lot of his campaign promises. >> just to push you on that, you think that his priority would be to do the tax cuts that he is calling for, which would be deficit-inducing instead of doing the deficit reduction that he is sort of in general calling for in terms of reducing the debt? >> i don't know what his priorities will be. but what i do know is if you look at the overall plan, the spending cuts that are in his proposal, and this is not including, you know, the 20% cap or the balanced amendment budget, which really aren't actual spending cuts. that's just a procedural mechanism. but the actual spending cuts are there in no way add up to the lost revenue that he has. if you're just scoring on what actually can score, it actually results in a net increase in the deficit. so my worry would be that then he will have a difficult time adhering to his campaign promises. now for example, defense. he has said that defense should

be at 4% of gdp for the foreseeable future. well, if you look at the ryan plan, ryan's plan brings down, if you take out social security, you take out health programs, then everything else goes down by 2050 to about i think it's about 3.75% of gdp, okay. that includes defense. so if defense is at 4%, that means everything else is eliminated. that's everything else including our entire regulatory structure, includes all public investments, transportation and research and development and education. that includes actually ironically, funding for congress. and the president as well. >> maybe not ironic. >> it gets a very weird existential debate at that point. >> first off, congratulations on breaking the numbers seal for all of us here. but so -- let's dive into some other types of numbers which is polling numbers. right? the public has very differing ideas on what they like. we would all like to see lower

taxes. we would all like to see higher taxes on the rich. we would like to see a strong defense, but we would like to wind down the wars, and by the way, don't touch my entitlements. how do we -- that does not suggest a path that absolutely fits for deficit reduction, or does it? >> it doesn't to me. i think the word that i would leave everyone have in their minds is cognitive dissonance. if you take a look at the american public that. >> want what they want, but they don't want to pay for it. >> like my 5-year-old, actually. >> well, it actually sounds like my 65-year-old who is a member of the tea party and in south carolina. when i talk to him about such things as medicare changes and things like that, all of the sudden he is not a tea party member anymore and says i've earned that. so there is this cognitive dissonance. it's reflected perfectly. you saw what happened to cooper

latourette. got a grand total of 38 votes, 16 republicans and 22 democrats. they're very courageous people because it was only a message vote. an important message, but the fact that it was defeated so resoundingly i think reflects the fact that the american people haven't made most of these decisions. and there is so much junk, information going around. the numbers, which everyone gets bored by, are just thrown around without much regard for their truth actually. and so i don't think the american people have made this decision. until they make this decision, until palpable pain hits the average family in the midwest of this country, i think you'll see -- you'll see members of the congress behave accordingly. they're not going to break that mold. >> do you think we'll see public

pressure on defense one way or the other? or will we continue to see it mostly coming from the pentagon, from contractors? where does that pressure happen? >> well, the polls that -- the public polling on defense spending has shown a real sort of gap in answers depending how it's framed. framing is everything when it comes to defense. if it's an immediate threat, if it's something that you really think compromises your safety, then it's like money is no object. spend what you need. when it becomes -- when it's placed in terms of, you know, large government-heavy projects that have negligible benefits to our immediate safety versus and you kind of give them the choice. so you're not making the decision in a vacuum, then people actually frequently choose to decrease defense spending. so it shows there needs to be a lot of education. and i think of the public. but i think this is why you see

both parties engaging in this rhetoric. and it's tough. because if you are -- if you're really pushing the sort of panic button rhetoric, it's easier for that to get through than this sort of more measure like look, there is a lot of waste in the pentagon there is other stuff we could be doing with this money. your average american citizen isn't -- the pentagon is an enormous, enormous bureaucracy. it's bigger than most governments, you know, around the world. it's bigger than -- it employs more people than walmart, the largest corporation. and people don't get it. i barely get it. and it's just very hard i think for people, to your average member of the public to really wrap their mind around what isn't a threat to me and what is bureaucracy. >> and how does that wrapping your mind around change if we're, say, going to war with

