[Senate Hearing 109-396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-396, Pt. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC
__________
PART 1
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
26-112 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
Sara G. Garland, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements:
Blunt, Paula, general deputy assistant secretary, Public and
Indian Housing, Office of Native American Programs,
Department of Housing and Urban Development................ 11
Boyd, Roger, deputy assistant secretary, Public and Indian
Housing, Office of Native American Programs................ 11
Cabrera, Orlando, assistant secretary, Office of Public and
Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development 11
Carothers, Cathie, acting director, Office of Indian
Education.................................................. 9
Cason, James, associate deputy secretary, Department of the
Interior................................................... 6
Corwin, Thomas, director of division of elementary and
secondary vocational analysis, Department of Education..... 9
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, vice
chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs...................... 2
Edwards, Gary, chief executive officer, National Native
American Law Enforcement Association....................... 35
Garcia, Joseph A., president, National Congress of Amrican
Indians.................................................... 26
Gordon, Gary, executive director, National American Indian
Housing Council............................................ 33
Grim, Charles W., director, IHS, Department of Health and
Human Services............................................. 7
Hartz, Gary, director, Office of Environmental Health and
Engineering, Department of Health and Human Services....... 7
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota............ 3
Kitcheyan, Kathleen, member, Board of Directors, National
Indian Health Board, chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Tribal
Council.................................................... 29
Marburger, Darla, deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.................................................. 9
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman,
Committee on Indian Affairs................................ 1
McSwain, Robert G., deputy director, IHS..................... 7
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 4
Parish, Cheryl, secretary and board member, National American
Indian Housing Council..................................... 33
Schofield, Regina, assistant attorney general, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice.................... 13
Swimmer, Ross, special trustee for American Indians.......... 6
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming................ 3
Vanderwagen, Craig, acting chief medical officer, IHS........ 7
Wilson, Ryan, president, National Indian Education
Association................................................ 31
Appendix
Prepared statements:
Cabrera, Orlando (with attachment)........................... 51
Cason, James (with attachment)............................... 60
Edwards, Gary................................................ 89
Garcia, Joseph A............................................. 95
Gipp, David M., president, United Tribes Technical College... 109
Grim, Charles W. (with attachment)........................... 45
Hall, Tex, United Tribes Technical College, board president,
chairman, Mandan, Hidatasa, Arikara Nation................. 109
Jimmie, Andrew, chairman, Alaska Native Health Board......... 114
Kitcheyan, Kathleen.......................................... 124
MacDonald-Lone Tree, Hope, delegate, Navajo Nation Council,
chairperson, Public Safety Commission, Navajo Nation
Council.................................................... 134
Marburger, Darla (with attachment)........................... 141
National Indian Head Start Directors Association............. 43
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers 157
Parish, Cheryl............................................... 161
Roanhorse, Jr., Anslem, MSW, executive director, Navajo
Division of Health, on behalf of Joe Shirley, Jr.,
president, Navajo Nation................................... 183
Schofield, Regina (with attachments)......................... 167
Swimmer, Ross (with attachment).............................. 60
Thomas, Virginia, President, National Johnson-O'Malley
Association Board.......................................... 188
Wilson, Ryan (with attachment)............................... 193
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter to President George W. Bush from Daniel R. Hawkins,
Jr., vice president, Federal, State, and Public Affairs,
National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc...... 222
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
106 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators McCain, Akaka, Dorgan, Johnson,
Murkowski, and Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Let me begin by applauding
the Administration for eliminating earmarks in the President's
budget and commending efforts to reduce ineffective or
inefficient spending. But while we must all be concerned for
our fiscal future and must make tough choices, we cannot renege
on the Federal Government's trust and moral obligations to
Indians.
In evaluating the proposed budget against this backdrop, I
am deeply concerned that the funding for the earmarks was
simply eliminated, rather than redirected to continue
supporting the Indian programs or services which already
experience severe underfunding.
I am also concerned that programs deemed non-essential or
duplicative by the Administrative were eliminated in their
entirety without consulting with Indian tribes or this
committee, without a realistic assessment of existing or
available alternative services and without evaluation of the
impacts upon the Indian recipients, especially children.
For example, I am troubled that even though the latest
census stat indicates that a majority of Indians live in urban
areas, the funding for urban Indian health programs, which have
been in existence for over 30 years, was eliminated. The
Administration has indicated that other services may be
available, primarily from the community health centers.
We all know that community health centers are badly
underfunded, but no information, data or statistics were
provided to support such a drastic change in policy. Without
such information, we cannot begin to determine whether CHC's
have the capacity to treat a whole new patient population with
culturally specific needs, much less determine whether shifting
Indian patients from Indian clinics will meet the long-term
health requirements of this population.
As a fiscal conservative, I worked many years to make our
government more effective and less wasteful in determining
where to make cuts in a vast array of sometimes gilded Federal
programs. However, we must remain mindful of our obligation to
Native Americans who remain the very poorest in our country. We
must carefully review changes in programs and policies to
ensure that we endeavor to meet our responsibilities.
I think my friend, Senator Dorgan, would agree with me that
sometimes we see these budgets come over with cuts that they
know are going to be restored by the Congress. It is a game as
old as there is as long as we have been doing business. But I
think that some of these cuts clearly send out the wrong signal
to Indian country as to what our belief and the fulfillment of
our obligation to Native Americans is all about.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
DAKOTA, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me thank all of the witnesses who are coming today
before the committee.
We have a responsibility to provide our advice to the
Budget committee on budget issues. I would share the chairman's
observation about some of these matters. I think sometimes we
have recommendations to zero out funding with the full
expectation that Congress would not allow that with certain
programs, and Congress itself will restore the funding.
I do want to point out that I think that we have in this
country some people locked in a cycle of poverty, most
particularly on Indian reservations with a full-scale crisis in
health care, in education, in housing, with unmet needs that
are very substantial. The budget issues reflects a set of
priorities. It answers the question, what are the priorities
for this country. I have very substantial disagreements with a
number of the priorities in the President's budget.
From previous discussions we have had, Mr. Chairman, on
this committee, I know that about 40 percent of the health care
needs are unmet, roughly 40 percent of the health care needs of
Native Americans are unmet needs. It is a trust responsibility
we have for Native Americans and yet we sit here, the witnesses
sit there, the Administration is down the street a ways, and
none of us should be or will be content with 40 percent of the
health care needs being unmet. It is a crisis.
How many children today are not going to get health care
when they need it? And we know they are not going to get health
care. So we have a responsibility to do something about this,
this committee, the Budget Committee, the Administration. The
budget is simply a starting point. This opportunity to have a
full discussion about that is a unique and good opportunity.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. I
did want to say there is a pent-up passion of mine for us to
get serious about the third world conditions that exist in some
parts of our country, notably Indian reservations, where a lot
of people who need health care are not getting it, where kids
are going to schools that are in disrepair, and where
opportunities for housing are not the same as in other parts of
the country. We can do something about that if we have the
will. There is a way to do it, and I hope that at the end of
this process this year, we will make some progress on all of
those issues.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just simply want to agree with what both of you have
said. I think it is very important for us to take a look at
these budgets. Obviously, we have some times of great need. I
think there is special need often in Indian country and we need
to take a look at that.
On the other hand, we have the spending of the money. So it
is a real challenge, and thank you for starting us on that road
today.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the members of the panel.
I come to this hearing with a little bit of a different
perspective in that besides this seat on the Committee on
Indian Affairs, I also serve on the Budget Committee and the
Appropriations Committee. Budgets are fascinating documents
because it is when you get to the budget document that rhetoric
and reality begin to part ways, because it is the budget that
clarifies where priorities, where values truly lie. We have
never had any shortage of rhetoric directed toward improving
the lot of Native Americans, but the budget too many times has
fallen far short of reflecting what that rhetoric would
suggest.
I am concerned about underfunding in health care and
education, among others. One of the things that I think we need
to do a much better job of is directing resources in a manner
which would spawn a much stronger private sector economy in
Indian country, because it is apparent to me after my years in
the Congress in both the House and the Senate that we simply
cannot rely year after year on the Federal Government to fully
live up to its treaty and trust responsibilities, because it
has fallen woefully short every year that I can think of. We
need to find ways to diminish that dependency that we have had
too much of, but that does not come free. That involves
investment in education and infrastructure and other needs in
Indian country as well.
While we are at it, I think it will continue to be
important that this Congress maintains a consultative
respectful relationship with the tribes involved. This should
not be a top-down decisionmaking process. This needs to be one
that is consultative and reflective of the sovereignty and the
government-to-government relationship which does indeed exist
or should exist between our tribes and the Federal Government.
So I am grateful for the Chairman holding this hearing. I
look forward to a much closer analysis of the budget that is
being proposed to us. It is true that we can make changes, but
it is also true that the pool of discretionary domestic funding
that is available continues to shrink year after year after
year, forcing decisions that should not have to be made.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate
the hearing this afternoon.
To all of you gathered here this afternoon, thank you for
joining us.
I do have a full statement that I want to submit to the
record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Murkowski. Just a few comments before we move to
the panel. I want to take 1 minute to acknowledge Ryan Wilson,
who is the president of the National Indian Education
Association. They are having their annual legislative meeting
here in Washington. I know that several of our colleagues are
going to be speaking at the meeting tomorrow morning, as I
will.
Yesterday, Ryan delivered a State of Indian Education
address. One of his key messages was that it is crucial for
this committee to travel to Indian country so that we can hear
from those who work on the frontlines of Indian education, so
that we can witness the conditions of the facilities.
But perhaps more importantly, that we can interact with
Native young people and let them know that somebody cares about
their future, that somebody cares about their education. This
is an important idea, and I would hope that the committee would
be able to accommodate it.
I am still looking forward to an opportunity to have
Secretary Spellings travel to the State of Alaska as former
Secretary Paige had an opportunity to do a couple of years ago,
where he was able to witness not only some of the creativity of
our teachers and administrators in the rural areas, but
understand some of the challenges in implementing Federal
programs such as No Child Left Behind in very isolated rural
places. So I will again extend the invitation through you, Ms.
Marburger, to Secretary Spellings to again see for herself
first-hand.
I want to take a few minutes to say a few words about the
proposed budget. I want to acknowledge the Bureau of Indian
Affairs' [BIA] efforts to fund the contract support costs. The
Indian Health Service [IHS] can be proud of the fact that it
has obtained funding to keep up with the population changes and
medical inflation. I also note a flight increase in the funds
proposed for rural sanitation.
We may quarrel about the sufficiency of these increases. We
still do not have the 10 percent annual increase in IHS
clinical services that I have been fighting for since I came to
the Senate, nor is the Federal Government spending what it
should for the care of Indians. It is a recognition that we
have to do what we can when it comes to that care.
I have to hand it to you, Dr. Grim, and to Mr. Cason, for
working the system to make the best that you can of a tough
budget. But there are some provisions that I do remain
concerned about. The IHS' facility construction program, what
was supposed to be a 1-year pause in the program is emerging to
be a 2-year freeze. I am concerned. I want to know what the
effect of these cuts will be on the construction of the new in-
patient facilities at Barrow and Nome. These are number one and
two on the priority list. That is something that we are looking
at with great concern.
Also, the proposal to discontinue funding for urban Indian
health programs is also disconcerting. We do not necessarily
have the urban programs in Alaska, but the urban clinics in the
western United States serve numerous Alaska Natives who have
relocated to other parts of the country, looking for employment
and a better life. So it is troubling when one considers that
some of the clients served by these urban clinics were
encouraged to leave their reservations in the 1950's as part of
this policy of relocating Indians out of Indian country.
I do have some concerns, again I would mention the Indian
education, the Johnson O'Malley program, which has proved to be
a vital cultural link for Native children receiving education
in the public school system. It is proposed for elimination.
The Office of Indian Education, you have to wonder what
specifically is happening there.
We had very able leadership under Assistant Deputy
Secretary Vasquez. The office had a clear reporting
relationship to Secretary Paige. It is now being headed by an
acting director, as Ms. Vasquez has left, but it is kind of
buried in there in the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education. So we look to work with you to better understand how
these can all be brought together.
There is lots to talk about today, Mr. Chairman. Of all the
hearings that this committee conducts in this year, this one is
probably the most important to Indian country. So I look
forward to hearing from those who have agreed to be with us
this afternoon, and to share some of the concerns that we have
as we talk about our obligations.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Senator Murkowski appears in
appendix.]
The Chairman. Our panel of witnesses, some we have had the
opportunity of visiting with on numerous occasions, and there
are others who are new here today.
James Cason, who has been here on a number of occasions, is
the associate deputy secretary of the Department of the
Interior. He is accompanied by Ross Swimmer, an old friend who
is the special trustee for American Indians. Charles W. Grim is
the director of the IHS, the Department of Health and Human
Services. He is accompanied by Robert G. McSwain, the deputy
director of the IHS; Craig Vanderwagen, who is the acting chief
medical officer of the IHS; and Gary Hartz, who is director of
the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, Department
of Health and Human Services.
Darla Marburger is deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. She is
accompanied by Cathie Carothers, who is the acting director of
the Office of Indian Education; and Tom Corwin, who is the
director of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Vocational
Analysis in the Department of Education.
