination Act, and I suggest to you today that housing
funds be restructured similar to in the Indian Housing Self-
Determination Act, Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638,
which would streamline the funding and the tribes can identify
how they make those social changes, rather than having to
comply with the strict requirements of the HUD paternalistic-
type program.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer as a
recommendation on behalf of the Native American veteran a new
opportunity called the Native American Veteran Housing
Opportunity Initiative. Indian tribes take great price in the
role that Indian men and women play in the United States armed
forces, particularly those serving in this time of war. I ask
you to keep in mind the families they leave behind and the
millions of dollars the President has proposed to cut from
Indian housing programs that directly affect those families.
The funding helps provide basic infrastructure in housing
to some of the most remote, isolated areas of our Nation. We
are deeply concerned that our warriors are returning home from
Iraq to housing conditions that are as bad or worse than they
left in Iraq. They also face chronic unemployment and lack of
meaningful economic opportunities.
So thus, Mr. Chairman and honorable committee, I ask for a
set-aside of $150 million to be distributed in allocation
formula out of the Defense budget to help, as a small price to
pay to honor the sacrifice of these brave men and women. The
President on Monday proposed $82 billion to help the
commitment, not only to the Iraq conflict, but replacement of
the equipment for the war, the Tsunami, the Palestine,
different types of initiatives. For what we ask today is a
very, very small price.
Mr. Chairman, I call on you as the commander to the chief
commander of the United States, and the people of this country
to join in a vast cooperative effort to satisfy the basic needs
of not only the Iraq people, but also the Native American
people.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Carl appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Petherick.
STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMAS PETHERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD
Mr. Petherick. Good morning, Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman
Dorgan and distinguished members of the Indian Affairs
Committee. On behalf of Chairman Sally Smith of the National
Indian Health Board, who could not be here this morning because
she was unable to travel from Dillingham, AK, I will present on
behalf of the National Indian Health Board.
Before I begin, my remarks are going to be brief this
morning. I ask, Senator, that Sally's full written statement be
entered in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Petherick. Senator Dorgan, thinking about one of the
first issues that you brought up, as far as the Federal per
capita expenditures for prisoners as opposed to American
Indians and Alaska Natives, I think that is something that
Indian country has heard about for a long time, but I do not
think that message really resonates to the general population.
When we start looking at it in real terms, when we start
thinking about, I am from Oklahoma and the thought of Terry
Nichols, who is serving a life sentence in Federal prison
receives twice as much health care expenditures as my
grandmother or various other American Indians or Alaska Natives
across this country, that is incomprehensible.
Also, when we think about over in Northern Virginia, we
have Zacarias Moussaoui, who is in Federal custody. He also has
those same opportunities where our elders and children do not.
And even an example of Martha Stewart, who is a multi-
millionaire or billionaire even, and has the opportunity for
guaranteed health care that the American Indians and Alaska
Natives do not necessarily get, that is a trust responsibility
of the Federal Government. I think that that is something that
we want to work toward changing and make sure that that message
resonates beyond this committee to other members of Congress
and the Administration.
But going into the 109th Congress, we knew that things were
going to be tough, given the fiscal situation the country is
facing. Kind of going back to the tribal consultation sessions
that the Department of Health and Human Services and Indian
Health Service conducted, especially the Indian Health Service,
and now the Department has a tribal consultation policy, it is
a very valuable process and they really do work with tribes to
develop priorities.
But we knew it was going to be tough, and once the
President's request came out, it was not really a surprise. But
we realized that there were some tough decisions to make and
the Department and OMB and the Administration and IHS did try
to make an effort to make sure that population increases, as
well as inflation, were taken care of.
In saying that, though, and they did make a substantial
effort to do that, we have to really look at the trends. Even
though they made an effort to make sure that inflation and
population increases were at least looked at and at least tried
to address them, given the limited funding, it really cannot be
done with just a 1-year increase. You have to look at the
trends over the last several years of how we have gotten here,
and we are in a hole. There are programs such as Medicare and
Medicaid which have fixed increases every year based on
population growth, based on several other factors. Indian
country does not get that, and that continues to be an issue,
like I said, with the trends over time and those kind of
continually being underfunded.
Also on top of that, we also want to think about the fact
of a few of the highlights of the President's budget request.
