S. Rept. 115-23 - A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974 TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND REAUTHORIZATION TO ENSURE THE SURVIVAL AND CONTINUING VITALITY OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES115th Congress (2017-2018)
PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
Calendar No. 30
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-23
======================================================================
A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974 TO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY AND REAUTHORIZATION TO ENSURE THE SURVIVAL AND CONTINUING
VITALITY OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES
_______
April 4, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 254]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 254) to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974
to provide flexibility and reauthorization to ensure the
survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, without
amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 254 is to provide additional flexibility
for and reauthorization of the Esther Martinez Native Languages
Preservation Act, Public Law No. 109-394, a grant program that
is administered by the Administration for Native Americans
(ANA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
History of key federal laws supporting Native American languages
In 1990, Congress passed the Native American Languages Act
(NALA). This law recognizes the unique status of Native
American cultures and languages. According to the law, it is
federal policy to ``preserve, protect, and promote the rights
and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop
Native American languages.''\1\ Further, NALA declares federal
support for ``the use of Native American languages as a medium
of instruction.''\2\ Congress recognized a number of reasons
for encouraging instruction in Native languages, including
language survival, community pride, improved educational
opportunity, and increased student achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Native American Languages Act of 1990 [NALA], Pub. L. No. 101-
477, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2901-2906 (1990).
\2\Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of
2006, Pub. L. No. 109-394, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2991b-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation
Act (NALPA), which amended the NALA, was signed into law in
December, 2006. Named after Ms. Esther Martinez, a Tewa teacher
and storyteller, the NALPA bolsters federal support for Native
language education by creating and funding the following
programs:
Native American language nests are educational
programs that provide instruction and childcare to at least 10
children under the age of 7 and offer Native language classes
to parents. Such programs use Native American language as the
primary language of instruction.
Native language survival schools are similar to
language nests but have broader objectives. Located in regions
with high numbers of Native Americans, these schools provide a
minimum of 500 hours of instruction in at least one Native
American language to at least 15 students. These schools aim to
achieve student fluency in a Native American language alongside
proficiency in mathematics, science, and language arts.
Moreover, survival schools provide for teacher training and
develop instructional courses and materials to advance Native
American language learning and teaching.
In addition to delivering instruction in one or more Native
American language, these programs provide training to Native
American language teachers and develop instructional materials
for Native American language programs. Funds are given to
restoration programs for a variety of activities that increase
proficiency in at least one Native American language, such as
language immersion programs, culture camps, Native American
language teacher training programs, and the development of
books and other media.
During the 114th Congress, the Committee held one oversight
and two legislative hearings on Indian education. At these
hearings, the Committee heard from witnesses on the importance
of Native languages and culture to the academic and social
success of Native students.
At an oversight hearing on May 13, 2015, the Bureau of
Indian Education's witness highlighted the importance the
agency, which is specifically tasked with American Indian and
Alaska education, places on working with tribes to implement
Native language programs that lead to fluency.\3\ At a
legislative hearing on April 6, 2016, witnesses representing
tribal governments, state governments, and nonprofit
organizations each spoke on the importance of Native language
preservation and continuation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Bureau of Indian Education: Examining Organizational Challenges
in Transforming Educational Opportunities for Indian Children Before
the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114 Cong. 43 (2015) (statement of
Bureau of Indian Education witness).
\4\Legislative Hearing to receive testimony on S. 2304, S. 2468, S.
2580, and S. 2711, 114 Cong. 13-35 (2016) (statements of Sandra Boham,
President, Salish Kootenai College, Hon. Carlyle W. Begay, Arizona
State Sen., Patricia Whitefoot, Pres. National Indian Education
Association).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservation and maintenance and the Esther Martinez Initiative Grant
Program
The NALA established the Preservation and Maintenance (P&M;)
grant program within the Native American Programs Act of 1974
to ensure the survival of Native American languages. The Native
American languages grant program was last reauthorized by
Congress through NALPA in 2006. The NALPA reauthorized the
Native American language grant program and also expanded it to
include the Esther Martinez Initiative (EMI) to support and
strengthen Native American language immersion programs,
including language nests, language survival schools, and
language restoration programs. The NALPA authorization expired
in 2012, but Congress has continued to fund the program through
Appropriations Acts since then.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through
the Administration for Native Americans (ANA), administers
grant funding under the Native American Programs Act of 1974.
Language maintenance grant funding provides opportunities for
grantees to assess, plan, develop, and implement projects to
ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native
languages. The ANA has also formed a Native Languages Workgroup
to ensure the program is meeting ANA goals and providing
technical assistance to grantees and potential grantees.