Orlando Cabrera is the assistant secretary, Office of
Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban
Development. He is accompanied by Roger Boyd, who is the deputy
assistant secretary of Public and Indian Housing, Office of
Native American Programs; and Paula Blunt, who is the general
deputy assistant secretary, Public and Indian Housing, Office
of Native American Programs at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Finally, but not least, Regina Schofield is the assistant
attorney general, Office of Justice Programs at the Department
of Justice.
Welcome. We will begin with you, Mr. Cason.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CASON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROSS SWIMMER,
SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN
INDIANS
Mr. Cason. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I am here representing the Department of the Interior,
along with Ross Swimmer, who is the Special Trustee for
American Indians. Ross and I have concluded that we are not
going to offer an opening statement beyond just introduction,
to afford the committee the most time to ask us questions and
respond to your interests.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cason appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Maybe a general comment on the budget
submission, Mr. Cason, might be appropriate, if you had just a
brief comment.
Mr. Cason. Okay. Just briefly for both OST and the
Department, the Indian Affairs budget is roughly even. We are
about $70 million short of the 2006 enacted amount. Of that
amount, most of that falls into the category of school
construction, $47 million is the equivalent of a school that is
not on the replacement list, in order to make our budget
balance.
There were a lot of additions and deletions in our budget
in Indian Affairs. What we tried to do is take a look at the
entirety of the Indian Affairs budget, identify the things that
we believe to be core systems in our budget or core
requirements in our budget, and then identify all the other
secondary and tertiary pieces of the budget and look to
maintain the integrity of all the core systems, use secondary
and tertiary programs to make new investment in core systems,
or ensure that no reduction occurred in them, and then use as
tradeoffs secondary and tertiary programs.
Most of those ended up being supplemental activities for
core systems, or very small bit programs that did not have very
much of an investment.
We have a big commitment to Indian education embodied in
our budget. That is very important to us, and we are spending a
lot of time and effort on that program area. As the committee
knows, we are spending a lot of time on trust and our trust
responsibilities. Those are the two principal drivers of the
Indian Affairs budget.
Ross, did you want to make any comment on yours?
Mr. Swimmer. Just briefly. Our budget is basically the
same, with a small reduction in the operating side of it. We
have asked for an increase on behalf of the pass-through that
we give to the BIA for the Indian Land Consolidation Program of
approximately $21 million to increase the amount of funding for
that program to acquire the very small fractional interest in
Indian country, and make the land much more useful, and
decrease the cost of having to deal with these very small
fractional interests.
We have what I believe is the funding to proceed with the
development of the fiduciary trust model, which is in essence a
fiduciary trust operation within the Department of the Interior
to administer the trust. We continue to administer that model,
to implement the model, mainly through conversion of systems,
cleanup of records, and reconciliation efforts. Our budget is
also of course committed to the historical accounting through
the Office of Historical Trust Accounting.
Of the total of our budget of approximately $244 million,
the amount that the Special Trustee actually controls for its
budget is about $114 million. The rest of it is given out to
other offices or bureaus within the Department of the Interior
to do other trust activities such as the Oken Ota.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Grim, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, IHS, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT G. McSWAIN,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR; CRAIG VANDERWAGEN, ACTING CHIEF MEDICAL
OFFICER; AND GARY HARTZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND ENGINEERING
Mr. Grim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I appreciate
your time today.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the IHS. I
would like to summarize my written statement and ask that it be
entered into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Grim. First, I want to be up front with you. I do not
think it was missed in any of your opening comments that this
budget reflected some hard choices that needed to be made about
where funds can be used most effectively to improve the health
status of American Indian and Alaska Native people. To meet the
President's goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, some
well-intentioned programs have been reduced or eliminated in
the overall budget and IHS was not immune to this.
This budget reflects our effort to make those difficult
choices in the wisest way. Overall, however, the request for
IHS represents the commitment of the Administration to protect
programs that have proven to be effective.
While the overall discretionary spending within DHHS is
proposed to be reduced by 2.1 percent, the request for IHS is a
4.1 percent increase or $125 million over the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. The increase is direct funding to the highest
priorities that were expressed by tribes during the budget
consultation processes we held. They told us that funding of
items to maintain the current services is where funding is
needed first.
Therefore, this budget includes an increase of $134 million
to cover pay raises for IHS and tribal staff, for the increased
costs of delivering health care, and for increased services
resulting from a growing American Indian and Alaska Native
population.
There is also an increase of $32 million included for new
staffing and operating costs at four new health centers that
will be opening during fiscal year 2007. There is $11 million
that is included to cover the increased costs of implementing
the department's unified financial management system within
Indian Health Service. I am very pleased that our budget had
that level of increases.
On the other hand, the President's budget for the IHS
contains some difficult choices, as I mentioned earlier, but I
want to acknowledge that the decisions made are consistent with
the responsible budget principles that were applied throughout
the President's budget request.
There are 141 programs that were proposed for termination
or reduction in the President's budget, some that were proposed
because performance had not been satisfactory, and other that
were proposed because their purposes may have been addressed in
other agencies.
The IHS's Urban Indian Health Program was deemed to fall
into that last category and therefore the budget request is
that funding for this program be eliminated in fiscal year
2007. However, I want to add that the department is committed
to ensuring that culturally sensitive health care services are
available to American Indian and Alaska Native people who find
themselves living in those urban areas.
Another area of hard choices we had to make was in the area
of construction, as was noted by Senator Murkowski. The budget
request for IHS health care facilities in 2007 is $17.7
million, which is a $20 million reduction from the fiscal year
2006 enacted level. That requested amount will complete one
facility, the construction of the Phoenix Indian Medical Center
Southwest Ambulatory Care Center. Construction on that facility
is scheduled to begin this fiscal year with fiscal year 2006
appropriated funds.
While the replacement of aging facilities is an important
area for expanding access to care, this budget is intended to
ensure that the basic needs of all Indian Health Service and
tribal programs throughout the IHS are met. So we chose to
focus during a tight budget year on offering treatment and not
building infrastructure.
In addition, the request for 2007 is consistent within
HHS's overall facilities management strategy in that no new
construction is funded in fiscal year 2007.
In closing, I just want to reiterate that this budget
supports tribal priorities to maintain current services funding
levels of our system and the budget will ensure continued
access to high quality medical and preventive services for our
population. It reflects the continued Federal commitment to the
American Indian and Alaska Native people.
Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
[Prepared statement of Dr. Grim appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Ms. Marburger, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DARLA MARBURGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CATHIE CAROTHERS,
ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION; AND THOMAS CORWIN,
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
VOCATIONAL ANALYSIS
Ms. Marburger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. On behalf of Secretary Spellings, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2007 budget request for
the Department of Education programs serving American Indians
and Alaska Natives.
My name is Darla Marburger and I am deputy assistant
secretary in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
I am joined by my colleagues. After I give you a summary of my
written remarks, we will be happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
The Bush administration is strongly committed to ensuring
that American Indians and Alaska Natives benefit from national
education reforms and receive every opportunity to achieve to
high academic standards. Recent data suggest that our
investments in Indian education are beginning to pay off.
We know that more Indian students are pursuing post-
secondary education than ever before. The number of Indian
students enrolling in colleges and universities is up. American
Indian and Alaska Native students are scoring higher than they
have in the past in the national assessment of educational
progress. They are also scoring higher than other minority
groups.
However, significant achievement gaps persist between
American Indian and Alaska Native student populations and the
general population. These students continue to be subject to
significant risk factors that threaten their ability to improve
their academic achievement and their general well being, and
continue to need support from the Federal programs that address
the specific educational needs of the population.
The 2007 budget request for the Department of Education
builds on the success of the No Child Left Behind Act and
supports the President's commitment to provide resources to
help improve educational opportunities for all students.
American Indian students will continue to benefit from the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, as well as new
initiatives, including the $1.5 billion High School Reform
Program to improve the quality of secondary education, and the
President's $380 million American Competitiveness Initiative to
give students a strong foundation in mathematics and science
skills needed to compete in the 21st century economy.
Overall, department programs would under the fiscal year
2007 budget provide approximately $1 billion in direct support
specifically for Indians and Alaska Natives. In addition,
significant funds are provided to Indian students who receive
services through broader Federal programs such as the ESEA
Title I grants to local educational agencies and the IDEA State
grants.
The BIA would receive over $215 million of Department of
Education funds to support Indian education programs operated
by that agency. We work closely with the BIA on program
implementation issues and to improve the quality of the
services the agency provides to Indian students.
The President's request for the department's Indian
education programs for fiscal year 2007 is $118.7 million. We
are requesting $95.3 million for Indian Education Formula
Grants to local education agencies. These grants supplement the
regular school program, helping Indian children improve their
academic skills and participate in enrichment programs that
would otherwise be unavailable to them.
Our request for special programs for Indian children is
$19.4 million. Approximately $5.7 million would support an
estimated 23 demonstration grants to fund school readiness and
for preschool-age children, and also to prepare secondary
students to succeed in post-secondary education.
In addition, the 2007 request would provide $9.2 million to
support the American Indian Teacher Corps. This program trains
Indian individuals for teaching positions in schools that have
a high concentration of Indian students. We have a similar
program that is aimed at training administrators to serve in
these same schools.
We are also requesting $4 million for research evaluation,
data collection and technical assistance that is related to
Indian education. This is an area where in the past we have not
been able to get a lot of said information. The data are very
important to us. Funds will continue to support data
collections initiated in earlier years, such as the special
NAEP program that we have in place that is designed to collect
data on the educational experiences of American Indian and
Alaska Native students and the role of Indian culture in their
education.
The other purpose of the program is to promote ongoing
program improvement for Indian education grants to LEA's and
special programs.
Our budget request for the first time would provide funding
of $200 million for formula-based title I school improvement
grants. These funds would help ensure that States receive
resources to provide effective improvement support to LEA's and
schools that have been identified as needing improvement. Under
this program, the BIA would receive approximately $1.4 million
for school improvement activities.
This is just a brief overview, of course, of our budget
activities. The 2007 budget request for the Department of
Education programs that are serving American Indians and Alaska
Natives supports the President's overall goal of ensuring
educational opportunities for all students.
Thank you once again for this opportunity. At this time, I
am happy to take any questions that you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Marburger appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Marburger, your complete statement will be made part of
the record. Yours, too, Mr. Cabrera.
Ms. Marburger. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ORLANDO CABRERA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS; PAULA BLUNT, GENERAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
me to address your committee.
I am here to outline President Bush's fiscal year 2007
budget for HUD's Indian Housing and Community Development
Programs, and also to answer any questions that you may have.
My name is Orlando Cabrera and I am the assistant secretary
for Public and Indian Housing at HUD. As assistant secretary, I
am responsible for the management, operation and oversight of
HUD's Native American programs. These programs are available to
all 561 federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians. We serve these groups either directly or
through their tribally designated housing entities, which I
will refer to from now on as TDHE's.
The Office of Public and Indian Housing provides grants and
loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and
community development in Indian country. Seizing momentum is
key as we continue to work together toward creating more and
better housing for Indian country and the Hawaiian Homelands.
At the outset, let me reaffirm this department's support
for the principle of government-to-government relations with
federally recognized Native American tribes. HUD is committed
to honoring this core belief in our work with all of our
stakeholders.
The President believes in an ownership society. HUD's
Native American and Native Hawaiian loan guarantee programs are
the engines that drive HUD's homeownership efforts in Indian
country and Hawaii. For example, during fiscal year 2005,
tribes and their TDHE's used Indian housing block grant funds
to build, acquire, or rehabilitate 1,050 rental units and 5,455
homeownership units. Each of these became a home to a Native
American family.
Let me now turn to the President's budget request for 2007.
This budget proposes a total of $695,990,000 specifically for
Native American and Native Hawaiian housing and community
development; $625.7 million is proposed under the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996,
otherwise known as NAHASDA. Of that amount, approximately $620
million is for direct formula allocations through the Indian
Housing Block Grant Program.
The President's budget proposes $1.98 million in credit
subsidy for NAHASDA's Title VI program that will in turn
encourage $14.9 million in private sector investment. The
President proposes to fund the Indian Community Development
Block Grant Program at $57.4 million. The Indian CDBG Program
will continue to be administered by HUD's Office of Native
American Programs. $5.9 million in credit subsidies is proposed
for the section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund, which
will provide $251 million in loan guarantee authority.
This budget also recognizes the unique housing needs of
Native Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the Hawaiian
Homelands. HUD continues to address those needs. The Native
Hawaiian community would receive $5.9 million for the Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, and $1 million for the
section 184A Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund, which will
leverage approximately $43 million in loan guarantees.
Finally, there is a total of $3.8 million available for
training and technical assistance to support the Indian and
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Programs.
I would like to focus on one program, if I might, which is
HUD's section 184 program, which addresses the special needs of
Native Americans, making it possible for Native American
families to achieve homeownership with market-rate financing.
Its corollary for Native Hawaiians is the Section 184A program.
These comments would apply to both.
Overall, the section 184 program has been a great success
and the department believes that this program will continue to
play a vital role in reaching the President's commitment to
create 5.5 million minority homeowners by the end of this
decade. To improve the visibility of the program in fiscal year
2005, HUD decentralized its outreach efforts to tribes and
lenders, which enabled the department to connect with more of
our clients at the local level.