Again, with the fact that we are looking at limited funding and
only a $63-million increase, which is about 2.1 percent over
fiscal year 2005 enacted, even though we have fared much better
than several other agencies who are facing substantial cuts
this Congress, it is really not enough to serve our population.
So what is going to happen is we are going to have diminished
services and people are not going to be getting the care that
they desperately need.
In looking at those tough decisions that were made, and in
looking at the President's budget request, a few things did
stick out that I would like to address this morning. The first,
obviously, is the health care facilities construction line
item, which took a substantial hit. I believe it was in the
neighborhood of about $85 million, leaving a little over $3
million for that line item. One of the things as we were
discussing and preparing for this testimony, it became clear
that the rationale for this was the 1-year pause or moratorium
or building new facilities.
Health care in Indian country, diseases and illnesses, do
not take a 1-year pause. If indeed this is only a one-year
pause, it is going to take another decade at least for us to
try to get out of the effect of this 1-year pause. Honestly,
once facilities are built in Indian Country, they are already
too small. They are already outdated. That would be a
substantial blow to Indian country if those funds were not
restored. So Indian country feels very strongly that those
funds are indeed restored.
Also looking at one other item that I wanted to bring up as
well is the issue of rescissions. We feel that Indian Health
Service should be exempt from any rescissions. We foresee that
they will be coming this year, as they have over the last
several years. Because of the fact that looking at the Indian
Health Service, along with the Department of Defense, along
with the Veterans Health Administration, the Indian Health
Service is a direct service provider. They provide health care
directly to American Indians and Alaska Natives. By virtue of
that, they should be exempt from any rescissions. We would ask
that you as members of this committee support that effort.
Again, if I could just make one more point about health
facilities construction line items. I think one of the other
issues that Indian Country has concern is looking at the PART
scores that President Hall had mentioned. When looking at the
PART scores and looking at health facilities construction for
the IHS, which they were measured for fiscal year 2006, they
scored very well. They scored an effective rating. It really
kind of goes against our thoughts of effectiveness and
efficiency to cut a program that has been deemed effective.
So we feel that should be rewarded, rather than punished,
and we would hope that you all would work with IHS.
The Chairman. If they are not efficient or effective, we
should increase funding?
Mr. Petherick. Well, honestly, that is how I think that, in
looking at----
The Chairman. So we reward inefficiency and
ineffectiveness?
Mr. Petherick. I think that partially some of the efforts
have been, well, I guess from a tribal perspective, the fact
that a program is deemed effective, they have not really gotten
any sort of reward or anything for that.
The Chairman. I have to tell you, it argues for me to
change the program or eliminate it. I do not think the taxpayer
should increase funding for programs that are both inefficient
and ineffective.
Mr. Petherick. And I think this is something that Indian
country has grappled with. Indian country has done a tremendous
job, especially within the Indian Health Service to make sure
that they are utilizing dollars in the most efficient way.
The Chairman. So you disagree with the rating process then?
Mr. Petherick. I think not necessarily the rating process,
but I think Indian country views that there should be some sort
of, I do not know if you want to call it an incentive system or
something, but there needs to be some protections built in
place if we are indeed showing that we are effective, then it
is contrary to just commonsense to cut programs that are
efficient.
The Chairman. Again, in all due respect, the supposedly
objective rating system rates some of these programs as
ineffective and inefficient. So I am sure if I was running a
program, I would never view them that way. That is why we have
objective assessments of programs. And there comes your
assistant to give you a very effective rebuttal to that
statement. [Laughter.]
Mr. Petherick. Pardon us.
The Chairman. Go ahead if you would like to say more.
Seriously.
Mr. Petherick. I think what we were mentioning is the fact
that the health care facilities construction program within IHS
has been deemed effective, according to the PART assessment.
But at the same time while they are being judged effective,
they are being cut by $83 million.
The Chairman. That is a point well made. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Sally Smith appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Beaulieu.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BEAULIEU, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Beaulieu. Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan, my
name is David Beaulieu. I am president of the National Indian
Education Association and a member of the Minnesota Chippewa
Tribe from the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota. And also,
I have recently joined the faculty at Arizona State University
this July. It is a pleasure to be there and to be working in
Indian education at ASU.
