Page 7

about the conditions in Indian Country, those indicators that we do have show a gap between Indian communities and mainstream America. Our attention and resources are better focused on closing the gaps rather than expanding the reporting requirements.

We know from information already collected by BIA and other federal agencies that:

The rate of growth of the Indian population is almost twice that of the nation as a whole.

Violent crime in Indian country increased 56 percent from 1997 to 1998 while, during the same period, the nation as a whole experienced a decline of 17 percent in the rate of violent crime.

In 1998 there were more than 27,000 referrals for investigation of child abuse and neglect and that in 40 percent of these cases alcohol or drugs were cited as contributing factors.

Forty percent of the homes in Indian communities are overcrowded and have serious structural problems while only 6 percent of all homes in the nation fall into that category. 30,000 people are waiting for rental housing in Indian country.

Over 16 percent of Indian homes lack complete plumbing.

Indians are under-represented in the management, professional, and technical areas and over-represented in the service and general laborers categories.

Less than one-third of our high school students complete the core curriculum recommended for college admissions.

Only two percent of college-bound Indian students have a combined SAT score of 1100 or higher compared with 22 percent of all college-bound high school graduates.

A majority of our college students are at 2-year colleges while a majority of non-Indian students are at 4-year colleges.

Based on BIA's Labor Force Report, unemployment hovers near 50 percent on many Indian reservations while the rest of the nation enjoys the best economic times in history.

BIA has dilapidated schools, irrigation projects that barely deliver water, jails that offer no rehabilitation or counseling programs for inmates, and drug smuggling problems in the Arizona-Mexico border region.

While I do recognize the legitimate interest of the Congress in our undertaking efforts to develop better data to support our budgets and to measure the impact our programs have in Indian Country, S. 612 is so broad in scope that we would be destined to fail. It also places the full reporting burden on the Federal government despite the fact that our common goal is to have Indian tribes assume responsibility for program operations. Our ability to report will continue to be circumscribed

Page 8

until there is recognition that much of the needed data resides with tribal governments, not with the Federal government. To begin to address the Committee's concerns, we suggest that we conduct a pilot program during the next fiscal year using the higher education scholarship program as a model.

Our budget includes a $2.2 million increase for scholarships. The appropriators have asked us how we can be sure that this money will actually be used for scholarships since the program is funded through TPA. Right now, our honest answer has to be that we hope it will be used for that purpose, but we can't make any guarantees. We would like to pilot a scholarship information and reporting system. If your Committee and the Appropriations Committees agree to pilot the program, we could get around the limitations on mandatory reporting, by using the budget increase as a "carrot" only those tribes agreeing to use the system and to provide reports on scholarship applications can share in the increase. Our goal would be not only to have better information for Congress, but also to provide a system that helps the tribes better manage the scholarship program. We would appreciate the Committee's support of this approach rather than the process outlined in S. 612.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 2. Findings and Purposes.

In Section 2 and throughout the bill, the phrases "Indian tribe," "Indian people," and "Indians nationwide" are used.

The bill does not contain a definitions section that would limit the applicability of S. 612 to Federally recognized Indian tribes or to members of Federally recognized Indian Tribes who reside within the BIA's service areas or who have an ownership interest in trust or restricted land. Any legislation having to do with special Federal responsibilities to Indian Tribes should include the standard definition of a tribe, should further define "Indian people,” and should eliminate the words "Indians nationwide."

Subsections 2 (b)(2) and (3) would require Federal agencies to "review and monitor the effectiveness of the programs and services provided to Indians" and provide for more "accountability from the agencies... providing programs and services."

With the exception of the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the BIA, other Federal agencies rarely, if ever, directly "provide programs and services" to Indians; those agencies provide funds to support programs and services operated by Indian Tribes, or the agencies award grants or loans to Tribes or to individuals. For BIA and IHS programs, it is unclear as to whether the increased review and monitoring and accountability is limited to direct Federal operations or is to be extended to Federal oversight of Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance operations. We recommend that these two paragraphs be deleted.

Section 3. Indian Tribal Needs Assessment

Section (3)(a) would presumably make either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Health and Human Services responsible for development of government-wide, "uniform method, criteria, and procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service assistance needs of Indian tribes and Indians nationwide" since BIA and IHS tend to have the lead on Indian issues.

The term "Secretary" is not defined and as Interior, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education are omitted from the list of Departments, it is unclear as to where the responsibility is intended to be placed. The direct authority of individual Secretaries is limited to the respective department.

The bill proposes that the Secretary develop a "uniform method, criteria, and procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service assistance needs of Indian tribes and Indians nationwide."