The new approach resulted in 634 new homeowners and more
than $100 million in loan commitments in fiscal year 2005. The
loan commitment volume is up 68 percent over the year-end
totals for 2004. This trend has continued in fiscal year 2006,
with 224 loan guarantees worth $28.2 million completed in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2006, a 58-percent increase over
fiscal year 2005.
I hope that this adequately summarizes our budget for
Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs at
HUD. Thank you for your attention. This concludes my prepared
remarks and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Schofield.
STATEMENT OF REGINA SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Schofield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman
Dorgan and members of the committee.
I am Regina Schofield, the assistant attorney general for
the Office of Justice Programs. On behalf of the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice, I stand here today ready
to discuss the Department's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget
priorities for Indian country.
The needs of Indian tribal governments in combating crime
and violence continue to be great, especially in the areas of
substance abuse, domestic violence, and other violent crimes. I
share the administration's commitment to addressing these needs
and have made the government-to-government improving
relationship between tribes and the Federal Government a
personal priority. Since I came to OJP 8 months ago, I have set
up a Justice Programs Council on Native American Affairs which
will coordinate OJP's work with tribes and serve as a liaison
with other Justice components on tribal issues.
Another new tool that will soon become available is the DOJ
websites specifically created for Indian country, which will
feature information on a variety of Justice issues, as well as
grant funding and training. These efforts are designed to
improve communication and to help build tribes' capacity to
create and leverage resources.
Although this budget request does not provide an increase
of Federal dollars, it does provide tribal officials with
flexibility in how to spend these dollars and the tools to
spend them most effectively. For example, one of the many
challenges that Indian tribes face is collecting reliable data
on criminal justice-related issues. We have requested
approximately $39 million for the National Criminal History
Improvement Program, a portion of which can help tribes improve
data collection.
Tribes and States must coordinate in collecting reliable
data and ensuring that this data is readily available. This is
especially true for the several tribes that cross multiple
jurisdictions such as the Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico,
Utah, and the Standing Rock Tribe in the Dakotas.
Another of our goals is to make it easier for tribes to
apply for and use our grant funding. This committee was
instrumental in the passage of several pieces of legislation
regarding tribal self-governance and self-determination that
have permitted tribes greater flexibility. This has allowed
tribes to demonstrate their ability to effectively administer
Federal programs. The department is requesting $31.1 million
for the consolidated tribal grant program, which can be used to
hire tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, or judicial
officials, as well as to purchase or upgrade equipment.
For the drug courts program, we have requested $69.2
million and we have already seen the impact that drug courts
can have on tribal communities. When the First Lady traveled to
Phoenix to promote her Helping America's Youth initiative last
April, she met with many Indian youth and tribal leaders. She
spoke with a girl who completed the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian community's juvenile drug court program and is now
working toward completing her GED.
We are also working on building tribes' capacity to combat
domestic violence. We are combining the Office on Violence
Against Women funds into a single tribal grant program so that
only one application will be necessary. In addition, the new
DOJ reauthorization increases the tribal set-aside from 5
percent to 10 percent of available funds for OVW grants. We
anticipate that no less than $25 million will be available for
assistance to tribes from the fiscal year 2007 request.
We have worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for
more than 15 years to serve young people in tribal communities
to reduce juvenile crime. I believe that the Boys and Girls
Clubs' outreach to young people can and should be expanded. We
have requested $59.5 million to continue this work.
The department will honor our Federal trust responsibility
and continue to assist tribal justice systems in their effort
to promote safe communities. Both our current activities and
our fiscal year 2007 proposed budget reflects these priorities.
I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Schofield appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Schofield.
Mr. Cason, the budget request for trust resources
management proposes a decrease of over $10 million for trust
resources management from last year's enacted level of $152
million, but proposes an increase of $11 million in trust real
estate services. What is the difference? What am I missing
here?
Mr. Cason. Mr. Chairman, the increases in the trust real
estate services is to get to a fundamental problem that we
have. That is to ensure that we have clear and accurate and
contemporaneous information about ownership of trust assets. As
I have testified in other forums, we have probably the largest
trust in the world, with 56 million acres, 45 million of which
belongs to tribes and a little over 10 million that belongs to
individuals.
One of the things that we are encountering is two serious
backlog problems. The first is with probate, that when we have
Indian trust assets, we are responsible for probating the trust
assets upon the death of the owner. We have a backlog of
probates that date back to the 1890's. We have open probates in
every decade since the 1890's. That is clearly an unacceptable
position to be in.
Families who are the intended recipients of probated trust
assets need to get their estates probated in a timely fashion
and that is not happening. So we have put more resources there.
The other major problem is on trust real estate activities,
where we have not entered the information about encumbrances
and trust transactions in a timely fashion. So we have a
backlog there, too, that we are investing in eliminating.
The Chairman. Dr. Grim, I see that the Urban Indian Health
Program has been zeroed out. It is my understanding, then, it
is expected that Native Americans would take advantage of
community health centers. Is that the thinking here?
Mr. Grim. That was one of the examples that we used in the
budget justification, Mr. Chairman, that over the course of
this administration there have been large increases into HRSA's
Community Health Center Program and Urban Indian Health
Programs have, as you all know, historically been hovering
around about 1 percent of our budget. So two of the precepts
that we used within the department in the overall budget
analysis was to look where we think the highest potential
payoff in our instance for increases in health, and then
looking at programs that might be supported elsewhere. CHC's
were one example.
The Chairman. Is there a budget request from the
Administration to increase by that level for Community Health
Centers?
Mr. Grim. No, sir; not specifically, but the budget request
for the CHC's for 2007 is I believe a $188-million increase,
although not a specific set-aside for urban Indian programs.
The Chairman. There are urban Indian health programs not
only just a program, there are facilities that provide for
urban Indian health care. What are you going to do with those
facilities?
Mr. Grim. There are a broad range of programs that are
funded by the IHS under the Urban Indian Health Program. We
have taken a look and done a number of analyses. With some
programs, there will be relatively little impact by the removal
of Indian Health Service funds. Many of them have gone after
numerous State, county and other Federal grants over the years.
Our funding percentage-wise is less than 10 percent of their
overall total budget.
On the other hand, there are programs that are resourced by
us at about the 80-percent level. Those, unless additional
funding is found by their program administrators, will likely
have to close. Most of those that are in that arena, although
not all, are referral-type programs as well. We have a range
from referral- and outreach-type programs that we fund, clear
to a near fully ambulatory health care center delivery-type
system. So there is a very broad range of types of programs we
fund in that, and varying impacts by grantee.
The Chairman. I would argue in States like mine, Dr. Grim,
it is a pretty significant impact, including major facilities.
Ms. Marburger, you eliminated the Johnson O'Malley Indian
Education Program in the President's budget request. Right?
Ms. Marburger. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. $16 million. Was the $16 million eliminated
from Johnson O'Malley moved to the Department of Education
budget?
Ms. Marburger. That is actually not a program in the
Department of Education.
The Chairman. Well, it is a BIA program.
Ms. Marburger. Yes.
The Chairman. It was eliminated, right? The Johnson
O'Malley program was eliminated under the President's budget
request. Right?
Mr. Cason. Mr. Chairman, I might help out. That is in the
BIA budget and yes, that program was zeroed out. The
discussions that we have had internally to the administration
is the belief that overall that duplicated other efforts to
supply funding to public schools and that as a matter of
tradeoffs, that did not appear to be as high a priority as
maintaining the core of BIA's education programs. So that did
end up being a tradeoff.
The Chairman. The committee, Ms. Marburger, has received
testimony that No Child Left Behind has imposed accountability
standards without sufficient funding to meet those standards.
It indicates approximately $1 billion in direct support is
available for Indians and Alaska Natives in this year's
proposed budget.
Will this funding enable Indian students to bridge those
achievement gaps in BIA-funded and local schools with
significant student populations to meet the requirements of No
Child Left Behind?
Ms. Marburger. That is exactly what our budget is targeted
to do. I think that one of the very positive aspects of that is
the money that we are requesting specifically for SEA's and
school and district improvement. For the first time, we will be
providing money to them to help them provide the technical
assistance at the local level to target their interventions and
to really take a close look at how students are achieving so
that they can tailor their program to better meet the needs of
students.
The Chairman. Mr. Cabrera, do you know what the backlog is
for Indian housing?
Mr. Cabrera. Mr. Chairman, just for a point of
clarification, backlog in what respect? In terms of units?
The Chairman. Yes; or money.
Mr. Cabrera. I don't think we have any study right now that
tells us what the backlog in terms of construction might be. We
do have enormous amounts of progress in terms of 184's. So
there has been a lot of demand for mortgages in Indian country
over the last 2 years.
The Chairman. But you don't have a handle on what the
requirement for Indian housing is in Indian country that is
outstanding?
Mr. Cabrera. Most of the grants that are provided for
Indian housing have a nexus to homeownership. Those, it is not
so much grants, as the loan guarantees. So really what we
measure is the number of units that are purchased by Native
Americans in Indian country, and for that matter Native
Hawaiians. In that respect, in the last couple of years, we
have had an increase on the order of 60 percent over previously
utilized numbers.
The Chairman. For the record, maybe you could provide us
with that information.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Ms. Schofield, last year Congress
appropriated funding in the Department of Justice budget to
build one new Indian detention facility. The NCAI will testify
that there is an immediate need to build at least 15 new
detention facilities in order to address the ongoing detention
facility crisis in Indian country, and it is a crisis. What is
your response to that?
Ms. Schofield. I am aware that there is about $7 million
left in that fund, and Senator, that is not enough money to
build any new facilities. What I would like to do with the
remaining funds is to make sure that we are providing some type
of architectural and design specifications for tribes so that
we can get the money out the door. But quite frankly, unless
there is a lot more money put into the pot, you are not going
to be able to build any new facilities.
The Chairman. Well, I would hope that you would request
that additional money, Ms. Schofield.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Ms. Schofield, as I understand it, in the Department of
Justice you have taken tribal courts, tribal prison
construction, tribal alcohol programs, tribal youth programs
and zeroed them out, increased the tribal COPS program to $31.1
million, rolled it all into a block grant, and said you have
more flexibility, right? Is that what you have done?
Ms. Schofield. Well, no, sir, we have not eliminated those
programs. What we have done is requested a $31.1-million so
that OJP and COPS can work together into streamlining all of
those grants so that we can address more pressing needs.
Previously, that money has been available only for law
enforcement. If we are allowed to put together the $31.1-
million as requested by the President, that money can be made
available for meeting more pressing needs in Indian Country,
and you can also move beyond hiring just law enforcement and
move into helping build and improve on court operations, hiring
judicial officials, and prosecutors.
Senator Dorgan. But last year, we funded those programs at
$46 million. This year you are making $31 million available. Is
that correct?
Ms. Schofield. Sir, I am not familiar with last year's
budget.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the tribal courts, last year $7.9
million, and zeroed out this year; tribal prison construction
$8.9 million and zeroed out this year; tribal alcohol $4.9
million and zeroed out this year. So as I add these up, last
year we spent about $46 million. This year we will spent $31.1
million with more flexibility. That is not streamlining. That
is a pretty significant cut in law enforcement areas, in my
judgment. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Schofield. Well, I would hope that in one of the things
I learned in previous positions in the Federal Government is
the ability to have more grants at Indian country's disposal as
opposed to sending people to one stream of funding. So my
personal priority is to make sure that we are making sure that
the tribes can tap into all sorts of funding availabilities at
the Department of Justice.
Senator Dorgan. I don't understand that, because the area
where they would tap into funding would be where we have
appropriated money, and in the next panel we are going to have
Mr. Garcia testify, the National Congress of American Indians,
saying, ``tribal leaders have consistently identified law
enforcement, justice and homeland security as key concerns in
the 2007 budget.''
My only point is that I have traveled to many reservations,
law enforcement is a serious issue, a significant problem. It
looks to me like you are taking $46 million and turning it into
$31 million, and portraying it to us as streamlining. It
appears to me that is a very serious problem if you are trying
to deal with law enforcement issues on reservations.
If you don't mind, I will submit some additional questions
on that. I just think these law enforcement issues have to be
adequately funded, and we will hear more from the next panel.
Let me ask Dr. Grim, what would it cost for us to provide
sufficient funding so that we are staying even on health care
costs for Native Americans in this coming fiscal year?
Mr. Grim. We think the current budget proposal does that.
We have money in every appropriate line item with either the
medical inflator or the nonmedical inflator. We have increases
for population growth. We have been seeing increases in our
users annually and there is money in there for that. We have
full payout costs for tribal and Federal programs. So we feel
like the current budget is a budget that does just what you
said, and in fact with the increased population growth funds,
we feel that we will be able to serve 30,000 more beneficiaries
this next year.
Senator Dorgan. Well, would I be wrong to say that we are
serving somewhere in the area of 60 percent to 65 percent of
the existing need for American Indians with respect to health
care?
Mr. Grim. That number comes from an internal study that we
did, and used as a funding methodology for one of the line
items that we have, the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund,
that sometimes is funded. It was not funded in 2006, but we use
that methodology, compared it against the Federal Employees
Health Benefit package as a comparative analysis so that we
would have something to judge all of our programs against. That
figure comes from that, and we use that methodology internally
for budget distribution.
Senator Dorgan. So we are funding somewhere around 60
percent to 65 percent. That means somewhere between 40 percent
and 35 percent of the health care issues for Native Americans
is unmet at this point. Would that be accurate?