In FY 2016, the ANA awarded a total of $12,370,802.72 of
grant funding for Native American language grants to 166
programs. Of that funding, EMI grantees received $3,141,298 and
P&M; grantees received $9,229,504.72. In FY 2015, the ANA
awarded a total of $13,064,963 of grant funding for Native
American language grants to sixty-one different programs across
Indian Country, of which $5,127,715 went to EMI projects and
$7,937,248 went to P&M; grants.
According to the ``2012 Impact and Effectiveness of ANA
Projects Report to Congress'',\5\ the ANA evaluated 22 out of
the 63 total language grantees' projects from across Indian
Country. The 2012 impact data showed that from these 22
projects a total of 178 language teachers were trained in
teaching Native languages; 2,340 youth had increased their
ability to speak a Native language or achieved fluency; and
2,586 adults had increased their ability to speak a Native
language or achieved fluency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health
and Human Services, 2012 Impact and Effectiveness of Administration for
Native American Projects: Report to Congress (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 Impact and Effectiveness report documented that
the ANA had evaluated 61 language grantees from across Indian
Country, approximately one third of all language projects
funded.\6\ The 2014 impact data showed that from these 61
projects a total of 285 language teachers were trained in
teaching Native languages; 4,582 youth had increased their
ability to speak a Native language; 91 youth had achieved
fluency; and 3,334 adults had increased their ability to speak
a Native language or achieved fluency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health
and Human Services, 2014 Impact and Effectiveness of Administration for
Native American Projects: Report to Congress (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvements to the current grant program
Duration of grants
During Committee legislative hearings held on June 18,
2014, and November 18, 2015, the ANA stated that grantee
interviews suggest that the duration of language grants from
the current three-year time frame should be increased to up to
a five-year basis.\7\ Commissioner Sparks further testified
that, by expanding its authority to increase the duration of
awards, projects will become more sustainable and yield
increased results.\8\ The P&M; grants are currently awarded on a
one-, two-, and three-year basis and EMI grants are awarded on
a three-year basis. The bill, S. 254, reflects the feedback
provided by grantees to the ANA and amends Section 803C(e)(2)
of the Native American Program Act of 1974 to extend these
Native language grants to up to a five-year basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Legislative Hearing on S. 1948 and S. 2299 Before the S. Comm.
on Indian Affairs, 113 Cong. 8-9 (2014) (statement of Lillian Sparks,
Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans).; Legislative
Hearing on S. 410, S. 1163, and S. 1928 Before the S. Comm. on Indian
Affairs, 114 Cong. 6-7 (2015) (statement of Lillian Sparks Robinson,
Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans).
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2014 testimony provided by Commissioner
Sparks, the ANA completed a preliminary analysis of the effects
that this change would have on the number of grant awards made
each year.\9\ Commissioner Sparks stated that she did not
anticipate a significant decrease in total number of grants
active each year but also noted that funding will shift from
new project awards to awards for continuing projects as a
result of this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Legislative Hearing on S. 1948 and S. 2299 Before the S. Comm.
on Indian Affairs, 113 Cong. 14 (2014) (statement of Lillian Sparks,
Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Sparks additionally testified that the ANA
awarded an average of 16 new P&M; grants each year for a total
active grantee pool of 40 any given time.\10\ For EMI grants,
ANA awarded an average of six new grants per year for a total
active grantee pool of approximately 18 at any given time.
Commissioner Sparks estimated that new P&M; grant awards would
decrease by approximately five projects per grant award cycle
and new EMI grant awards would decrease by an estimated two to
three projects per grant award cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Legislative Hearing on S. 1948 and S. 2299 Before the S. Comm.