We believe that uniform criteria across the Federal government for determining program and service needs is neither possible nor desirable. There are more than 1400 Federal assistance programs administered by 57 agencies. Indian Tribes are eligible for more than 300 programs and individuals may meet the eligibility criteria for about 580 programs. If one set of criteria were all that was necessary, the Federal domestic agencies could be reduced to one and funding could be limited to a single line item. For example, in the Department of the Interior we must consider our

responsibilities for lands held in trust or restricted status, the protection of those lands, and the income derived from those lands. Those matters are not relevant to the IHS. The IHS needs information on incidence of disease, availability of contract health care providers, neonatal death rates and causes, immunization rates, and a host of other health indicators. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers 34 programs for individuals who have served in the Armed Forces, but has no programs for which tribes are eligible. We, honestly, cannot see how one set of criteria could be developed for even these three organizations, much less one set that would address all of the other Federal programs that benefit Indian Tribes or their members.

We cannot even come up with one set of criteria to cover just those programs that are funded through the BIA. We fund schools, law enforcement activities, irrigation systems, forestry programs, and natural resource management. Eligibility criteria for the more than one thousand Federal domestic assistance programs result from laws that have been passed by Congress, not from administrative decisions of the Executive Branch; therefore, any single set of factors used to determine tribal eligibility for Federal programs would have to be legislated.

The needs assessment required by subsection 3(a)(1)(A) is to include population data and socio-economic conditions that exist within the "service area."

The Census Bureau is in the midst of the 2000 census count. Census data is by far the most accurate measure of population and socio-economic statistics available. Further, socio-economic indicators of the Indian population are far more meaningful when compared both to the general population and to other segments of the population. For such comparisons to be valid, the data must be collected and analyzed in the same fashion across the country. The Census Bureau is making an unprecedented effort to ensure an accurate count of all minority groups and has been working closely with Indian communities for months. No other Federal organization can hope to match the completeness and accuracy of population and socio-economic data that will be provided through the census.

The term "service area" is not defined. Many Federal agencies use special service areas for their different programs, such regional transportation systems, watershed regions, and school boundaries. The BIA and the IHS even have geographical service areas that are not congruent. The more appropriate geographical description would be "reservation."

The needs assessment is to identify the "availability of similar programs within the geographical area to tribes or tribal members."

The language is unclear. Programs similar to what? Does it refer to Federal programs that have overlapping goals or does it mean something else? Tribes are eligible for more than 300 Federal programs and there are about 580 Federal programs available to individuals. Local, county, and State governments also support thousands of programs and non-profit community groups offer an array of services. If the assessment is to identify every program offered by all of these levels of government and community service organizations, then we must object. Alternatively, we recommend the Committee consider a pilot project to determine the feasibility of a uniform needs assessment of a set of Federal programs with similar goals that are available to Indian tribes that could be done on a national basis. We would not recommend, however, a reservation-byreservation review.

We would note, however, that with the exception of the formula grant programs, most Federal funds are for specific projects or for a specified period of time - generally one to three years. The BIA and the IHS, on the other hand, provide on-going support to ensure a continuity of operations. Viewed in this fashion, similar Federal Indian programs are generally complementary rather than duplicative.

Subsection 3(a)(3) would require each Federal agency to conduct an Indian Needs
Assessment within one year of enactment and every five years thereafter.

We believe that a significant amount of information is currently available from Federal agencies on Indian needs. Before requiring a separate needs assessment, we recommend that a survey be conducted to identify and organize material that is presently available. Working with the Committee, we could then identify information gaps and have a more targeted approach that would reduce the risk of duplicating material.

Subsection 3(b)(1)(A) would require annual reports to Congress from all agencies on expenditures "for programs and services for which Indians are eligible, with specific information regarding the names of tribes..."

The language uses the words "Indians" and "tribes" as if they were synonymous. Individuals are eligible for a number of programs that are not open to tribes and, conversely, tribes are eligible for a number of programs that are not open to individuals.

The Congressional Research Service currently collects data on Federal expenditures for Indian Programs and provides that information annually to Congress.

Agencies would also be required to report "the names of tribes who are currently participating in or receiving each service, the names of tribes who have applied for and not received programs or services, and the names of tribes whose services or programs have been terminated within the last fiscal year."

Government-wide data on Federal assistance grants that are approved is presently collected through the Federal Assistance Awards Data System that is managed by the General Services Administration. The federal agencies report that they do not normally retain data on applications that are not approved or on awards that have been terminated. This would be a costly and burdensome reporting requirement and such information would not be helpful in evaluating program results.

"Each service" is an undefined term. Current Federal agency reporting on domestic assistance programs is based on the numbers assigned in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). We recommend that any required reporting be based on CFDA numbers.

Subsection 3(b)(1)(B) would require the submission of the same information as required by (A), except that the programs are to be those "specifically for the benefit of Indians."

We interpret this subsection to include those programs that are available only to Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes or members of the Tribes as opposed to those programs that include an Indian set-aside. More specificity in the language would resolve potentially differing interpretations.