It is my pleasure to be able to offer the ideas and
opinions of the National Indian Education Association before
this committee on the fiscal year 2006 President's budget
request. Founded in 1969, the National Indian Education
Association is the largest organization in the Nation dedicated
to Indian education advocacy. It embraces the membership of
over 3,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
educators, tribal leaders, school administrators, teachers,
parents and students.
NIEA makes every effort to advocate for the unique
educational and culturally related academic needs of Native
students, and to ensure the Federal Government upholds its
immense responsibility for the education of American Indian and
Alaska Natives through the provision of direct educational
services incumbent in the trust relationship of the U.S.
Government, including the responsibility of ensuring
educational quality and access.
Although National Indian Education Association supports the
broad-based principles of No Child Left Behind, there is
widespread concern about the many obstacles that the NCLB
presents to Indian communities, who often live in remote,
isolated, and economically disadvantaged communities,
particularly in rural areas. There is no one more concerned
about accountability and documented results than our
membership. But the challenges many of our students and
educators face on a daily basis make it difficult to show
adequate yearly progress and to ensure teachers are the most
highly qualified.
We support generally looking into the specifics of the
statute and looking for flexibility that makes sense to Indian
education and to meeting the goals of this statute, and to
funding it so that we can indeed accomplish those objectives.
President Bush's budget proposes $529 million, or a .9-
percent decrease in education, equaling $69.4 billion in total
budget authority for the Department of Education. The request
for Alaska Native Education Equity and Education for Native
Hawaiians is reduced by 5 percent and 8 percent, and Indian
education program funding remains at the same level as fiscal
year 2005 at $119.9 million, and down from fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2003 levels. Inadequately funding Indian education
programs will diminish, if not undo, any progress we have made.
Within the No Child Left Behind Act is the Indian Education
Act, Title VII. That particular section requires unique
purposes which speak to meeting the language and culture needs
of American Indians and Alaska Natives, and also using
culturally based education approaches to accomplish
achievement. Also within title III there are provisions that
allow for Native language teachers to be trained and for Native
language programs. We believe the broad implementation of this
statute is threatening language and culture programs, and the
broad intention of making sure that our students' unique
educational needs regarding language and cultures are being
eliminated from our schools.
Increasing the Department of Education budget for Native
education programs by 5 percent would provide a step forward in
helping Native students to achieve the same high standards as
other students nationwide, while at the same time preserving
and protecting the integrity and continuity of our cultural
traditions. We realize that 5 percent will not address all of
the needs, but we find the request to be reasonable and
sensitive to the current budget environment.
Proposed programs for elimination have a direct impact or
effect upon Native students, including TRIO Talent Search, TRIO
Upward Bound, Even Start, Perkins Loans, and Student Dropout
Prevention, to name a few. While these programs may have not
had the desired results across the board, they have provided
enormous benefit to Native students and served their intended
purposes in Indian communities. To eliminate these programs
would cause a desperate impact upon Native students and upon
our progress as those programs have assisted them.
Nearly 90 percent of approximately 500,000 Indian children
attend public schools throughout the Nation. Indian students
who attend these schools often reside in economically deprived
areas and our impacted by programs for disadvantaged students.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget fails to fully fund the
Title I Low Income School Grants Program critical to closing
the achievement gap. A modest increase of $602.7 million for
this program still leaves more than $7 billion below the
authorized levels for NCLB. If the fiscal year 2006 budget is
enacted, this will be the first cut in education in a decade,
and would completely disregard Native students' critical needs.
Within the Department of Education budget, tribally
controlled post-secondary vocational and technical institutions
and strengthening tribally controlled colleges and
universities' request remain level with the fiscal year 2005
levels at $23.8 million. While the strengthening of Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian institutions receive a 45-percent
decrease from 2005 levels at $26.5 million. Tribally controlled
colleges and universities receive just under $3,000 annually
per student, less than one-half the amount annually provided
for students in other community colleges, and do not have
access to other state or local dollars, increasing or
exacerbating this situation of underfunding. NIEA requests a
10-percent increase in funding to tribal colleges to meet core
operational needs.