iran? >> right. so that -- so that is, you know, that's an immediate sort of headline threat. that of course feeds anxiety about immediate danger here at home. so that kind of thing does change. people's support for higher defense spending can wax and wane, depending on what is in the headlines. definitely. of course, now we're facing a big burnout about iraq and afghanistan. i'm not sure we can depend on want public to give us a clear answer about this. if we can depend on them to give us a clear answer about anything because i think it's so such a wide spectrum. it's very dependent on framing. >> right. speaking of framing -- you are so -- i appreciate everyone for leading right into these next questions.

ethan, one of the things, probably the only thing i remember vividly from high school economics is guns versus butter. the idea of do we spend our limited resources on defense or do we spend them on programs to help people in the country? it seems to me that the sort of choices laid out in chairman ryan's budget or ranking member van hollen's budget are in fact guns versus butter sort of choices in some ways. do you think that those are the choices america should be debating right now, bigger military versus bigger social programs? and do you think we'll actually get a referendum on that in this presidential campaign? >> well, i think that -- i don't want to get too much into this kind of trade-offs thing. to a large extent, that's definitely true. and you can see particularly from the ryan budget as one of the members of the audience pointed out -- two members of the audience i think pointed out that there is this trade-off where you're getting the large tax cuts that disproportionately go towards higher income americans, and then you're also

getting huge massive cuts to the social safety net that primarily go to disadvantaged americans. so there is obviously an inherent trade-off there. but at the same time, i don't think that we should -- there is a certain segment of people i think in the beltway that feel like something is only really good deficit policy as long as someone is being hurt. as long as there are some losers that are identifiable. if there are no losers identifiable, then it must kind of be a, you know, a setup. it must not actually be true there is a huge amount of skepticism. but there are actually things. i don't want to call them free lunches, but certain things that actually don't hurt, and actually can kind of benefit everyone. brad delong from berkeley and larry summers who everyone knows released a paper recently looking at stimulus and found that actually when you do job creation in the short-term through fiscal stimulus, you're actually increasing long-run economic growth because there are certain aspects of the recession that actually create

long-run drag on economic growth. and, you know, there are a couple of things, a couple of ways that it does that. one is that it decreases private -- recessions decrease private investment. another increases poverty levels. and poverty is one of the things that is notoriously difficult to come out of, the poverty cycle. it can delay or make people forgo education, investments in education for themselves to go -- they may not go to college, because they instead need to work to provide for parents who are now out of work. instead people go straight from high school to straight into the job market without investing in themselves. so for a variety of reasons, we see that recessions actually have long-run scarring effects. and doing something now can actually forgo a lot of the scarring effects. you're actually getting the benefits now. you were talking about public polling. the public is unified the number one priority should be jobs. even a lot of organizations like the bipartisan policy center still agrees.

we need to do in the short-term, we freed to do some job creation and then deficit reduction in the long run. but the job creation in the short-run isn't just a sugar high. that's something that benefits us for the near term, medium term and long-term. infrastructure would be another thing. we're getting the cheapest financing right now. in 50 years, we have a huge backlog of projects. if we wait, they get much more expensive. it's much cheaper to repair a bridge than it is to rebuild a bridge. so for all of these reasons, there are things that actually we can do now. we can create jobs. we can boost our long-run capacity. and at the same time get us back on a fiscally sustainable path that don't actually require -- and i don't want to say there is everything, because it makes me sound like i'm saying, oh, yeah, tax cuts can pay for themselves too. but generally speaking, there is a lot of really good policy there that don't have a lot of pain that we could be doing now, but we really aren't. >> one quick point on the delong-summers paper.

