we do find that programs that are run by american indians, alaska natives, for american indians, alaska natives or programs that target hispanics, run by hispanics, tend to produce better outcomes than programs that are not sensitive to those issues. so we use sort of a bias force paradigm. there are programs that are not run by the specific population group, but have modules that are targeted to the unique needs of that group. so they do not as well as the programs that are run by the specific population group, but they do better than programs that are general. so when we look at the outcomes of, say, a woman in a male program or a general program that doesn't have any gender specific programming, she doesn't do as well as the program that is targeted to, for women, run for women or a program that has gender-specific issues. the same thing for american indian, alaska natives, hispanics, african americans, and the same thing would be applicable to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender. the key issue is of cultural competence and that is the thing that if indeed you know you've got a d

and i deeply, deeply appreciate the trust that alaska native people have placed in me. i appreciate so much the support, the love that i receive from all native people, as it add -- abdicate on your behalf. as i continue my work in the united states senate over these next six years, i look forward to working with each and every one of you in the coming years to improve the condition of america's first people. thank you. good morning. [applause] >> thank you. this is just an incredible morning to hear the state of indian nations from president jefferson keel and the congressional response from senator lisa murkowski. we have much to be grateful for this morning, and we are humbled by having them to be our leaders and our champions today. in addition, as introductions, a late arrival but very significant arrival to our forum here today, senator dukakis -- senator akaka who i'm hoping will be announcing -- [applause] >> -- that he will be the new chair of the indian affairs. thank you, senator akaka, for joining us this morning. i appreciate that. at this time we are now op

facilitate the recovery, whether it's a gay, lesbian, bisexual individual, an american indian, alaska native, someone from the hispanic community, a white from appalachia. you're still trying to facilitate recovery. so that is the one thing that we have in terms of cultural competence and we have to radiate out from that by bringing in all the other idioms and icons and beliefs associated with substance use, but we're trying to achieve that. so that gives us a good position to start from. very good. when we come back, i want to get more into really the specifics among groups of what the, basically, the approach should be for each one of these groups within the context of providing services. we'll be right back. well, i think treatment programs that recognize that language and cultural icons and support and cultural imagery play a critical role in how a person relates both psychologically and socially could position themselves to do a better job at reaching the person who is affected. so one size does not fit all, but the strategy is one of welcoming and incentivizing through environmental an

i'd like to move very quickly to the alaska native corporation. i don't know if you've looked into it. if you have not, i would request through the committee that you do so. "the washington post" did a piece on november 26th which is astonishing to me. . >> anytime you allow for sole source contracts, there is mischief that is going to take place. in this case evidently a contract for $250 million was offered to a subsidiary of the alaska native corporation. a gentleman living in delaware -- his office was his colonial four-bedroom home and he was providing sexual assault and harassment training except he had no experience doing that and his last contract for the government was for $73,000 and it was for janitorial services. there's been $29 billion provided to the amc over the last decade. most of the money not going to the natives. most of them going to the nonnatives. it is an absolute abuse of the program. and i think we should look into that as well. >> yeah. we issued reports in the past on that with recommendations. we're currently looking

current definition of an earmark, the two programs the gentleman is seeking to restore are earmarks, alaska native education and native hawaiian education programs are worthy programs. there's no doubt in my mind. and i believe the overall purpose of both is to ensure that the unique educational needs of alaska and hawaii natives are met. and clearly, we all want the same for our constituents. but i think we have to be clear about what these programs are. they are earmarks. with a price tag that approaches $70 million. now, this majority has been very proud of their policy to ban all earmarks. and if i might, i would like to just read from the comments of the chair of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, in his summary, fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. and i quote, the continuing resolution include nose earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding from the fiscal year 2010 savings the taxpayers approximate $8.5 billion. in addition, the bill includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined by house rules. that is why -- and again, as i say, this ma

i would like to move very quickly to the alaska native corporation. i don't know if you have looked into it. if you have not i would request the committee they do so. the washington peace did -- washington posted a piece which is astonishing. anytime you allow for soul contact, sole-source contracts, there is an issue that is going to take place in this case evidently a contract for $250 million was offered to a subsidiary of the alaska native corporation, jump among living in delaware whose office was in colonial four-bedroom home and he was providing sexual assault and harassment training. except he had no experience doing that and his last contract with the government was $473,000 it was for janitorial services. there has been $29 billion provided to the anc over the last decade. most of the money not going to the natives. most of it going to the non-natives. it is an absolute abuse of the program and i think we should look into that as well. >> yeah. we have issued reports in the past on that with recommendations. we are currently looking at it ag

hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the indian and alaska native affairs subcommittee, mr. young of alaska. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for how much time? the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: i can't help -- i have a prepared statement. i can't help but answer the gentleman from massachusetts who never supported any time, any time -- has never supported any way any energy development in this country. he was against nuclear power many years ago, still is against it. he was against solar power, and he has since wind power in his state and is against, frankly, any fossil fuel development and depending on the so-called make believe wind power, make believe solar power, in the meantime we're buying oil from overseas and you know that. and the e.p.a., very frankly, is part of the problem. i am the chairman now of the american indian alaska natives and their lands can't be developed beca

