صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

have in your files all these programs in which you feel Indians have been short-changed?

Mr. CLAPHAM. Senator Inouye, I don't know that I have all of the examples. I can give you one very quick one that my written testimony mentions.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the Social Services Block Grant between us and the State of New Mexico became a significant dispute. It was litigated. We alleged, and the courts found, that New Mexico had diverted dollars which were to be distributed on a population basis from the Social Services Block Grant to other parts of the State, and limited the Navajo Nation's population's fair share. The State said, "Gee, we're trying to spread a blanket across everybody." Our response was, "You just made our blanket somewhat thinner than the rest of the State of New Mexico." The Federal District Court agreed with that, the 10th Circuit agreed with that, and the United States Supreme Court denied cert when New Mexico attempted to petition for review in the Supreme Court.

So yes, those programs happen that way. I don't know that it is as egregious as it has been at times in New Mexico, and New Mexico is now complying with the orders and we don't have the same problem. But it took us five and a half or six years of litigation to get that resolved.

So I believe they are there. I can give you data on them; I can't give it to you as explicitly as I can about the title 20 situation that arose in New Mexico, because not all of them have been litigated. But there is information that we can provide you on those.

Mr. Vice Chairman, on behalf of NCAI, I think we have examples as well that we would be delighted to give you. We may not have all of the data that is available and all of the examples in our files, but certainly I think we do have some examples, and we would be very happy to share those in some degree of detail with the committee. In fact, when I get back this afternoon I will begin getting staff to look at some of those issues. We've been doing quite a bit of work in the area of welfare reform and we know certainly that there are some examples where the States and the tribes have had some significant differences and problems.

Senator INOUYE. Certainly, the committee will be pleased to receive any information you have, because if this is persistent throughout the United States, something should be done about that.

On the matter of the census, is there any effort being made to encourage Indians to respond to the questionnaire?

Mr. CLAPHAM. With regard to the Navajo Nation, there is a project that has been jointly undertaken between the Navajo Nation and the Census Bureau where they have provided offices and hired Navajo temporary staff to assist in the census-taking that is going to occur. That has been an ongoing effort for at least the last year. Although I am not directly involved, I can talk to the folks who are. If you want more information about that, we would be happy to provide it.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I just don't want to see Indian country being short-changed again.

Ms. CHASE. Absolutely. Certainly, that has been a priority for the National Congress of American Indians. Dr. Pruitt has had a num

ber of different meetings with us; we have worked very closely with his staff. I think we can commend their good faith efforts. Nonetheless, we certainly have concerns about full and accurate participation on behalf of Indian country.

We have also forged a partnership with the Census Bureau to be sure that Native people are being hired to help with the data-gathering, and are doing our best to encourage our member tribes to participate and, of course, their members to fully participate-in the census.

Senator INOUYE. As the Chairman indicated, this measure is just a legislative vehicle. And furthermore, it is rather unlikely that a measure of this import would be considered and passed in this session. There are only about 30 working days left.

Therefore, I am certain the committee would be most pleased to receive any sort of suggestions or amendments that you may propose. I look forward to receiving them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank both of you for appearing.

One thing Senator Inouye and I have both tried to do is that whenever we deal with any issues in this committee, we always try to make sure that we include the views of the tribes, and particularly NCAI who represents so many of them. So thank you both for appearing.

We will probably follow up with a few written questions, and some of the other members who did not come today may also have questions. So if you do get those, if you could answer them in writing, the committee would certainly appreciate that.

We will keep the record open for 2 more weeks.
Thank you, and this committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACOB J. LEW, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC

Thank you for your invitation to appear before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to provide the administration's views with respect to S. 612-Indian Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation Act of 2000. We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on the legislation.

The relationship between the U.S. Government and Native Americans is a historical one founded on a trust responsibility. The administration continues to honor its government-to-government relationship with tribes by supporting critical programs serving Indian reservations, developing Executive orders specific to Native Americans, and bringing together tribal leaders and resources across the Government to address priority tribal concerns.

In 1994, the President held the first ever historic meeting with over 300 tribal leaders at the White House to highlight progress on improving the government-togovernment relationship and to highlight community development needs in Indian country. A similar, smaller meeting was held in 1996. In August 1998, the President held a White House Conference on Economic Development where agencies were directed to develop a strategic plan for coordinating existing economic development activities for Native Americans and Alaska Natives and tribal leaders were able to showcase accomplishments. Also in August 1998, the President signed an Executive order directing agencies to coordinate to develop a strategic plan on improving elementary and secondary education in Indian country. In May 1999, the President met with tribal leaders from the Northern Plains [ND, SD, MT] to discuss education, health care, and housing needs in Indian country. The culmination of these presidential events lead to a multi-agency coordinated effort to improve the quality of life in Indian country, which is reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Since 1994, the Domestic Policy Council Inter-agency Working Group for Indians and Alaskan Natives, chaired by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, has met quarterly on policy areas related to Native Americans. This group functions as a forum for information exchange, needs assessment, and coordination of policy. For example, the Working Group did significant work with tribes on Y2K issues and has reached out to Indians to encourage participation in the census. This White House working group has been active in encouraging agencies to coordinate programs that assist Indians. The Economic Development Conference, along with other initiatives, came out of the inter-agency working group.