their math only works if the interest rates that we pay for public debt are very low. so if chairman ryan is right and the bond vigilantes come in and we see a skyrocketing of interest rates next year, that immediately wipes out what they're proposing. >> sure. >> anyway. sorry. i guess i wanted to make a math clarification. >> well, i just wanted to, on the jobs point. because, actually, this is when you talk about public's perception of defense spending, and you talk about how the importance of defense spending is communicated to congress, it's all about jobs. they've got guys coming into their office every day. literally, i talk to officer staffers, i had a guy come in from raytheon today that there are 3.5 jobs. related to this weapons system in my district. it's like, 3.5. they really got it down to the part-time window washer or something. >> one person is different in a another level. >> exactly, yeah. so, really, this is one of the

reasons that i think there's just a lot of anxiety. and at a time like this when we're in an economic crunch, it becomes maybe the main reason why there is so much anxiety about taking on defense spending in congress, because there is -- i mean, the democrats kind of don't want to go there.

[ no audio ]

[ no audio ] we're having a technical problem with the program we were watching. we're going to move on with our schedule and watch the senate indiana affairs committee talking about the 2013 budget. the committee will come to order. aloha and welcome. to the committee's oversight

hearing on the president's fiscal year 2030 budget for native programs. and these difficult economic times the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013 reflects a continued commitment to strengthen tribal nations. advancement in education and sport and expend health care services. however, it is important to remember that the federal government has a trust responsibility to indian tribes. even during the economic recovery. this trust responsibility is especially important to remember if the sequester occurs at the beginning of 2013. which would require across-the-board cuts in the majority of programs th s at

government agencies. this could have a devastating affect on tribal program, which are chronically underfunded. even during prosperous times. i was especially pleased to see that the president's budget included a legislative recommendation to address the decision. fixing the decision remains a top priority of the committee, and the administration. righting this wrong will cost no money and will, in fact, be instrumental in saving and creating jobs, and bringing economic development opportunities in indian country. today we will hear from the department of interior and the indian health service and the president's budget.

and we will hear from several tribal organizations on the impact this budget will have on tribes in their area. at this hearing, impacts all tribal nations. i would like to emphasize the importance of submitting comments or written testimony for the record. the hearing record will remain open for two weeks from today. and i would like to invite our first panel. to the witness table. serving on our first panel is the honorable larry eeaglehawk, assistant secretary for labor affairs at the department of interior, accompanying secretary

eaglehawk are mr. mike smith, deputy director of the bureau of indian affairs, and keith moore, director of the bureau of indian education. next we welcome the honorable yvette roubideaux, a director of health services in the department of health and human services. accompanying dr. roubideaux is mr. randy graknell, deputy director of health services. let me just thank you for your patience, and i've been looking forward to this hearing. so secretary, will you, please, proceed with your testimony. >> thank you, chairman akaka. we have previously submitted a

written statement, but i'll summarize my statement to begin with. we thank you for this opportunity to provide the department of statement on the fiscal year 2013 president's budget request. the 2013 budget request for indian aaffairs within the department of interior totals $2.5 billion in current appropriations. this is $4.6 million below last year's enacted level, which amounts to a reduction of 2/10 of 1%. as you know, indian affairs meets with tribes on a quarterly basis. on the budget. through the tribal interior budget council and through this informed consultation with tribes, we included in this budget request $43.8 million in program increases in priority

areas, such as contract support costs, rights protection implementation and law rights protection implementation and law enforcement. and chairman icaca, there are some reductions in the budget. the indian affairs 2013 budget request continues to provide funding for two of the department's priority initiatives, strengthening tribal nations and a new energy frontier. this budget request seeks an increase of $43.8 million for strengthening tribal nations. within this initiative, we plan to advance nation to nation relationships by seeking $12.3 million in programatiy increases in continued work on

the navajo gallop water project. we also plan to continue protecting indian country by seeking an additional $11 million in public safety funding. with that increase, $3.5 million will go towards hiring additional tribal and bureau of indian affairs law enforcement personnel and $6. 5 million will pay for staff increases at newly constructed tribal and bureau detention centers. this request also supports the expansion of a highly successful pilot program launched in 2010 that saw a 35% reduction in violent crime for four reservations with high violent crime rates. the department also seeks an increase of $5.2 million for our education activities. 2 million for tribal grant