Mr. Grim. Relative to this one comparator.
Senator Dorgan. Well, if you make a comparison and come up
with that number, that is the number. Is it reasonably accurate
to say that 40 percent to 35 percent of the health care needs
are unmet?
All right. My view of this submission is there is an
increase to be sure, but as I look at this it appears to me the
increase is somewhere just over 2 percent and again we will
have testimony in the next panel, and I will refer to it in
just 1 moment, suggesting that in order to just stay even, to
maintain existing health care services and restore loss of
buying power, meet the needs of the increased population, you
would have to be requesting an increase of $485 million to
existing services. Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir; the budget increase for the agency this
year is a 4.1-percent increase, and because of the reductions
that we noted on the facility side and the urban program side,
when you net it out, it is actually a much higher increase than
the $124-million, and all primarily directed at the health
services side of the budget, as well as environmental health
and engineering the sanitation facilities increases that were
noted earlier.
So in a deficit reduction year of budgets, it is I think a
very strong budget and one that does keep pace with the
inflationary and population growth increases.
Senator Dorgan. Yes; well, this is not a deficit reduction
budget in every area. There are some areas that are treated
very generously.
First of all, let me say that I am pleased that these have
not been cut. I am pleased there is an increase, but I would
note that I think we are far short of serving the need that we
are required to serve, and I think with contract health and
other issues, we are going to have to really think through with
the Budget Committee what we do here.
You know and I know that we have circumstances with the
contract health area where it is a life and limb description.
That is the only way you get that service, if you are
threatened with loss of life and limb.
Let me ask Ms. Marburger with respect to tribal colleges.
My understanding is that we provide Federal support for tribal
colleges at about half the rate of Federal support that goes to
community colleges per student. Do you have any information
about that?
Ms. Marburger. I would like to ask my colleague.
Mr. Corwin. Senator, I am Thomas Corwin from the
Department's Budget Service. We do not have a standard program
of support for community colleges, so I don't think we would
have data to back up that statement.
Senator Dorgan. I am going to send you a question about
that because I have seen comparisons about support for students
at community colleges through the various Federal programs and
support that exists for those who go to tribal colleges. It is
about roughly 50 percent to 60 percent. So I am going to send
you some questions about that and see if we can get some
information about it.
I would like to finally ask Mr. Cason, if I could, you had
a requirement to pay attorneys fees, I believe, with respect to
the trust settlement. The Department of the Interior had a
requirement to pay attorneys fees and I think it was in the
neighborhood of $5.7 million?
Mr. Cason. $7.066 million.
Senator Dorgan. And you paid those attorneys fees out of
Indian program funds, which include, there is an obligation, I
believe, in Indian program funds that is for the payment of
those costs, but the Office of Special Trustee has a litigation
cost fund for Cobell litigation that is part of the Office of
Trust Records' budget. My understanding there is money in that,
but that was not used for it. Instead, the money came out of
Indian program funds. Is that correct? If so, why?
Mr. Cason. That is correct. There are two things that are
important. Firs, the department has a couple of pots of money
that are used for managing the day-to-day activities of the
Cobell litigation. Between the commitments we have in the
Department of the Interior and the commitments that we pay for
at the Department of Justice, we are actually short on those
funds just to manage day-to-day Cobell costs.
When we got the judgment from Judge Lamberth to pay $7.066
million in attorneys fees under EAJA, the Equal Access to
Justice Act, we were told that we could not take those funds
from the judgment fund and that they had to come out of program
funds. We looked at a wide variety of alternatives to pay those
funds and in the end of that process basically I made the
decisions for the department to try to spread the impact across
a number of programs to minimize the impact on any one single
program.
Ross in the OST Program contributed some money into the
process, BIA did, the Office of Historical Trust Accounting
did. We got a big chunk of money from the Department of
Treasury. So what we attempted to do was spread the impact, the
adverse impact on the Sunplant expense across a number of
programs so that no one program would be hurt terribly.
Senator Dorgan. I am going to send you some additional
questions about that. I do not want to spend a lot of time on
it.
Let me just finally, Mr. Chairman, say this. I have, as I
have said and I am sure members of the committee have all
traveled extensively to Indian reservations, and I have been to
many parts of the world and seen substantial amounts of
poverty. I have stood at City Soleil in Port-au-Prince, Haiti,
and many parts of the world, and have seen very substantial
poverty and difficulty.
I think all of us, you on the panel and those on the
committee, understand that you can go to parts of this country
and think that you are on a completely different continent, in
the midst of enormous poverty, people living in conditions that
are really, really tough.
So we have this hearing and it sounds just like reasonable
things, you know, we are streamlining this, we are changing
that, we are making a few adjustments here or there. Let me
again, Mr. Chairman, say I think we have a full-blown crisis in
a number of areas in this country, particularly dealing with
Native Americans, particularly dealing with children and the
elderly, with respect to housing, education and health care. I
do not think that just nibbling around the edges on these
issues really does the job very much.
If I were, and I think if most members of this committee
were tribal Chairs trying to figure out how you meet these
needs with the resources that exist, it is probably not just
tough. It is probably impossible.
So I hope that we can pole-vault over some of these notions
of just inching forward in some areas and seeing if we can't do
a quantum leap in trying to address what are some serious human
problems that desperately call out for resources. There are
other areas in our budget that get lots and lots and lots of
resources. We will get $120 billion request very soon,
emergency, none of it paid for, that will add up to somewhere
over $300 billion in total. We will do that just like that. But
God forbid it should be for the health and welfare of Indian
children or others living in conditions of extreme poverty.
I am proud to serve on this committee and proud to serve
with some colleagues that care a great deal about this as well.
I hope that all of us can understand the urgency of it and
begin to make some real progress.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cason, it is a number of agencies involved in this
budget, correct?
Mr. Cason. Yes.
Senator Thomas. I do not have a total here. What is the
total of the budget for Indian activities?
Mr. Cason. Within the Department of the Interior?
Senator Thomas. No; the total.
Mr. Cason. Across Government?
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Cason. What I am told is that it is in the order of $11
billion, if you add up all the programs in the various agencies
we have here.
Senator Thomas. $11 billion.
Mr. Cason. Yes.
Senator Thomas. And do you know how that compares with last
year?
Mr. Cason. I don't.
Senator Thomas. I guess if there is an agency that has some
oversight or some, at least not oversight necessarily, but
coordination, it would be your agency. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Cason. We do attempt to do that. Dr. Grim and I have
worked together, the Department of Education and I have worked
together. We are commonly working with the Department of
Justice on our programs. So I think there is a fair amount of
coordination that goes on between the agencies, albeit we have
different missions.
Senator Thomas. Yes; I guess I have to say I am a little
surprised to see the budget broken down. I understand there are
different agencies, but it would seem to me there would be some
good reason to have a total overview of it among all the
agencies so that the total end-game points toward the
priorities of needs within the Indian country. Do you agree
with that?
Mr. Cason. That sounds reasonable.
Senator Thomas. I just am a little surprised at the
diversity that there is in terms of putting the budget
together. Is there any oversight? Does anybody kind of have an
overview of what the priorities are in general, and then how
that impacts the total? Or does everyone just kind of do their
own thing?
Mr. Cason. Well, my impression about that coordination
point would be the Office of Management and Budget, because all
of our budgets basically stream through OMB, and that is where
I have received my figures about the overall Indian budget. So
I think OMB is taking a look at all the various parts.
Senator Thomas. I understand the numbers. I am talking
about the activities. I am talking about looking into the
future and dealing with some of the things Mr. Dorgan talked
about in terms of changing some fo the social problems in the
Indian country, and how the budget ought to be doing that,
rather than just making it a mathematic operation. That is just
the view I have, and it seems to me it is kind of important.
I don't know. Who does energy things among you? Anyone?
Mr. Cason. We do have energy programs within the BIA. As
the trustee for the 56 million acres under our care, the
Government's care, we have energy mineral programs on that
land.
Senator Thomas. Do you have some activities with regard to
the budget there in terms, for instance, of developing the
opportunities for energy development to help the tribes
financially?
Mr. Cason. Yes; we do. We actually went through a process
during this year to move the Energy and Minerals Program under
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development so that
we could highlight the potential for energy and minerals to
provide economic development opportunity for tribes. We are
going through a process right now of working with the tribes to
identify the best potential energy and mineral deposits on
Indian country that are potentially developable and then we
would work with industry for those the tribes want to develop
to see if we can get industry interest in those.
Senator Thomas. Good. I hope so. Again, it seems to me we
ought to be giving a little more emphasis, a little more focus
on the future and what is going to happen on the tribal lands
and with the tribes, rather than just this year's needs. One of
the real opportunities, at least on some of the reservations,
is the development of energy facilities which would be very
economically helpful.
Over in education, you talked some about junior colleges
and so on. Are those primarily, do you work with the
surrounding regular community colleges for Indian programs in
them? Or are you oriented to Indian schools separately?
Ms. Marburger. We do have programs that support tribal
colleges and universities.
Senator Thomas. What does that mean, tribal colleges and
universities?
Ms. Marburger. These are colleges that actually support----
Senator Thomas. Exclusively tribal?
Ms. Marburger. I do not know if they have a mission to
others, but they are focused specifically on serving the
tribes, yes.
Senator Thomas. The smaller reservations are not going to
have those specifically. There are not enough people involved
so you have to work with the surrounding communities. I guess
that is my interest. And you do that?
Ms. Marburger. I do not know of our activities in that
area, but I would be happy to get back to you with regard to
that.
Senator Thomas. I wish you would please.
[Information follows:]
TRIBALLY CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
The Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities [TCCU's] program is authorized under Title III,
Part A, Section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended. The program awards discretionary grants that enable
TCCU's to improve and expand their capacity to serve American
Indian students. Applicants are limited to tribal colleges and
universities--defined as such by section 2 of the Tribally
Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978-plus
any institution listed in the Equity in Educational Land Grant
Status Act of 1994. There are 32 federally recognized Tribal
Colleges and Universities in the United States. Most of the
TCCU's are 2-year schools. Located mainly in the Midwest and
Southwest, Tribal Colleges and Universities offer 2-year
associate degrees in over 200 disciplines with some providing a
bachelor's and master's degree. They also offer 200 vocational
certificate programs.
Institutions may use their funds to plan, develop, and
implement activities that encourage: faculty and academic
program development; improvement in fund and administrative
management; construction and maintenance of instructional
facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications
technology equipment and services; student services; or the
establishment of a program of teacher education with a
particular emphasis on qualifying students to teach Indian
children. In addition, TCCU's may use their funds to establish
community outreach programs that encourage Indian elementary
and secondary school students to develop the academic skills
and interest to pursue postsecondary education.
Senator Thomas. Dr. Grim, finally, you mentioned something
about eliminating funding for Indian Affairs?
Mr. Grim. For the Urban Indian Health Programs.
Senator Thomas. Oh, urban.
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Because there is $3 billion in the budget
for Indian Affairs.
Mr. Grim. I said overall we had a net 4.1-percent increase,
but there were two reductions over 2006 enacted budget for us.
One of them was in health care facilities at a minus $20
million for 2006 enacted, and the Urban Indian Health Program
at minus $32 million. That was a redirection of those
resources.
Senator Thomas. I see. I misunderstood what you said.
Mr. Grim. It was a component that is approximately 1
percent of our budget that funded 34 grants to urban Indian
health organizations that did anywhere from outreach and
referral sorts of services to ambulatory care services in
different communities around the Nation, urban communities.
Senator Thomas. There is an increase in Indian Health
Service, correct?
Mr. Grim. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. How much is that?
Mr. Grim. $124 million net over 2006, so 4.1 percent. But
if you factor out the two decreases that make it net, it adds
back in another $50 million as well, again, going to the health
services side for the tribes' reservation clinics and
hospitals, and also to environmental health and sanitation
activities.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Fine, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Schofield, have you had an opportunity to familiarize
yourself with the Alaska Rural Justice Commission report? This
was a report that came out last year, a collaborative effort
amongst Alaska Natives and those on the law enforcement side
just looking at the issues specific to the State and Alaska's
natives and how we might deal with some of the enforcement
issues?
Ms. Schofield. No, Senator; I have not, but I will.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. We will make sure that we have a
copy sent over to your office. After you have had a chance to
look at it, I welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and
discuss some of what you are doing with your program, and what
some of the challenges we are facing up north would be. So I
would look forward to that.
Mr. Cabrera, I know you and I have been trying to set up a
time for you to visit the State to understand better some of
our housing needs as they relate to our rural villages with our
Alaska Natives. We will be working with you to set that date. I
think it is important that you have an opportunity to see
first-hand some of the challenges that we experience, and I am
looking forward to doing that with you.
Again, Ms. Marburger, I will extend the invitation to
Secretary Spellings. When Secretary Paige made the trip up, we
were successful in kind of sitting together with not only
Secretary Paige, but the Secretary of Health and Social
Services, the HUD Secretary, in discussing what we called at
that time the Alaska Project. You mentioned in your comments
that there are significant risk factors that face our Indian
students, our Alaska Native students.