BIA's budget has historically been inadequate to meet the
needs of Native Americans, and consequently our needs have
multiplied over the years. The fiscal year 2006 BIA budget
fails to fund tribes at a rate of inflation, increasing the
hardships faced by Native students. Perhaps the clearest
example of unmet needs among Native Americans is the disparity
between the amounts spent per student in BIA schools as
compared with public schools. BIA schools will spend less than
half the amount that public schools nationally will spend. The
amount currently spent per student at BIA schools is the
equivalent to public school per student expenditures during the
1983-84 school year. BIA schools will spent an amount per
student the public schools were spending 20 years ago, while
expecting our students to perform at levels in 2006.
The Chairman. I would ask you to summarize, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Beaulieu. Okay. Many of the other cuts mentioned have
been mentioned by witnesses. In summary, the overall education
funding is receiving a 10-percent decrease, $114 million, while
overall discretionary spending within the budget is receiving a
2-percent increase. This is a direct violation, we believe, of
the trust responsibility for Indian education.
We respectfully urge this committee to truly make Indian
education a priority and to work with congressional
appropriators and the Administration to ensure that Indian
education programs are fully funded.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Beaulieu appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.
The cut is about 10 percent, right?
Mr. Beaulieu. Total.
The Chairman. Yes; and what is the population growth,
percentage-wise?
Mr. Beaulieu. I do not know the exact number, Senator.
The Chairman. Do you know, Tex? I think it is about 2 or 3
percent.
Mr. Hall. I think it is close to 3 percent, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So we are really looking at 13 percent,
roughly.
Mr. Hall. Right. Exactly.
The Chairman. I thank the witnesses for being here. Thank
you for your testimony. Your testimony acknowledges the need
for Federal spending and program accountability. For years, I
have heard that tribes are reluctant or refuse to share
specific data with Federal agencies.
Currently, how do tribes measure the impact or success of
federally funded programs administered by self-determination
contracts or self-governance compacts, and how do you propose
overcoming this problem?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, clearly the Federal agencies like
BIA for example require quarterly reports or SF269s required
under your 638 contract. Really, you have to report how you are
doing in your scope of work and so on and so forth. Tribes have
been doing that for a long time.
I do have a concern with the school construction and Indian
Health Services my friend J.D. was talking about. You get a
good score, but you lose $85 million in health construction
dollars. It just does not make sense. So at the end of the day,
the NCAI, as I presented in my testimony, has created a
national data center. We really need to get that funded to
really look at data, because a lot of times we ask a Federal
agency on law enforcement on how do you reduce crime. Well, we
get different messages on what the statistics are. So we really
need our own center, and that is why NCAI has proposed a
national Indian data center to really take charge of our own
data because it is our data that is getting cut, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And share that information with the Federal
Government?
Mr. Hall. Yes; we have.
The Chairman. I mean, this center would do that?
Mr. Hall. Oh, excellent, excellent. Yes, it would.
The Chairman. Back to you, Mr. Beaulieu. Do you have an
estimate yet on the impact that the No Child Left Behind Act
has on tribal schools?
Mr. Beaulieu. An estimate on the impact it has? We believe
that the implementation of the Act is not working, that many of
the impacts that exist there in terms of the ways in which the
annual yearly progress is occurring, the fact that we have
schools being measured year to year on a single test without
documenting the actual progress being made. We think we are
making incredible progress actually, but it is not being
accounted for in many ways.
The Chairman. So what do we need to do?
Mr. Beaulieu. We need to create greater flexibility to
recognize unique circumstances of those schools within the
statute to allow for indicators of progress, to allow for
improving the definition of ``highly qualified.'' Rural areas,
you know, having a subject matter specialist in every single
subject often does not work. We realize that we also need
teachers that are competent and qualified to teach, improving
professional development so that they are better able to teach
would be a great assistance, and improving the funding level to
accomplish that as well would be important.
There is so much focus on testing that the heart and soul
of the programs are often being eliminated. We think that is
damaging to the quality of our educational programs at the same
time.
The Chairman. Mr. Carl, sort of along the lines of what I
was talking with Mr. Petherick about, how did the Native
American Block Grant Program fare under the program assessment
rating tool evaluation, PART evaluation?
Mr. Carl. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to answer that
question. A couple of years ago, HUD gave a report to the
committee that tribes were not expending their money. Indian
tribes became very alarmed and came back with its own report
that there was really no money tied up in the pipeline. The
tribes were expending their money.