In addition, the White House Working Group worked closely with the agencies and OMB to develop the President's Native American initiative that is a key part of the fiscal year 2001 budget. This initiative is one of the top administration priorities. It is a coordinated, multi-agency government-wide initiative that focuses Federal resources on critical programs serving Native Americans. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget includes $9.4 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion or 14 percent over fiscal year 2000, to address critical needs including health care, education, economic development, infrastructure, and other basic needs.

(27)

This initiative includes significant increases for the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and numerous other agencies. Such increases are intended to target high priority, high impact areas and to address critical health, life and safety needs. The Working Group will coordinate agency efforts to implement the initiative. We believe that if enacted, this initiative will make a significant difference in the quality of life of Native Americans.

The fiscal year 2001 budget presents a comprehensive way to fund critical needs and is intended to challenge leaders to achieve consensus on these specific areas. S. 612 also attempts to address areas of need in Indian country. S. 612 is intended to overcome the congressional concerns regarding the availability of detailed and reliable information about Indian country needs. While the administration shares these concerns, we do not believe that S. 612 addresses this issue in an effective and efficient manner nor does it indicate the importance of measuring program results. The administration has and will continue to work with the agencies as they continue to develop and reform performance indicators and provide detailed information on program performance pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] of 1994.

For example, the Indian Health Service has developed a GPRA performance plan aimed at using a cost-effective public, health approach to reduce the health disparities in Native Americans. This performance plan plays an important role in the development of IHS budgets and operating plans. IHS' GPRA plan includes goals to improve the overall health status of Native Americans and Alaska Natives, including measures to increase glycemic control efforts as a means to reduce diabetic complications, to provide additional home-based well-child visits, and to improve water fluoridation compliance to reduce the prevalence of dental decay.

The proposed legislation would require the following reports to Congress:

• Indian Needs Assessments after the Secretary of the Interior develops a uniform method, each Federal agency must identify the actual needs of Indian tribes and Indians eligible for Federal programs and services. Reports are due every 5 years.

• Annual Indian Program Evaluations each Federal agency must report on annual expenditures for Federal programs and services for which Indians are eligible, including information on those tribes that receive services and those that applied but did not receive services.

• Annual Listing of Tribal Eligible Programs each agency must publish in the Federal Register a list of all programs and services available to Indian tribes or their members.

• Strategic Plan-within 18 months the Secretary of the Interior must file a plan for improving coordination of Federal assistance for Indians.

OMB asked Federal departments and agencies to review and comment on the proposed bill's requirements. To date, we have received comments from nearly 1 dozen organizations with Indian programs totaling $8.6 billion, or 92 percent, of the Native American initiative. These organizations provide a wide-range of assistance programs and services to tribal governments and tribal members. Many expressed similar concerns that the proposed legislation is too broad in scope, burdensome and expensive to administer, and duplicates current GPRA planning and reporting requirements.

The testimony of Interior's assistant secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Gover covers the many technical, schedule, and methodological problems that are shared by these other departments and agencies.

Funding and successful implementation of programs that assist Native Americans remain a priority for the administration. The Administration stands ready to work with the committee to address this issue and will, pursuant to GPRA, continue to work with Federal agencies administering programs serving Native Americans to

TESTIMONY

OF

KEVIN GOVER

ASSISTANT SECRETARY - INDIAN AFFAIRS

ON
S. 612

INDIAN NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

APRIL 5, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss S. 612, the Indian Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation Act. Having recently completed development of the President's budget request for FY 2001, I understand the Committee's concern that the Federal Government sometimes lacks detailed information about the needs in Indian Country. This information would enable us to undertake a more systematic, comprehensive approach to improving conditions for tribal communities that lack resources and to link these resources with performance data, pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1994. We would, therefore, like to work with the Committee to address this situation.

Having said that, I do not underestimate the complexity of the task. Working with Indian tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has tried for years to develop "standards of need." As part of the Reorganization Task Force in the early 1990's, a tribal-Federal work group spent almost three years attempting to develop standards for just one program: Indian Child Welfare Act Grants. That effort was unsuccessful. As noted in the August 1994 report from the Reorganization Task Force, problems were encountered because:

There was no current standard information about tribal ICWA operations and the tribal responses to request for information for Task Force use was uneven.

The authorizing legislation is extremely broad as grants can be used for licensing foster homes, operating and maintaining counseling and treatment facilities, provision of homemaker assistance, day care, after school care, and employment, recreational activities, respite care, home improvement, education and training, and adoption subsidies. Tribal programs varied widely since current grants range from less than $30,000 to almost $700,000.

More recently, as part of the TPA study, we had limited success in identifying appropriate standards against which to measure BIA-funded programs. We are making progress, however. For example, BIA's facilities information is collected in a systematic manner. We can report that the existing backlog of school construction and repair totals $802 million and that we have a repair backlog of

63-907 00-2

« السابقةمتابعة »