We learned that it is not just about delivering education
within the four walls of the classroom. There are other
factors, whether it is the extremely high incidence of FAS, the
domestic violence, the sanitation issues that lead to the
health care concerns, the housing issues, when you have the
principal of the school living in the broom closet there in the
school. These were factors that kind of all go into the
education component. So I would like to re-start those
discussions again at that higher level, if we can do that. It
would be important to have the Secretary's input on that.
Dr. Grim, you mentioned, and I mentioned in my opening
comments, the facilities construction budget and where we are.
You have indicated that the way going forward is more of a
treatment versus infrastructure approach. But as you know,
because you have visited my State on so many different
occasions, when you are hundreds and hundreds of air miles away
and thousands of dollars in transportation costs away from the
infrastructure, it is really difficult to talk about treatment.
My question to you is, as far as the Barrow and Nome
projects go, recognizing that they are number one and number
two on that list, how is the Administration's proposal going to
affect those plans going forward?
Mr. Grim. I would point out that you are correct. They are
on the priority list. They are the next in line and they are of
sufficient size that in this particular year's budget and in
the focuses that we have, that we put a hold on them until out-
years. But they are still a priority. We are working with the
tribal corporations, both our headquarters staff and our area
office staff up there, and we continue to work with them on A&E
design work. They are in the process of getting ready to
procure the property.
So it was an issue of hard choices, as I said, but they are
on the list and they are one of the next ones up.
Senator Murkowski. They understand that, and they have been
told that, as you know, for a number of years. So I need to
know. What do I tell my constituents up there in Barrow, up
there in Nome? Are we on or are we not on? You have given me
the signal that yes, we are moving forward with the
preliminaries, and I am pleased to know that that remains in
process, but I also want them to understand that there is a
timeline that they can look forward to.
So as we move forward with that, I would ask for your very
frank communication and truly a commitment to progress on these
very, very important projects to us.
Mr. Cason, last year we passed the Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act. This was intended to complete the conveyance
of lands from the Federal government that were due the State of
Alaska, as well as our Alaska Native corporations and the
allotment applicants. The whole goal of this legislation was to
complete these transfers by the 50th anniversary of statehood,
which is coming up in just a few short years.
In order to complete these conveyances, we have got to have
adjudication of the Native allotment applications. I need to
know whether the department believes that with this budget they
have the sufficient resources to do the job.
Mr. Cason. Senator, it is my understanding that the
conveyances that are being done are managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. I have had briefing papers from Henri Bisson,
the State Director for BLM on that subject. As I recall, he
anticipates it will take several years and is building that
into the BLM budgets, but I do not know exactly what their
budget is for that purpose, but it is on his radar screen.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, we will ask that question in the
Energy Committee as well.
Can you explain to me why the BIA is not proposing the
renewal of the grant? This is a $349,000 grant to Alaska Legal
Services to support the Native Allotment Program. Again, this
is the entity that is doing the processing of these
applications, and apparently that was zeroed out.
Mr. Cason. That would be one of the smaller programs that I
mentioned earlier in my opening statement, that the principal
responsibilities for carrying out the Native Allotment
selection process and conveyances is within BLM, and that we
played a secondary role. As we went through and prioritized our
budget, we basically looked at all of the programs that were
secondary and tertiary programs, and they were the first ones
on the block to give tradeoffs for our core programs and
maintaining the integrity of those.
So it would be my suggestion that that is what happened. In
that case, the BLM had the principal responsibility for it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will be talking with BLM on
that.
Mr. Grim, one more question for you. This is one that you
know I bring up regularly. This relates to the sanitation
facilities construction in Alaska. You know what the needs are.
You have seen first-hand. Tomorrow, I am going to have an
opportunity in the Environment and Public Works Committee to
speak to the Administrator of EPA, Steve Johnson, about the
cuts and the reductions in the Village Safe Water Funding.
As we know, when we are talking about the health needs of
Alaska Natives, it comes down to some of the very, very basic
things that you and I take for grant. As Senator Dorgan has
mentioned, you can go to some of the communities in Alaska and
really feel like you are back in a third world country. We are
not talking about flush toilets. We are talking about hauling
the human waste down a wooden boardwalk, slopping this stuff
all over, and putting it into a lagoon.
I need to again have your commitment reiterated on this
issue, that when we are talking about meeting the health care
needs, we have to address the sanitation issues and that
facilities construction.
Mr. Grim. You have my commitment. It is a strong component
of our program. You did see a $1.8 million increase in it,
again reflective of the increased costs of providing services
so that we can at least stay where we were this past year.
We hope to go further. As you know, that program is one of
our stronger programs about using other dollars, too. During
fiscal year 2005, we were able to bring in from other resources
about 42 cents on the dollar of our budget, working with tribes
and with other Federal agencies, for sanitation facilities for
Indian communities.
I have been to a number of your communities up there that
still lack some of those very basic resources. I will commit to
work with you and to see what we can do about that.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we are making some headway, but we
do need that continued commitment to make the difference.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses for coming today and appreciate it.
The next panel is Joseph Garcia, who is the president of
the National Congress of American Indians. Kathleen Kitcheyan
is a member of the board of directors of the National Indian
Health Board and chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribal
Council. Ryan Wilson is the president of the National Indian
Education Association. Cheryl Parish is the secretary and board
member of the National American Indian Housing Council. And
Gary Edwards is the chief executive officer of the National
Native American Law Enforcement Association.
President Garcia, we will begin with you. Please proceed. I
will repeat, your complete written statements will be made part
of the record. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. GARCIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman
Dorgan, for the invitation to appear before the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs today, and present the views of the
National Congress of American Indians on the Administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget request for Indian programs.
This is my first opportunity to speak publicly with this
committee at president of NCAI. I would like to say how much
the member tribes of NCAI appreciate your service. Chairman
McCain, it is an incredible honor for Indian Country to have
your leadership in this committee. And Vice Chairman Dorgan, we
are very proud of your service to Indian country.
As Congress shapes this budget, NCAI urges you to include
the priorities of Indian country, namely the promotion of
strong Indian families in a safe, secure and self-reliant
Native America. We are sovereign, independent, self-sustaining
nations. Our mandated relationship with the U.S. Government
puts us in a precarious position. Our success is dependent to a
large extent on the Government's respect for tribal rights to
self-determination and self-sufficiency.
NCAI's Budget Task Force consulted national tribal
organizations, the BIA Tribal Budget Advisory Council, and
tribal leaders. We have identified the following areas for
meaningful Federal investment in Indian country: public safety,
health care, education, and self-determination programs such as
contract support. Tribes have proven time and time again that
we are a good Federal investment.
Through the exercise of our inherent self-governing powers,
tribes are able to contract and compact Federal programs for
the benefit of both Indian and surrounding communities. Today,
tribes operate one-third of IHS clinics. Tribes are the most
accountable for their own resources, services and members, and
have demonstrated resounding successes in recent years.
The roots of success, where do these lie? Indian country
has solutions for closing the educational achievement gap based
on the values and lessons of our cultures, as evidenced by the
achievements of culturally appropriate approaches. Academic
studies show that Indian children flourish when their classroom
experiences are built on our tradition, languages and culture.
In 1994, the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative began
connecting students with elders in the community and creating a
passion for learning by showing students how to explore science
and history in light of their cultural heritage. Over a 10-year
period, student performance went up, test scores improved, and
dropout rates declined.
Indian Head Start also has played a major role in native
communities. This comprehensive program integrating education,
health and family services has laid the foundation for many of
today's tribal leaders. However, only about 16 percent of the
age-eligible Indian child population is enrolled in Indian Head
Start. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, this is not acceptable.
Tribes, though, have also stepped up to address the border
security issues and the eradication of meth. The Tohono-O'odham
Nation's 71-member police force is the first in frontline
emergency and law enforcement responders to deal with the
1,500-per-day traffic of undocumented immigrants and drug
traffickers who cross the vast and vulnerable border. They
expend about $10 million of their own resources to get this
done.
The nation is also compelled to provide health care or make
other arrangements for the illegal immigrants found either dead
or near-dead in the desert, and has absorbed the burden of
cleaning up the six tons of trash littered on this reservation
daily due to the immense illegal immigration. The nation has
undertaken these activities to protect the homeland with almost
no homeland security funding.
Many reservations innovatively manage their forests under
the principles of adaptive ecosystem management, with
increasing quality and quantity of tribal forest management
staff. On the White Mountain Apache Reservation, forest tending
and field reduction activities stopped the events of the huge
Rodeo-Chediski Forest fire. After the fire, the tribe and BIA
quickly and successfully salvaged much of the logs from the
burnt-over lands, using helicopter logging in the post-fire
burn and area emergency recovery activities on the reservation.
That drew national attention for the effectiveness.
Tribal government, just like State and municipal
governments, provide critical services, shape values and
promote jobs and growth. Low Federal spending for Indians has
lost ground, compared with spending for the U.S. population at
large. Tribal self-governance has proved that Federal
investment in tribes pays off.
Between 1990 and 2000, income rose by one-third and the
poverty rate declined by 7 percent. A Harvard study showed that
these gains occur with or without gaming. Tribal governments
have worked hard to put laws in place that promote economic
activity, and Indian reservations are the next opportunity for
the American economy.
But this is only the very beginning. Real per capita income
of Indians living on reservations is still less than one-half
that of the national average. Unemployment is still double what
it is for the rest of the country. The poorest counties in the
United States are on tribal lands. So we still have yet to join
the success of the rest of the Nation.
The success of Indian country in self-governing and
managing the resources warrant continued Federal investment in
tribal self-determination. We are concerned that this year's
budget request reduces effective funding for tribal priorities.
NCAI urges Congress to honor its commitments to Indian nations
and provide tribes with the necessary tools for continued
progress through the promise of strong tribal self-government.
We ask that these recommendations be taken more closely to
heart as the fiscal year 2007 budget advances. First, tribal
leaders have consistently identified law enforcement, justice
and homeland security as key concerns in the fiscal year 2007
budget. A primary role of tribal government is to ensure the
security and safety of Indian communities and families, tribal
lands and resources, and the United States through law
enforcement, detention and strong judicial systems. Our written
testimony outlines the critical link Indian country plays in
securing our lands and our country. Through significant, but
incremental increases over several years, Indian country public
safety programs can reach adequate funding levels.
NCAI supports sustained 8 percent to 10 percent annual
increases in the Interior Department and Justice Department
Indian country public safety programs for fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2009. NCAI also supports a special funding
initiative to build the next 15 Indian country detention
facilities.
Second, poor health continues to inhibit the economic,
educational and social development of all of Indian country.
American Indians and Alaska Natives receive life or limb
service under current conditions, meaning funds are only
available to treat the most life-threatening illnesses. NCAI
urges Congress to fund IHS at a level to at least maintain
existing health services and to restore loss of buying power.
We also oppose the zeroing-out of the Urban Indian Health
Program. Urban Indian Health provides a critical link in the
health care chain that cannot afford to be broken and cannot be
replaced by other health services.
Third, NCAI encourages this Committee to invest in Indian
education through support of native languages, Indian Head
Start, tribal colleges and restoring the Johnson O'Malley
Program in BIA.
Finally, self-determination programs throughout the budget.
Initiatives this Administration has expressed consistent
support for are critical to tribes' ability to effectively
assume local control. Contract support costs, tribal priority
allocations, 638 pay cost increases, and the administrative
cost grants, all support Indian self-determination.
NCAI commends the requested increase for BIA indirect
contract support for fiscal year 2007. Failing to fully
reimburse contract support costs in the Indian Health Services
effectively penalizes tribes for exercising their self-
determination rights. It forces cuts to tribal programs in
order to cover the shortfall and leads to partial termination
of the Federal Government's trust responsibility. As a matter
of Federal contracting principle, tribal contractors, like all
other government contractors, should be promptly paid in full.
We encourage Congress to fully fund contract support this year
and in the future.
Finally, as you know, there are dozens of specific budget
recommendations in our written testimony that we do not have
time to discuss at this time. NCAI realizes Congress must make
difficult budget choices this year. As elected officials,
tribal leaders certainly understand the competing priorities
that you must weigh over the coming months. However, the United
States Government's trust relationship remains unchanged, as
well as Indian country's proven success in addressing the needs
and concerns of our communities, which makes tribes a good
investment for the Federal Government.
Thank you for the time and the opportunity.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Kathleen Kitcheyan. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KITCHEYAN, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE
TRIBAL COUNCIL
Ms. Kitcheyan. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan and distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the National
Indian Health Board to testify on the President's 2007 budget
recommendations for American Indians and Alaska Native Health
Care.
Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Dorgan, thank you for your
leadership in the move to reauthorize the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act. It has been 14 years since it has been
updated, and we need to achieve this. NIHB and Indian country
stand with you and will work together with you to achieve it.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007
proposes an increase of about 4 percent for IHS. We know these
are difficult budget times in America and know it is not easy
to find the increase, but Mr. Chairman, that does not quite
amount to status quo and we cannot continue at less than status
quo for Indian people.
Status quo is a life 6 years shorter than any other
American group, being 318 percent more likely to die from
diabetes, and 670 percent more likely to die from alcoholism.
It is 63 babies born in my tribe last year addicted to crystal
meth. And this is just one tribe. Imagine the rest. Nationally,
Indian country is under attack from crystal meth and we must
aggressively address this starting in this budget cycle.