The tribes are very diligent in not only performing an
Indian housing plan that shows in detail how the money is being
expended, but also the scope of work. At the end of each year
we are required to do an annual performance report. The annual
performance report that tribes diligently and work very hard to
submit as part of the program requirement unfortunately we
found does not make its way to OMB. The performance measures
that are set out for this particular grant year, OMB and the
tribes do not connect.
In this case, the performance measure that it set out now
by OMB and further by HUD requires that the NAHASDA grants
bring out social changes of what the NAHASDA grant has
provided. But that is like trying to put a square bolt in a
round hole because the requirement of NAHASDA as administered
by HUD does not have the same criteria.
So I believe in our own research, we have been able to
measure not only building homes, but changes in the lives of
Native Americans.
The Chairman. Would you provide that information to the
committee, please?
Mr. Carl. Yes; I can.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. Beaulieu, you heard Mr. Cason say that this budget is a
continued commitment to Indian schools. That statement seems to
be at odds with your statement. Give me your assessment of
that.
Mr. Beaulieu. Did I write that it was a continuing
commitment?
Senator Dorgan. No; I am saying that Mr. Cason when he
testified said that the President's budget is a continued
commitment to Indian schools. That is vastly at odds with your
testimony.
Mr. Beaulieu. It certainly is, Senator. We do not believe
it is a commitment to Indian schools. The reduction in
construction, I mean, one has to have a place to learn. The
schools often do not meet safety and health standards. The
quality of going to school in places that currently exist are
disastrous. That is a major issue. It has long been a major
issue, as has been the need for repairs in schools. There is a
continuing increase in the amount of improvements that have not
been met in the existing schools.
Senator Dorgan. That is the point that has not been made.
We talk about construction for new schools that are necessary
and need to be built, but there is a massive amount of deferred
maintenance that is necessary on schools that already exist.
That is not a luxury. That is a necessity. You have to do this
maintenance to keep those facilities up to date.
Mr. Chairman, we in North Dakota are very proud of the
leadership of Tex Hall, who is serving as you know in his
second term as president of the National Congress of American
Indians, and he has provided some very effective leadership. We
are all very proud of the work you have done, Tex, and are
pleased that you are here with us once again.
Let me ask, if I might, what kind of consultation does the
BIA undertake, when they begin to put together a budget and
evaluate an assessment of the needs in a budget. What kind of
consultation has existed there?
Mr. Hall. There is a difference in opinion on what that
word means for tribes and for the Administration and the Bureau
officials. Each region probably has a budget consultation
meeting. Nationally, we have formed a tribal BIA Budget
Advisory Council which is meeting in Phoenix Thursday and
Friday at the San Marco Resort or something. It is a real nice
place. I look forward to going there, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very nice. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. But on the other hand, getting back to education
for example, one of our items is we believe in self-
determination and yet the Administration has put a moratorium
on any tribes that want to contract their schools. That is
against what the consultation with the tribes. On
reorganization, the tribes are against reorganization, yet we
see hundreds of millions of dollars that are taken from our
school construction budgets, put into the Office of Historical
Accounting, and we all know, and the Cobell plaintiffs know,
the records are not there.
So why are we putting it there? Again, that is an example
of there is just a complete difference on what consultation
means. So it seems like we talk about it, but we just go in
different worlds.
Senator Dorgan. Chairman Hall, you heard the statement by
Chairman McCain this morning. I feel as he does about the trust
issue. We really need to get this addressed and then move on,
but it needs to be addressed in a fair and thoughtful way. But
if we spend the next 10 years spending billions of dollars
doing historical accounting, it is going to detract from needed
investments in health care, education, housing, that we just
have to find a way to invest in. Tell me your assessment of
Chairman McCain's comments this morning. As the Chairman of the
National Congress of American Indians, do you feel there is a
way for all the stakeholders to understand the urgency of
finding a commonsense approach to solve this?
Mr. Hall. I do. I must be a perennial optimist, I guess,
but I am encouraged. I have talked with many of the
stakeholders, including, I believe Chief Jim Gray is in the
audience today. He is the chairman of the Intertribal
Monitoring Association, 50 tribes that have large trust
accounts. Of course, I am from the Great Plains, Senator
Dorgan, from Mandan Hidatsa Arikara. Great Plains has 33
percent of all the accounts.