no offense to anybody by saying this but we're going to cut the exchange programs for alaska native,and the historical trading partners in massachusetts. so thanks very much. [applause] >> thank you all very much. thank you, panelists. [applause] >> a round of applause for this great panel. no more air marks. -- earmarks. .. pat. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, ladies and gentlemen. we are reaching the exciting part of our program. ladies and gentlemen, please give a big welcome to and romney. [cheering] [cheering] add mac. [applauding] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] >> thank you. it's great to be here. you know, at david has been a special friend to us all these years. as we say thank you to him, we look for to the many things that we can do for our friend. castro's nemesis, and our friend. next month mitchen that will have been married for 42 years. [applauding] known for a lot of things he has done as a businessman, and all of its leader, and a governor, but the most important things he has

they are native americans, alaska natives, african-americans, hispanic americans, asian and pacific islander americans, and poor and rural americans of every race and ethnicity. we will develop a budget that treats all americans fairly, does not leave anyone behind, but gets a helping hand to those who need it and also reduces the deficit. we agree with president obama that his budget must put the country on a firm path to winning the future and we know that winning the future means creating opportunity for everyone who lives in this country. but the c.b.c. is further committed to making sure that everyone means everyone. to making sure that those who have been most hurt by this recession and those who have long been marginalized even in the good times have the special help they need to be a part of creating that future and benefiting from it. i cannot believe there could be one member of the congress who does not support our country being number one. who does not want to win the future. but we can't win the future without ensuring that every child has access to quality education and those s

that represents a significant change when an alaska native leader of the north slope community is willingstep forward and say that. i am telling you that waiting five years for an air permit is unreasonable and has nothing to do with acting speedily. it has everything to do with the federal government and willing to make a decision. that is what i am trying to get at here. >> are you meeting with anyone at the white house? >> i will be participating in the meetings. we will have a chance to meet with the president as well. are you suggesting something similar is going to happen soon? our economy is confronted with that. what little economic recovery we can point to now, people will have to start -- stop driving cars. what i am is suggesting is that our dependence on foreign oil leads to destruction of our economy and our individual lives. the theme i am trying to strike is let's look at what we know and can control, that is our domestic oil production at home. >> there are calls to release some of the oil. there are calls that have come out this week. if we had more domestic production, w

i would like to move quickly to the alaska native corporations. i do not know if you have look into it. if you have not, i would request to the committee that you do so. there was a report released in january that was astonishing to me. anytime you allow the sole source contract, mr. of is going to take place. in this case, a contract or to what is $60 million was offered to a subsidiary of the -- a contract of $260 million was offered to a subsidiary of the alaska company. the last contract with the government was for $73,000 and it was for a janitorial services. there has been $29 billion provide amc over the last decade. most of the money does not go to the natives. most of it goes to the non- natives. it is an abuse of the program and i think we should look into that. >> we are currently looking at it. we would be happy to share. but that is my problem. you issue reports and nothing happens. there is another story written because we have not done anything about it. i want the part of the committee that actually delivers on results not just hav

alaska has two minutes left. mr. young: i'll take 30 second. i want to suggest one thing, the native communities in alaska support this. they support drilling. i had them in my office. to say that, i represent that state, notal ex-and degreea -- and not alexandria, virginia. i yield to mr. simpson. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: they purchased the communities outside the arctic shelf. the company paid $2.1 billion for these lease rights, a reflection of the vast reserves off alaska's coast. shell applied for air permits from the e.p.a. for its buford leases in 2006 and the company went through a lengthy and burdensome administrative process. shell's permits were initially approved but subsequently overturned by the e.p.a.'s environmental appeal board. last year the appropriations committee addressed the problem by including language in the f.y. 2010 conference report, specifically directing the agency to allocate sufficient funds and personnel to process the o.c.s. permits in a timely manner. this simply did not happen. the company is effectively at s

including appalachia communities in kentucky and west virginia, native american communities in south dakota and alaska, latino communities in arizona and new mexico. african-american communities in mississippi and south carolina. and urban communities in philadelphia, new york, baltimore, and st. louis. . democrats represent 149 of these counties with a total population of 8.7 million. the republicans represent 311 of these counties with a total population of 8.3 million. with a total population of 5.3 million, 4 of them, are split between democrats and republicans. a total of 43 democrats and 84 republicans represent at least in part or one of these counties. 35 of the 50 states have at least one persistent poverty county. 15 of south carolina's 46 counties meet this ignoble distinction. and similarly, in the sixth congressional district, that i proudly represent. this is not a red state of blue state issue. that's why in the map beside me, the persistent poverty communities are colored in purple because poverty knows no political affiliation. poverty has never been limited to race, region, or creed.

including communities in kentucky and west virginia, native american communities in south dakota and alaska, latino communities in arizona and new mexico, african-american communities in north and south carolina. they are urban communities in philadelphia, new york, baltimore and st. louis. democrats represent 149 of these counties with a total population of 8.7 million. republicans represent 311 of these counties with a total population of 8.3 million. 14 of these counties with a total population of 5.3 million are split between democrats and republicans. a total of 43 democrats and 84 republicans represent all or a part of these counties. and 35 of our 50 states have at least one persistent poverty county. 15 of south carolina's 46 counties qualify for thising noble recognition. -- for this ignoble recognition and i happen to represent seven of those counties. this is not a red state or a blue state issue. that's why in this map, on this map beside me, the persistent poverty counties are colored in purple. there is no political affiliation for poverty. poverty has never been limited to ra