Furthermore, it is 120 suicide attempts and 84 actual
suicides since 2002 in my tribe alone. Nationally, it is that
our youth are twice as likely to commit suicide and nearly 75
percent of all suicide acts in Indian country involve alcohol.
I would like to acknowledge you, Senator Dorgan, for your
efforts on this issue.
We request a financial and policy commitment from Congress
to help America's native people begin to achieve true progress
in changing the reality of inferior health care known to us. A
10-percent increase over current funding levels would be
evidence of that commitment. We will be working with Congress
during this appropriations cycle to increase funding for IHS by
10 percent over fiscal year 2006 appropriated levels. The
budget request meets about 60 percent of documented need, and
10 percent is a modest increase.
We request $200 million for the Well-Indian Nations
Initiative to undertake disease prevention and health promotion
activities in Indian country. This includes mental health
services and outreach programs. We request $90 million over the
current request in order to assure that contract support costs
obligations will be met. According to IHS figures, an
additional $60 million will be needed to reach this year's
contractual commitments.
We request the end of the 1-year pause of 2006. The
President's 2007 budget cuts another $20 million from the
health facilities construction program. This is in addition to
the $85.2 million cut for 2006 that nearly ended the program
and was called a 1-year pause. That funding year is over. Let's
end this pause and provide $88.5 million to the facilities
programs.
As Senator McCain knows, in Arizona we have projects on the
priority list at Red Mesa, Kayenta, and San Carlos, and it is
imperative that we complete these projects. Senator Murkowski
also mentioned that for Barrow and Nome, AK.
Finally, we strongly support the continuation of Urban
Indian Health Programs and request a funding increase for them.
HHS needs to have tribal consultation before any policy
decisions are made to close the urban Indian clinics. This is
consistent with current consultation practice and policy.
According to the last census, more than one-half of American
Indians live in urban areas. Tens of thousands are getting
their health care through urban clinics.
The Government assumption that American Indians and Alaska
Natives will seek health care from community health centers is
based on nothing. There are no studies, no facts and no
information. You don't know what is going to happen to these
people. We think that they will return to their reservations or
communities to seek health care, but there is no funding
request for the tribes to care for them. We must have tribal
consultation before this is even considered.
In the richest, most powerful country in the world, a
country whose very foundation quite literally sits on American
Indian homeland that was largely traded for guarantees of peace
and health care, among other things, we can do better. We must.
Our Indian people need hope. Funding will bring us hope, a
chance at life, a healthy life.
Mr. Chairman, there is so much more that should be
discussed here. I have tried to highlight the most critical
areas and I also request that my written comments be added into
the record.
Thank you and God bless you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Kitcheyan appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you. Without objection, your full
statement will be part of the record.
Mr. Wilson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RYAN WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Wilson. Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan, Senator
Akaka, members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, we
thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
the National Indian Education Association with regard to the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.
I also would like to summarize my written testimony and ask
that be submitted into the record.
Indian education programs are constantly funded at the
minimum level established by Congress, never the maximum level.
The Federal Government has not upheld its legal or moral
obligation to provide sufficient funding for the education of
Native American students. President Bush's budget proposes a
$3.1-billion or 5.5-percent decrease for education spending,
leaving $54 billion in total discretionary appropriations for
the Department of Education. This is the first decrease in
education spending since 1994.
Within the Department of Education budget, none of the
programs specifically for Native American students received an
increase. Rather, the majority of the programs of the native
students received level funding from fiscal year 2006. This
results in a de facto decrease when factored into the rate of
inflation. Inadequately funding native education programs will
diminish, if not undo, the progress that has been made.
Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan and other members
of the committee, I want to call your attention to the charts
that the National Indian Education Association brought here. We
wish to dramatize what inflation does actually when level
funding happens. As you heard from the first panel, they
actually expressed that we were successful with our budget
because it was flat-funded or level-funded. That is absolutely
incorrect. We are receiving brutal decreases here when the
cumulative effect is over the course of the last several years.
One chart shows from 2003 to 2005, that is the total Indian
education funding in both the BIA, the Department of Education
and HHS.
I would also like to call your attention to the BIA
construction funding. You heard from Assistant Secretary Cason
about the progress that has been made in BIA education funding.
We respectfully disagree. The backlog is becoming a first-class
crisis and again our young people are attending second-class
schools at rates that it should never happen here in America.
The President on his web page showcased the Santa Fe Indian
School as a model for the BIA school construction. We would
like to challenge that every Indian child in America should go
to such a school, with beautiful architecture and beautiful
state-of-the-art facilities like that. So we would like those
charts to be witnessed by you. We thank you for that.
Native American language funding, you heard from the
President of the National Congress of American Indians that
this is a priority. Through a survey done by the National
Indian Education Association and Dr. William Demmer, we have
established that there are only 20 Indian languages that are
spoken by Indian children throughout America. We have roughly
100 surviving languages now out of more than 300 that were here
at the beginning of contact. Simple math tells us that by the
year 2050, that is what we will be down to is those 20
languages. We are prioritizing this and NIEA requests that $6
million be increased into the fiscal year 2007 for the
Administration to support: No. 1, existing Native American
immersion schools and programs through a competitive grant
process; and No. 2, the development effort for new immersion
schools and programs through the competitive grant process.
We also ask for $400,000 to enable NIEA to have data
collection and a study to perform the effectiveness of Native
American immersion schools. In fiscal year 2004, 2005, and
2006, ANA received $44 million, but less than $4 million went
to actual Native American language programs, and out of that
less than 10 percent went to actual cultivation of Native
American languages.
We also strongly support the legislation introduced by
Senator Inouye in the 108th Congress, S. 575, that strengthens
the current Native American Language Act and looks forward to
reintroduction of this legislation.
Again, I touched on school construction. NIEA requests a
$56-million increase from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of
$206 million for a total of $263 million. The fiscal year 2007
budget request for school construction and repair is only $157
million, while the fiscal year 2006 enacted level funding for
BIA school construction and repair was $206 million.
Despite the President's budget request for fiscal year 2006
to significantly reduce this funding in fiscal year 2007, the
enacted funding level was $263 million, which was instrumental
in reducing the construction and repair backlog. As you can see
from the inflation charts, if we take care of this now, it will
save us literally millions and millions of dollars later.
As you have heard from all of the panelists, we, too, care
about Johnson O'Malley. April 16, 1934, this was really the
first fundamental and significant commitment from Congress to
fund Indian education. So this act has historical implications.
NIEA at our legislative summit heard yesterday from an official
from the Department of Education, Office of Indian Education,
that it does not duplicate services of title VII or title I. So
we, too, recommend full funding of JOM and actually an
increase, which would bring it to $17.2 million.
Moving into title VII funding, due to the tight Federal
budget for this year, NIEA requests a moderate 5-percent
increase to $9.3 million, for a total of $195 million in fiscal
year 2007 for NCLB title VII funding for American Indian,
Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native education.
We would also like to talk a little bit about the
President's 2007 budget request for Indian education, Alaska
Native Education equity, which calls for level funding, and a
request for education of Native Hawaiians is reduced by 8
percent. We oppose this. Despite the fact that NIEA and native
educators have been asking for 5 percent increases in all
native education program funding, Indian education program
funding remains the same level as fiscal year 2006 at $118
million, and down from fiscal year 2005 and 2004 and 2003
despite our increased needs.
So the needs of Indian country are increasing, and the
resources that are being allocated to us are decreasing. This
is a fundamental concern to Indian country and the National
Indian Education Association.
Mr. Chairman, I also respectfully seek permission to submit
the National Indian Education Association legislative summit
packet to this committee, as a matter of the Congressional
Record, and we will be available for questions as well.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Without objection,
that study will be made part of the record.
Ms. Parish, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL PARISH, SECRETARY AND BOARD MEMBER,
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY GARY
GORDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ms. Parish. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan,
members of the committee. My name is Cheryl Parish. I am
pleased to appear before you today as Secretary of the National
American Indian Housing Council.
On behalf of NIHC, its membership, and board of directors,
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address you
today on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 as
it relates to Indian housing and housing-related community
development.
First, though, I want to express our gratitude to you and
your capable staff for your committee's longstanding support
for our efforts to provide safe, decent and affordable housing
for native people.
Mr. Chairman, this committee does need to be reminded of
the dire economic and social conditions on Indian reservations
and native communities in Alaska and Hawaii. It seems that
others in Congress and elsewhere do not have a firm grasp on
the situation. Accordingly, I will reiterate that Native
Americans are three times more likely to live in overcrowded
housing than any other Americans. Native Americans are more
likely to lack basic sewage and water systems, telephone lines,
and electricity than any other American.
I challenge our friends in the press who have a never-
ending appetite to write about gaming and Indian-rich tribes,
to go and visit the poor, the rural tribes of the Great Plains,
the great Navajo Nation, and the remote native villages in bush
Alaska, to see that in 2006 poverty still has an Indian face.
In the 2007 budget request, the President seeks $625.7
million for our NAHASDA block grant program. In addition,
unlike the fiscal year 2006 request, the President proposes to
preserve our ICDBG in a larger community development fund and
seeks to fund it with $57.4 million. Taken together, level
funding or a funding level that is slightly less than the
previous year's amount, coupled with inflation and a strong and
growing demand for housing in the native community, means that
fewer homes will be built using Federal funds.
Since the enactment of NAHASDA in 1996, this committee has
continually shown unwavering support for tribal housing
programs and the people that they serve. While money is not the
answer to all problems, building houses and related
infrastructure is one area that is dependent on ample funding.
To meet the current housing and infrastructure demands, NIHC
estimates that $1.1 billion per year in funding is needed for
the block grant program. A reasonable start for fiscal year
2007 would be $748 million, and the budget request proposes
$625.7 million, resulting in a 1-year funding gap of over $122
million.
In addition to the funding levels, the National American
Indian Housing Council is alarmed that the language changing
the housing funding allocation formula is included in the 2007
budget request. The language was included without tribal
consultation and over the strong objection of the National
American Indian Housing Council. In the final fiscal year 2006
appropriation, it was inserted in there. The language deals
with the need portion for housing funding a calculated by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and it requires
interpretation by HUD of the responses to tribal members in the
2000 decennial census in calculating the tribe's relative need
portion for housing assistance.
The National American Indian Housing Council has constantly
taken the position that this matter is properly one for the
authorizing committees of the Congress, tribes and HUD. NIHC
urges the Committee to wrest control of this matter from the
appropriators and pledges our support for discussions on these
matters with this committee and its sister committees.
NIHC is not solely interested in Federal grants to build
Indian homes. We see a future in providing homes for ourselves
in the same manner that all citizens of this country help
themselves to purchase homes through the use of mortgage
financing, including Title VI and 184. We are encouraged to see
that the President has remained committed to both of these loan
programs through level funding of Title VI and the tripling of
the 184 program.
CDBG is also important for tribes in developing physical
infrastructure and related economic opportunities. We also
believe that it should be funded at least at the inflation-
adjusted level of $77 million and to be kept as a separate
account.
The President has again proposed reducing the technical
assistance funding in NAHASDA 2007, by eliminating both the
NAHBG set-aside and the Indian community development set-aside.
Our technical assistance programs through the National American
Indian Housing Council are a very important part to our Indian
housing programs. What we have done with these in 2005, we have
done over 246 site visits. We have offered 38 free training
classes. We offer cutting-edge training programs.
The one very highly participated and needed basically is
the training on the methamphetamine problem, which is plaguing
tribal housing programs. We have expanded our home buyer
education programs and provided over 751 scholarships to 220
tribes, totaling over $807,000.
We conduct one major research project annually and our
prior research focused on infrastructure. The infrastructure
study led to the creation of a task group including multiple
Federal agencies and resulted in an MOU currently in the
signature phase under the agencies to improve cooperation and
coordination with the development of Indian country
infrastructure.
We believe that our track record of success and our promise
in assisting tribes in the future warrants funding of $5
million in 2007 for technical assistance, but only if NAHASDA
and ICDG programs are fully funded.
I would like to thank you again for your longstanding
support. We look forward to working with you in the next
congressional session.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Parish appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Edwards, welcome.
STATEMENT OF GARY EDWARDS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL
NATIVE AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished members of
the committee, tribal leaders and tribal elders, it is an honor
for me to be here today and speak to you regarding the
President's 2007 proposed budget for Indian programs. I am the
chief executive officer of the National Native American Law
Enforcement Association. We have been in existence since 1993.
Our membership is made up of men and women, Indian and non-
Indian, law enforcement and non-law enforcement, because we
believe that everyone within a community needs a voice to have
a good law enforcement experience in any community.
We are a public service organization focused primarily on
public safety. As we look at the President's 2007 budget, a
maxim comes to mind from President Abraham Lincoln, which is
worthy of consideration. He said, ``I walk slowly, but I never
walk backward.'' Historically, American Indians have been made
to walk slowly in their pursuit of equality in public safety,
health care, detention, education and so forth. With each step,
and as by the wisdom of President Lincoln, progress has been
achieved, although much progress is still needed.
NNALEA is concerned that the President's fiscal 2007 budget
request for Indian programs, if approved in its current form,
may result in regression of progress with regard to American
Indian public safety, health, education, self-governance and
self-determination.
For the remainder of my comments, I will speak with regard
to public safety issues in Indian country.