I have talked to members of the Montana-Wyoming, and they
are about 20 percent of the accounts. I have talked to the
Navajo Nation and with ITMA and the Cobell plaintiffs. I
believe all these folks that I mentioned have a big dog in the
fight, and they want to resolve it. So we are actually going to
be meeting and discussing this tomorrow night at that nice
resort at 7 o'clock, talking about this very important issue.
Senator Dorgan. There may be cases where not every
stakeholder has a feeling that this needs to be solved now, or
that there is any urgency. Some feel that perhaps some years
can go by and you exhaust all the last options for them. This,
I think, and I would guess the chairman would agree, this is
going to take some real leadership in Indian country as well. I
think that in order to have a consensus emerge and develop, it
cannot be imposed, it has to be a developed consensus that
comes from Indian leadership across the country.
So I am pleased to hear your response to the chairman's
discussion this morning, because that is the only way this is
going to get solved.
Mr. Hall. Senator Dorgan, I am reminded of a lady that has
passed on. Her name is Carol Young Bear. I am glad both you and
the chairman are concerned about teen suicides. She had
diabetes and she had her legs amputated. She was waiting for
her IM account check. This is a couple of years ago. Because of
the suit and all the litigations, all she wanted was the $1,200
that was in her IM account.
Because she had her legs amputated, she wanted to go to
town. She wanted to visit her relatives, and she probably
wanted to play bingo. Well, she did not get that check and she
passed on. So all she wanted was a used van with a lift to get
her to be able to go into her wheelchair and get into that van.
Those are the stories that remind me that with the
continued delays, there will be many other Carol Young Bears
out there that are not able to live their full quality of life,
especially when they are senior citizens. These are their
moneys. So it reminds and I think it reminds all of us in this
room that this very important issue must be addressed sooner
than later.
Senator Dorgan. I think that is an approach that makes a
lot of sense. A person that was a member of your tribe, the
late Rose Crows Flies High, used to, when she would hear
something good from someone in an audience, she would make a
unique sound. You might have a name for the sound that Rose
Crows Flies used to make.
Mr. Hall. Rattling her tongue.
Senator Dorgan. She would rattle her tongue. She did it
very well. I loved Rose Crows Flies High. But if she were here
this morning, she would have rattled her tongue when the
chairman made his comments, and I think when you just made your
comments, because we need to get to the end of this in a way
that makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank those who testified with respect
to housing and health care as well. I appreciate the testimony
of all four witnesses. I think they contribute to a better
understanding of these issues today.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here, witnesses. I am
sure we will be seeing you often. Thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Grim, D.D.S, M.H.S.A., Assistant
Surgeon General, Director, Indian Health Service
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
Good morning. I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, Director of the Indian
Health Service. Today I am accompanied by Gary J. Hartz, Acting Deputy
Director of the IHS. We are pleased to have the opportunity to testify
on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Indian
Health Service.
As part of the Federal Government's special relationship with
tribes, the IHS delivers health services to more than 1.8 million
American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). Care is provided in more
than 600 health care facilities throughout the country. For all of the
AI/ANs served by these programs, the IHS is committed to its mission to
raise their physical, mental, social, and spiritual health to the
highest level, in partnership with them.
This mission is supported by the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS); and, to better understand the conditions in Indian
country, senior Department and IHS officials have visited tribal
leaders and Indian reservations in all 12 IHS areas. And, the
Administration takes seriously its commitment to honor the unique legal
relationship with, and responsibility to, eligible AI/ANs served by
providing effective health care services.
It is Department policy that consultation with Indian tribes occur
before any action is taken that significantly affects them. I have the
pleasure of serving as the vice chair of the Intra-departmental Council
on Native American Affairs (ICNAA) which plays a critical role in the
execution of this policy. Budget is an important area of consultation.
The Department holds an annual budget consultation session to give
Indian tribes the opportunity to present their budget priorities and
recommendations to the Department. This year, during the budget
consultation process, tribal leaders provide us with their top
priorities--inflation and population growth. We heard them and I am
proud to say that this budget reflects these clear priorities.