support costs at 125 tribally controlled schools and residential facilities. to continue with the new energy frontier initiative, the 2013 budget request provides a total of $8.5 million to support development on tribal lands, and $6.2 million is provided for renewable energy projects. and the remaining $2.5 million is intended to provide for conventional energy and audit compliance in support of leasing activities on the reservation. we did have to make some difficult choices in this budget request. we requested $19.7 million less from savings from eliminating duplicative and overlapping functions. the $13.8 million reduction will

come from anticipated management efficiencies. the reduction will come from $31 million which includes $2.6 million less for law enforcement special initiatives and $6.1 million less for information, resource technology and other programs. in education-related activities, we seek to decrease $4.5 million for funding to reflect a slight decline in student population, and we request $17.8 million less for new school construction funding. the budget provides $5 million for the indian guaranteed loan program which is a reduction of 2.1 million from the 2012 enacted level. overall the 2013 budget reflects a fiscally responsible balance

of the priorities expressed by tribes during the consultation together with the broad eobjectives of the administration. the 2013 budget continues to focus on core responsibilities to indian tribes and alaskan natives through programs and services that are vital to indian country. this budget focuses on priority areas in indian country and honors the federal government's obligation to tribal nation in a focused and informed manner. the best example of this is by inclusion of the language in the 2013 budget request just as it was requested in 2012. thank you very much. i would be happy to respond to questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. i'll call on dr. roubideaux

after i recognize senator franken. he'll be back on the floor and i'm going to ask him for any opening remarks he has. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. unfortunately, i have to preside in 15 minutes so i would like to say a couple of things. each year this committee holds hearings on the needs of the -- many issues of great importance for indian country, but only once a year do we examine overall funding levels for native programs. what we choose to fund sends a powerful message to tribes about our priorities. in these times of tight budgets, programs across the federal government are being forced to make painful cuts and do more

with less. sadly native communities are far too accustomed to doing more with less. i hope that as we examine this year's budget we will all remember our trust responsibilities to try and think carefully about any cuts to tribal programs. the president's fiscal year 2013 budget has some good things. i'm very happy to see proposed increases for indian health service, transport cost and public safety and law enforcement. i know these were all top priorities requested by the tribes. the president's budgets also makes some severe kuchlts i'm concerned about the $2 million increase in the independeian guaranteed loan program and i'm troubled about zeroing out of school construction funding. school construction is something

i brought up in this committee over and over again. there is a $1.3 billion backlog for indian school construction and repair. but this year the president has only requested $53 million and none of that will go to construction. the state of bie schools is simply unacceptable. the school on the leech lake in my home state of minnesota is in desperate need of replacement schools and teachers. has to deal with leaky roofs, mold, rodent infestation and sewer problems. the facility doesn't meet safety, fire and security standards. i want to thank deputy secretary

echo hawk, and i want to thank keith moore for coming to my office to discuss this the other day. i want to ask my colleagues on this committee this question. would you countenance your children getting their education in a school that wasn't safe, in a school that had rodents running around, that had mold, that had leaks. when it rains, it's cold in the win and swelter hot on humid days. i know the answer would be no. how can we expect native children to succeed under these conditions? senator from minnesota, i have a responsibility to every child in my state, every child and every parent. making sure that every child

gets a good education. we know what the purpose of that is. we know why we need to do that. it benefits every child. it benefits, makes them more productive. it benefits our economy. we know the reasons to do this. but there's another reason too. and the reason, one of the reasons is that these are children. they are beautiful children. they are gifts. and they deserve to be educated in a place that is safe and that is comfortable and doesn't have rats and rodents. so i will fight to restore funding for a place for school construction, and i hope i can count on support from other members of this committee. i want to thank the witnesses