The most pressing Indian country public safety issues of
today are the loss of the COPS grants. It is a crisis in Indian
country. From 1999 until the present, approximately 1,800 new
law enforcement jobs have been created in Indian country.
Between the years of 2004 and 2006, approximately 759 of those
officer grants have expired. This is a devastating reduction to
an already limited number of tribal law enforcement officers in
Indian country.
It is also a devastating effect on our national economy.
The United States has invested capital in developing Indian
country law enforcement. We have worked hard to integrate
people within the Indian community that represents the
community while enforcing the local laws and the national laws
as well. As we look at this investment, the average investment
per officer amounts to $100,000 for 3 years in the placement of
the officer, his equipment, training and technical assistance.
By way of example, the Pine Ridge Reservation currently has
86 sworn tribal law enforcement officers. It serves 41,000
residents on 2.1 million acres of land. The Pine Ridge ratio of
officer to resident is approximately two for 1,000 residents,
and one officer for 24,400 acres of land. On March 31, 2006,
the Pine Ridge Police Department is poised to lose 59 of their
86 police officers due to sunsetting COPS grants. That will
reduce their service to the resident officer population to one
in 1,000, and their coverage of 77,700 acres per officer.
This will also represent a $5.9 million loss in invested
capital by the U.S. Government in providing law enforcement
services to this particular reservation. Pine Ridge officers,
the 59, the economy does not present opportunities for them to
be able to take their families and have other jobs on that
reservation, so probably they will have to leave that
reservation in pursuit of their law enforcement careers. This
is not an isolated example of the situation that we currently
face in Indian country law enforcement.
Commendably, the President's 2007 budget request for Indian
programs increases the BIA budget by $4.5 million. But that
amount is not enough to maintain the current law enforcement
activity on a daily basis in Indian country when you compare it
to the 759 law enforcement officers that are missing from
working in these crime areas where it is the most dangerous job
in law enforcement.
There needs to be a 2007 budget line item that provides an
additional $15 million either to the Department of Justice COPS
grant program or to the BIA Office of Law Enforcement Service
to help sustain these losses of law enforcement personnel on
tribal reservations.
A new formula with a quality-of-life index needs to be
developed for calculating Indian country public safety staffing
levels which sets a baseline for minimum tribal law enforcement
staffing levels for each tribal community. Funding should be
based upon this formula.
The second major problem facing Indian country law
enforcement today in public safety is the rise of
methamphetamine abuse and violent crime in Indian country.
Indian communities continue to be decimated by illegal drugs
and alcohol abuse. Statistics suggest that approximately 85
percent to 90 percent of crime in Indian country derives from
some form of illegal substance or alcohol abuse.
As with many non-tribal communities, tribal law enforcement
officials have noted the growing trend of drug abuse in Indian
communities is connected to methamphetamine. A prime example of
this was made apparent by the United States Attorney for the
District of Arizona in his press release of August 30, 2005. He
said:
While methamphetamine use and distribution is not unique to
Indian country, the use of methamphetamine within the Indian
communities of Arizona has had a profound effect. A large
percentage of violent crimes prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's
office involved individuals under the influence of
methamphetamine or other illegal substances. It is our sincere
hope and belief that reducing the availability of
methamphetamine within these communities will also bring a
reduction in the number of violent crimes. It is a fight that
we simply cannot afford to lose.
And I certainly echo what he said. It is a fight that we
cannot afford to lose.
Add to that increased gang activities, which are rampant in
many tribal communities, and it makes a little more clear
picture of what devastation the loss of these law enforcement
officers working in tribal communities is going to have with
regard to the safety and security of our citizens.
Commendably, the President's 2007 budget designates the HHS
to have $25 million in funding for a methamphetamine
initiative. I hope Indian country is included within that
initiative.
The third area of major concern in Indian country public
safety is detention in Indian country. A 1997 report by the
Department of the Interior and by the Department of Justice
laid out the needs for funding to improve detention in Indian
country, so this is not new. This is not something that just
came on the scene. They said that you needed funding for
operations, this is back in 1997, including staff, equipment,
supplies, facilities including maintenance and renovation and
new construction, inspection and oversight, training and
technical assistance. Most of the jails in Indian country are
old and unsafe. And 80 percent of funding needed for jails has
to go to staffing of those people needed to operate and run
those jails efficiently and effectively.
Our worst fears were brought to light when the Department
of the Interior's Inspector General wrote the report, Neither
Safe Nor Secure. Today, we look at the 2007 budget proposal for
Indian country and we see that $8.6 million in DOJ Indian
country prison grants were done away with, while DOI commits
$8.1 million for four major facilities improvements and repair
projects, and several smaller projects.
Currently, this last year we have closed four Indian
detention facilities. We anticipate closing a fifth one within
the very near future. If we are going to build four and we have
already closed five, we are way behind the game. I suggest that
this $8.6 million for DOJ grants for tribal detention
facilities be reincluded in the budget for DOJ.
The last major concern currently on people's minds in
Indian country is tribal homeland security. The foundation of
homeland security is quality community law enforcement and
effective, efficient, timely emergency services in the time of
a crisis.
To have that foundation built for homeland security, you
need to basically have four capabilities available. You need to
have an operational emergency plan in place that is compliant
and compatible with Federal, tribal, State, and local homeland
security plans.
You need to possess the human, cyber, physical resources
necessary to carryout the mission of law enforcement emergency
service professionals during a crisis, according to the
respective emergency plans.
And you must possess interoperable communications and you
must possess the capability to share intelligence and
information up and down the national intelligence networks.
Some tribes may possess a few of these basic four homeland
security foundation principles and capabilities, but most do
not. NNALEA advocates direct funding to tribes from all Federal
departments. The Department of Homeland Security currently
directs all funding through States. There are some notable
examples of States and tribes working together to utilize
homeland security dollars to build tribal communities' and
contiguous local counties' homeland security preparedness even
across multi-State lines.
For the President's 2007 budget, we suggest that $250,000
be set aside for every State that has a tribe or Indian nation
within that State to help them with regard to homeland security
planning grants, because planning is the first phase of
developing these four capabilities necessary.
In conclusion, a public safety crisis exists in Indian
communities with regard to the loss of law enforcement officers
and resources in Indian country, the rise of methamphetamine
abuse and violent crime in Indian country, the timeliness of
tribal detention improvements, and tribal inclusion in the
homeland security funding initiatives.
Although NNALEA understands the difficult choices that must
be made with regard to the fiscal year 2007 budget, NNALEA
respectfully requests that Native Americans not be made to walk
backward with regard to public safety. In the words of the
great Sioux Chief Sitting Bull, ``Let us put our minds together
and see what kind of future we can build for our children.''
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Edwards appears in appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
President Garcia, why do you want such a big increase in
the BIA budget for Indian forests and forest management?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is
important to realize that there is not an equal funding for
Indian forest lands compared to U.S. forest lands. It is
important to understand also that as the Indian nations are
emerging and are developing in their management, if the funds
are not available to have an adequate infrastructure for
management in place, then devastation may occur because of that
ill-preparedness. So the funds are provided to help with
developing the infrastructure and developing the management
systems, it is imperative that the funding be there.
The Chairman. And with the drought that we are now back
into in the Southwest, this could really be something. As you
know in Arizona, we have already started the forest fires.
Mr. Garcia. It is the same up in the Northwest and out
through Alaska, that if we don't control the forest lands, and
keep them in tune with as far as dealing with Mother Nature, we
will see devastation. Also, there are forest units firefighting
units that have been cut out of the picture. There is not a
mention of that in the testimony, but that is the case
throughout Indian country.
The Chairman. Ms. Kitcheyan, the budget request proposes to
de-fund the Urban Indian Health Program. Did the department
discuss this proposal with the tribes during your annual
consultations?
Ms. Kitcheyan. Sir, I was at a Phoenix-area meeting in Las
Vegas and there were a couple of representatives from the urban
health clinics, and they said that there was no consultation.
The Chairman. None?
Ms. Kitcheyan. None.
The Chairman. So in an urban area like Phoenix, AZ or
Albuquerque, NM or other States, maybe Denver, CO, this is
huge, isn't it?
Ms. Kitcheyan. Yes; absolutely. It is very huge. If we lose
them, it will be very detrimental for those people that live in
the cities. You know, they flock to the cities for employment
and education and that was a policy of the Federal Government
which was to assimilate them. That is kind of what they are
doing.
The Chairman. Well, I think it is also interesting that I
don't believe there was a commensurate increase in funding for
community health centers.
Ms. Kitcheyan. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I think it is one of those, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, that a proposed cut in programs that they know that
Congress will restore the funding for, at least I hope that is
the case here.
Mr. Wilson, elimination of Johnson O'Malley, you say that
Johnson O'Malley does not duplicate other programs. The
Department of the Interior has expressed concerns that the
program does not have a focused goal for academic achievement.
How does the Johnson O'Malley Program directly relate to
academic achievement?
Mr. Wilson. Well, as I said, chairman, we respectfully
disagree with the BIA' justification. I think the House of
Representatives also agreed with us as they submitted in their
report. They did not interpret that in the same way as the
White House did last year when it was zeroed out. This
historical context of JOM is very important to Indian country.
As I said, this act happened in 1934. When we seek
scientific data to say how many young people have stayed in
school for that or what was their academic progress, it is a
difficult situation because there has never been funding to
actually study that. What we are saying as tribes and as
advocates for tribal opinions, is that they have identified
this as a major concern. Our constituency, you know, they
really value this particular program. I think to put a human
face on it, I wonder sometimes because it is so flexible in its
use, and it was designed originally for the educational, the
medical relief of distress, and also the social welfare of
Indians, it is hard to pinpoint that.
I wonder, would someone like Billy Mills have tennis shoes
without JOM back then? We just had a beautiful young girl
graduate from Red Cloud School in Pine Ridge named Joelle
Janis, who became a Gates Millennia Scholar. I wonder how do
you quantify that support from JOM that helped her in her life
and where she is going on into higher education. There are
thousands and thousands of young people like that that have
been affected by JOM.
So I just respectfully answer your question that way.
The Chairman. Do me a favor, will you, and give me a
written statement about the benefits and the focus of Johnson
O'Malley.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
The Chairman. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Parish, I understand there is billions of
dollars of backlog in the requirement for sanitation
infrastructure needs in Indian homes. How big is that, would
you estimate?
Ms. Parish. $1.9 billion, minimum.
The Chairman. $1.9 billion. And how would you go about
addressing this issue, besides appropriating $1.9 billion?
Ms. Parish. Excuse me for 1 second, sir.
If you wouldn't mind, sir, this is my director right here.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Ms. Parish. He is working also with Mr. Hartz.
The Chairman. Just identify yourself, sir.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir; my name is Gary Gordon. I am the
executive director of the National American Indian Housing
Council.
A couple of years ago, we did a research study. One of our
annual projects under our NAHASDA funding is to conduct major
research on an item affecting housing in Indian country. We
focused on infrastructure and the need for infrastructure and
the problems with developing the infrastructure. Part of the
outcome of that was the development or the reestablishment of a
task group which was a multi-Federal agency, multi-tribal task
group, to identify the problems and how to correct those
problems.
There is a MOU, memorandum of understanding, that has been
developed and has been circulated among the agencies to work
together for that purpose to identify how we can better utilize
the dollars that are available, how we can identify additional
sources of funding, and how we can streamline the process so
that we can indeed build more infrastructure in Indian country
so that we can put more housing out there. And not only
housing, too, but other economic development which will support
the housing, sir.
The Chairman. Would you send that to the committee so that
we can have the benefit of that study?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir; we will.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Parish.
Mr. Edwards, talk to me for 1 minute about methamphetamine
and the seriousness of the crisis in Indian country. What is
being done and how bad is it getting?
Mr. Edwards. It is getting worse on an hourly basis,
primarily. It seemed to come in the Northern Plains and we had
the largest impact in the Northern Plains area. There have been
some major cases. There are multi-State cases where people
actually approached the Indian communities as a business,
realizing that we had some problems with substance abuse.
So therefore, they made small amounts of the meth and gave
it to the kids. To Indian people, it is extremely addictive.
From that, they married into the families and just started
conducting a business. That was in Wyoming.
Then from that investigation, there was like six different
States involving arrests across a border, and one of the
brothers who started that particular business-type enterprise
was sent to prison for life.
From there, from the Northern Plains, the meth problems in
Indian country have evolved down to California, then out over
into Oklahoma and then over into North Carolina. I was shocked
because I am from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians when I
found out on Friday the 13th of this year that a young girl who
used to be in the Native American Boys and Girls Club on the
reservation was found shot dead with her hands tied behind her
back, with her head blown off. It was a matter relating to
methamphetamine was the word that everybody is hearing. It was
a gangland-style murder from possibly a gang out of Mexico.
A short time before that in the latter part of last year,
another child from that reservation had all of his fingers cut
off before they killed him. Again, that was from that same type
of issue.
This is something that affects Native American communities
I think more than any other communities within America. And it
is not contained on Indian country. It comes usually outside
the reservations onto the reservations and then splashes back.
A lot of our tribal leaders, and I try to call and poll a lot
of different chiefs of police and everything, say that if we
don't get a grasp on this, it will totally wipe out a
generation of our children for the future.
The Chairman. It is fairly easy to tell someone who is an
addict, isn't it?
Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir; extremely, because of the effects
that methamphetamine has on the body. When I was talking to
some of the people out in the field, we talked about, well, how
do you know that it is meth, or is it just some other type of
substance abuse? They said usually it is a combination of the
two. From the substance abuse, people get to partying and they
have a good time, and then all of a sudden their body gets
tired. And so they want to go and rest and sleep. That has been
the general modus operandi of that. But then someone then will
introduce meth and say, hey, we don't need to go home; we can
just take this and you will be feeling good. And they will go
for days, but their bodies still don't forget all the sleep
deprivation that they have, and their aging process is
enormously quick.
The Chairman. That leads to a lot of child neglect and
abuse?
Mr. Edwards. It certainly does. The interesting thing about
it, too, is that it mostly deals with property crimes. There
are some violent outbreaks, but usually the violence in Indian
country as it is associated with this is in combination with
other types of illegal substances.
The Chairman. Well, I think, you know, Senator Dorgan has
been very involved in the teen suicide issue. I don't think it
is unconnected with some of that. Perhaps we ought to have
another hearing on it and find out, because as you say, Indian
country is most vulnerable, but non-Indian country is suffering
dramatically, particularly in some rural areas as well. So it
is a great challenge.
We thank you, Mr. Edwards.
We thank the panel.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
It is the case and I know it especially in the Northern
Great Plains that methamphetamine is a devastating scourge on
the population, and especially young people.
I think because of the time, I am going to defer asking
questions, but I did want to make this point. I think having
folks come to testify here today, tribal officials and experts
dealing with housing and law enforcement, health care,
education, is very, very helpful to us. One of the things I
would suggest, as the chairman has on a couple of occasions,
you should feel free to send us supplemental information
because this budget process goes on for a long period here.
Both from the budget standpoint and the appropriations piece,
we are talking about some months. I hope that as you evaluate
your needs and as you see what we are doing here in the
Congress, you will always feel free to send us supplemental
information about what you are seeing and what you believe the
needs are. That is very helpful to us.
Mr. Garcia, you are the new president of the Congress of
American Indians. This I believe is perhaps your first time
testifying since you have become president. We congratulate you
and look forward to working with your organization.
I know that Tex Hall has been here. Tex is a two-time
chairman, way in the back. I saw Tex come in and he has been
working on these issues as well. He and so many other tribal
leaders from all across this country have made a contribution
to the knowledge of this Committee. We just want to thank him,
and I did want to say hello to Tex Hall.
I thank all of you for coming. I know you have traveled
some distance to be with us today, and we appreciate your
testimony. I think it was outstanding. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
=======================================================================
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Head Start Directors
Association
The President has proposed to flat fund the Head Start program at
the fiscal year 2006 level of approximately $6.8 billion. Of this
amount, according to law, 13 percent is set-aside for priority
programs, with Indian Head Start statutorily established in the highest
priority and typically receiving 2.8 percent of all Head Start funds.
Unfortunately, and probably illegally, HHS has been diverting large
portions of the priority set-aside to fund non-priority programs. When
combined with the effects of inflation, the result of HHS's dubious
conduct and the flat-funding is to severely limit the ability of the
Indian Head Start program to serve tribal communities. At most, only 16
percent of the age-eligible Indian child population is enrolled in
Indian Head Start. Of the approximately 555 federally recognized
tribes, only 222 have Head Start programs. Needless to say, for the 333
that do not, 0 percent of the eligible children are served by Indian
Head Start.
According to an analysis done by the National Head Start
Association, the President's proposal would likely result in the
equivalent of closing enrollment to at least 19,000 children
nationwide. For Indian country, this would mean a loss of 499 slots in
a program that now serves approximately 23,374 children. The
President's proposal, if enacted, means that since fiscal year 2002
Head Start would have experienced an 11-percent real cut in Federal
funding.
For several years, the National Indian Head Start Directors
Association has been working to increase the size of the Indian Head
Start set aside. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee has marked up Head Start reauthorization legislation which
would increase the Indian Head Start set aside to 4 percent. The House
has passed legislation which would increase the set-aside to 3.5
percent.
Since the Indian Head Start set-aside is currently set
administratively by the Department of Health and Human Services, NIHSDA
asked HHS if it would follow the lead of the Congress and increase
funding to the Indian Head Start program. HHS responded that it would
not do so. It turns out that HHS has, for a number of years,
inappropriately and probably illegally transferred 3 percent of the
Congressionally mandated 13 percent set aside that funds Indian Head
Start and other priority programs to non-priority programs.
The Head Start Act provides that 13 percent of Head Start funding
is to be set aside for five priorities, which are set forth in order of
their priority. The first, and therefore highest priority is funding
for Indian Head Start and certain other programs. The next to last
priority is for discretionary payments made by the Secretary of HHS (of
which the law provides two examples of such payments, both minor in
nature). Pursuant to this lower priority, HHS has for several years
transferred nearly 3 of the 13 percent back to regular Head Start
programs.
HHS has effectively reduced the 13 percent set aside to something
around 10 percent. To do this, HHS would have had to make a cut in the
other four priorities funded by the set-aside. On a pro rata basis,
Indian Head Start should have been funded at approximately 3.7 percent
and not the level established by HHS at approximately 2.9 percent. This
means that HHS has reduced Indian Head Start funding by about $50
million per year.
There are solid policy reasons for boosting the Indian Head Start
set aside including:
Indian reservations suffer from depression-era economics, with
terrible crime and health statistics to match.
The Indian reservation poverty rate is 31.2 percent, nearly 3 times
the national average of 11.6 percent. As much as an additional 30
percent of the Indian reservation population is only just above the
poverty line.
The Indian reservation unemployment rate is approximately 50
percent, 10 times the national unemployment rate of 5.2 percent (and on
some reservations the rate is 80-90 percent).
Most Indian communities are remotely located and there are no other
resources besides Head Start to address the special needs of young
Indian children who daily must deal with the conditions described
above.
Because of these awful conditions:
The high-school dropout rate on reservations is more than 3 times
the national average; The Indian suicide rate is four times greater
than the national average; One in four Indians is an alcoholic by the
age of 17. The rate of child abuse or neglect for American Indian or
Alaska Natives is twice the rate for the White population. Native
American women suffer violent crime at a rate 3\1/2\ times greater than
the national average (USDOJ Report). The violent crime rate on some
reservations is six times the national average.
These conditions are toxic to Native children. Indian Head Start is
the best Federal program in place that actually addresses the dire
situation in much of Indian country, but more resources are needed.
The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to Indian
Peoples, especially in the education area. In 2004, President Bush
signed an executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native
Education [E.O. 13336], which specifically recognized that ``The United
States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribes....'' The
order was promulgated in part ``to recognize the unique educational and
culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native
students...'' President Bush's praise-worthy Indian education policy is
in sharp contrast to the policy the Federal Government followed for
years summarized by Captain Pratt, a leader in the establishment of
Indian boarding schools: ``A great general has said that the only good
Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has
been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I
agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there
is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the
man. ``This Federal effort to kill our minds and our spirits failed,
but not without first doing great damage. Much of the harm inflicted
upon Native peoples is being undone, to the extent it can be undone, by
Native people themselves. And yet the resources needed to complete this
great task can only be found with the originator of the harm--the
Federal Government.
Both branches of Congress have determined that HHS funding of
Indian Head Start is too low. After extensive review, and site visits,
both branches of Congress have concluded, as described above, that
Indian Head Start should receive more funding than is currently being
allocated by HHS.
NIHSDA urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to endorse:
An increase in the Indian Head Start set-aside to 4 percent;
A direction to the Department of Health and Human Services to cease
its inappropriate, and probably illegal practice, of transferring large
amounts out of the set-aside that funds Indian Head Start and other
priority programs in order to fund non-priority programs; and
An increase in overall funding for Head Start by 3.4 percent or
higher in order to keep pace with the actual rate of inflation.
Over the last 40 years, Indian Head Start has played a major role
in the education of Indian children and in the efforts by tribes to
heal from the wounds of the past. The results achieved by the Indian
Head Start program are truly miraculous, notwithstanding all the
hardships that remain in the Indian community. More than any other
Federal program, the investment in Indian Head Start is an investment
in the future of Indian people. Please support this extraordinary
program. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles W. Grim, D.D.S, M.H.S.A., Assistant
Surgeon General, Director, Indian Health Service, Department of Health
and Human Services
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
Good Afternoon. I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, Director of the Indian
Health Service. Today I am accompanied by Mr. Robert McSwain, Deputy
Director of the IHS, Dr. Craig Vanderwagen, Acting Chief Medical
Officer, and Mr. Gary Hartz, Director, Environmental Health and
Engineering. We are pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Indian Health
Service.
As part of the Federal Government's special relationship with
tribes, the IHS delivers health services to more than 1.9 million
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Individual and public health
services are provided in more than 600 health care facilities located
primarily in some of the most remote regions of the United States. For
all of the American Indians and Alaska Natives served by these
programs, the IHS is committed to its mission to raise their physical,
mental, social, and spiritual health to the highest level, in
partnership with them.
This mission is supported by the Department of Health and Human
Services [HHS] and the IHS budget request reflects that support. To
better understand the conditions in Indian country, senior Department
and IHS officials have visited tribal leaders and Indian reservations
in all 12 IHS areas. In addition, I have the pleasure of serving as the
vice chair of the Intradepartmental Council on Native American Affairs
[ICNAA] whose role is to assure coordination across HHS in support of
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native American health and human
services issues. The Administration takes seriously its commitment to
honor the unique legal relationship with, and responsibility to,
eligible American Indians and Alaska Natives by providing effective
health care services.
Through the Government's longstanding support of Indian health
care, the IHS, in partnership with the people we serve, have
demonstrated the ability to effectively utilize available resources to
improve the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The
clearest example of this is the drop in mortality rates over the past
few decades. More recently, this effectiveness has been demonstrated by
the programs' success in achieving their annual performance targets as
well as by the intermediate outcomes of the Special Diabetes Program
for Indians. IHS programs have received favorable ratings through the
Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool
[PART]. Some programs' PART scores are among the highest in the Federal
Government.
Although we are very pleased with these achievements, we recognize
that there is still progress to be made. American Indian and Alaska
Native mortality rates for alcoholism, tuberculosis, motor vehicle
crashes, diabetes, unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide are
higher than the mortality rates for other Americans. Many of the health
problems contributing to these higher mortality rates are behavioral.
For example, the rate of violence for American Indian and Alaska Native
youth aged 12-17 is 65 percent greater than the national rate for
youth.
The IHS and our stakeholders remain resolved and deeply committed
to address these disparities. As partners with the IHS in delivering
needed health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives, these
stakeholders participate in formulating the budget request and annual
performance plan. The Department holds annual budget consultation
sessions, both regionally and nationally, to give Indian tribes
opportunities to present their budget priorities and recommendations to
the Department. This year during the budget consultation process tribal
leaders provided us with what continue to be their top priorities--pay
costs, increases in the cost of providing health care, and population
growth. I am pleased to say that this budget, like the budget I
presented last year, responds to those priorities by including the
increases necessary to assure that the current level of services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives is maintained in fiscal year 2007
and that new services associated with the growing American Indian and
Alaska Native population are covered.
The President's budget request for the IHS totals $4.0 billion, a
net increase of $124.5 million or 3.2 percent above the fiscal year
2006 enacted level. The request will allow IHS and tribal health
programs to maintain access to health care by providing $41.4 million
to fund pay raises for Federal and tribal employees, and $92.7 million
to cover increases in the cost of delivering health care and to address
the growing American Indian and Alaska Native population. Staffing and
operating costs for four newly constructed health centers are also
included in the amount of $32.2 million. Once they are fully
operational, these facilities will increase the number of primary care
provider visits that can be provided at these sites by 81 percent and
allow the provision of new services such as 24-hour emergency room,
optometry, physical therapy, and audiology services. The request also
includes additional funding of $11 million for the IHS costs for
implementing the HHS Unified Financial Management System. This system
is being implemented to replace five legacy accounting systems
currently used across the HHS operating divisions. The UFMS will
integrate the Department's financial management structure and provide
HHS leaders with a more timely and coordinated view of critical
financial management information.
To target these priority increases, the budget request eliminates
funding for the Urban Indian Health Programs and reduces funding for
Health Care Facilities Construction by $20.1 million. Unlike Indian
people living in isolated rural areas, urban Indians can receive health
care through a wide variety of Federal, State, and local providers. One
health care provider available to low-income urban Americans is the
Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Centers program
which currently operates in all of the cities served by the Urban
Health program and in hundreds of other cities where Indian people
live. The budget requests, $2.0 billion for Health Centers in fiscal
year 2007, allowing it to serve 1.5 million more urban Americans than
it served in fiscal year 2004. The request for Health Care Facilities
Construction is $17.7 million, sufficient to complete the construction
of the Phoenix Indian Medical Center's Southwest Ambulatory Care
Center. Since fiscal year 2001, a total of $364 million has been
provided to complete 12 IHS health facilities. Consistent across HHS,
no funds are requested in fiscal year 2007 to initiate new
construction.
The proposed budget that I have just described provides a continued
investment in the maintenance and support of the IHS and tribal public
health system to provide access to high quality medical and preventive
services as a means of improving health status. It reflects a continued
Federal commitment to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the IHS. We are pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6112.177