Through the government's longstanding support of Indian health
care, the IHS, tribal, and Urban Indian health programs have
demonstrated the ability to effectively utilize available resources to
improve the health status of AI/ANs. The clearest example of this is
the drop in mortality rates over the past few decades. More recently,
this effectiveness has been demonstrated by the programs' success in
achieving their annual performance targets as well as by the
intermediate outcomes of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. The
agencys management of the wide array of IHS programs has also been
found to be effective through evaluations using the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The IHS
PART scores have been some of the highest in the Federal Government.
Although we are very pleased with these achievements, we recognize
that there is still progress to be made. American Indians and Alaska
Natives mortality rates for alcoholism, tuberculosis, motor vehicle
crashes, diabetes, unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide are
higher than the mortality rates for other Americans. Many of the health
problems contributing to these higher mortality rates are behavioral.
For example, the rate of violence for AI/ANs youth aged 12-17 is 65
percent greater than the national rate for youth.
In trying to account for the disparities, health care experts,
policymakers, and tribal leaders are addressing many factors that
impact the health of Indian people by increasing preventive services
and health screening throughout the Indian health care delivery system.
To support this effort, the President has requested an 8 percent
increase in funding for preventive health services.
As partners with the IHS in delivering needed health care to AI/
ANs, Tribal and Urban Indian health programs participate in formulating
the budget request and annual performance plan. The I/T/U Indian health
program providers, administrators, technicians, and elected tribal
officials, as well as the public health professionals at the IHS Area
and Headquarters offices, combine their expertise and work
collaboratively to identify the most critical health care funding needs
for AI/ANs people. Currant services funding, especially funding for
inflation and population growth, has been their highest priority for
several years. The budget request for the IHS is responsive to those
priorities by including the increases necessary to assure that the
current level of services for AI/ANs is maintained in fiscal year 2006,
including an increase in services for a growing population.
The President's budget request for the IHS totals $3.8 billion, a
net increase of $72.1 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
The request will allow I/T/U Indian health programs to maintain access
to health care by providing $31.8 million to fund pay raises for
Federal and tribal employees, and $79.6 million to cover the
inflationary cost increases experienced by health delivery systems and
to address the growing AI/ANs population. Staffing and operating costs
for six newly constructed health centers are also included in the
amount of $34.8 million. Once they are fully operational, these
facilities will increase the number of primary care provider visits at
can be provided at these sites by nearly 75 percent, in addition to
providing more comprehensive health care services. Additional tribal
contracting is supported by an increase of $5 million for contract
support costs. This increase will cover the contract support costs of
new contracts estimated to be received in fiscal year 2006. The budget
proposes savings of $3.1 million from increased efficiencies in
implementing information technology and reducing administrative costs.
Similar savings are included in the budget requests of the other HHS
Agencies.
Consistent throughout HHS, fiscal year 2006 requests for facilities
funding focus on maintenance of existing facilities. A total of $3.3
million is included for IHS facility construction, sufficient to fully
fund the Fort Belknap staff quarters project which will provide 29
units of new and replacement staff quarters for the Harlem and Hayes
outpatient facilities in Montana. Available decent local housing makes
it easier to recruit and retain health professionals at remote sites.
American Indians and Alaska Natives will also benefit from several
provisions in the recently enacted Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act. The transitional assistance credit
of $600 per year for low-income Medicare beneficiaries, including AI/
ANs could provide additional Medicare revenue for prescription drugs
dispensed at IHS facilities in fiscal year 2005. The Medicare part D
prescription drug benefit program, when implemented in January 2006,
will extend outpatient prescription drug coverage to AVAN Medicare
beneficiaries and increase Medicare revenues at I/T/U facilities. Other
sections of the act expand the benefits covered under Medicare part B
for AI/AN beneficiaries and allow the IHS and Tribal Health Programs to
pay for additional medical care by increasing its bargaining power when
buying services from non-IHS Medicare-participating hospitals.
The proposed budget that I have just described provides a continued
investment in the maintenance and support of the I/T/U Indian public
health system to provide access to high quality medical and preventive
services as a means of improving health status. It reflects a continued
Federal commitment to AI/ANs.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the President's fiscal
year 2006 budget request for the IHS. We are pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8864.111
<all>