on Indian Affairs, 113 Cong. 9-11 (2014) (statement of Lillian Sparks,
Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Sparks further reported that an analysis of
the effects of the grant period length on the project revealed
that as the duration of the project increased, the impact of
the project significantly increased.\11\ Therefore,
Commissioner Sparks stated the ANA believes increasing the
duration of years will increase the number of individuals
achieving fluency, the number of teachers trained, and the
chances of a project's sustainability. Commissioner Sparks also
stated that extending the length of the grants would allow
grantees more time to find supplemental funding to support
their program once the grant awards expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language nests and survival school student minimums
During the November 18, 2015, Committee hearing,
Commissioner Sparks stated that grantees have requested that
the criteria for student minimums be lowered.\12\ By lowering
the requirement for language nests from 10 to 5 students and
for survival schools from 15 to 10 students, Commissioner
Sparks testified that more projects would be eligible in lower-
populated and remote areas. This bill would amend Section
803C(b)(7) of the Native American Program Act of 1974 to lower
the requirement for the minimum number of children in language
nests from 10 to 5 children and lower requirement for the
minimum number of children in survival schools from 15 to 10
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Legislative Hearing on S. 410, S. 1163, and S. 1928 Before the
S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114 Cong. 6 (2015) (statement of Lillian
Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Senator Udall introduced S.254 on February 1, 2017 with
Senators Murkowski, Franken, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Schatz, and
Tester as original cosponsors. On March 1, 2017, Senator Van
Hollen joined as a cosponsor. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Indian Affairs. On February 8, 2017, the Committee
met at a duly called business meeting to consider the bill. The
bill was ordered to be reported favorably, without amendment,
to the Senate by voice vote.
On February 16, 2017, Representative Ben Ray Lujan
introduced H.R. 1169, a companion bill in the House of
Representatives with 24 Democratic and Republican cosponsors.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the House of Representatives. No further action
has been taken.
During the 114th Congress, Senator Udall introduced an
identical reauthorization bill, S. 1163, on April 30, 2015,
with Senators Murkowski Franken, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Schatz and
Tester as original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Indian Affairs. On November 18, 2015, the
Committee held a legislative hearing on the bill. On May 11,
2016, the Committee met at a duly called business meeting to
consider the bill. The bill was ordered to be reported
favorably, without amendment, to the Senate by voice vote.
The House of Representatives also considered an identical
bill, H.R. 2174, during the 114th Congress. Representative Ben
Ray Lujan introduced that bill on April 30, 2015, with
Representatives Young, McCollum, Tom Cole, Grijalva, Honda,
Pearce, Ruiz, and Roybal-Allard as original cosponsors.
Representatives Huffman, Lujan Grisham, and Adam Smith were
added as cosponsors between May, 2015, and September, 2015. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce of the House of Representatives. No further action
was taken.
In the 113th Congress, Senator Johnson of South Dakota
introduced a simple NALPA reauthorization bill, S. 2299.
Senators Murkowski, Begich, Franken, Heinrich, Hirono, King,
Schatz, Tester, and Udall were original cosponsors. Senator
Walsh joined as a cosponsor on May 14, 2014. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On June 18, 2014,
Committee held a legislative hearing on the bill.
On July 30, 2014, the Committee met at a duly called
business meeting to consider the bill. Senator Johnson of South
Dakota offered two amendments, which were both adopted. The
first amendment, in the nature of a substitute, altered Sec.
803C(e)(2) of the Native American Program Act of 1974 to permit
grants a life of three, four or five years and would eliminate
the three-year requirement and Sec. 803C(b)(7) of the Native
American Program Act of 1974 to lower the minimum number of
children in language nests from 10 to 5 children and lower the
minimum number of children in survival schools from 15 to 10
children. As amendments to the title must be done separately
from a substitute amendment, the second amendment simply
updated the title of the bill to reflect the changes made by
the first amendment. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be
favorably reported to the Senate by voice vote.
In the 112th Congress, S. 3546 was introduced by Senator
Tim Johnson (D-SD) with Senator Dan Akaka (D-HI) as an original
cosponsor. Senators Jon Tester (D-MT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA),
Kent Conrad (D-ND), Al Franken (D-MN), Dan Inouye (D-HI), and
Tom Udall (D-NM) joined as cosponsors later. On December 11,
2012, the Committee met at a duly called business meeting to
consider the bill. S. 3546, was ordered to be favorably
reported to the Senate by voice vote.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS ORDERED REPORTED
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the
``Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act.''
Section 2. Native American languages grant program
Section 2 changes the current requirement for the minimum
number of enrollees in eligible survival schools from 15 to 10
students and language nests from 10 to 5 students. It further
amends the provision on the length of the P&M; grants and the
EMI grants from the current maximum of three years to authorize
the grant awards for three, four, and five year durations.
Section 3. Reauthorization of the Native American languages program
Section 3 reauthorizes Section 816(e) of the Native
American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d(e)) from 2017 to
2022.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
March 7, 2017.
Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 254, the Esther
Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jennifer
Gray.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
Summary: S. 254 would authorize, through 2022, a grant
program to preserve Native American languages. CBO estimates
that implementing the legislation would cost $53 million over
the 2017-2022 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending
or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 254 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
S. 254 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill to
evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be
incurred in carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that
S. 254 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork
requirements.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee has received no communications from the
Executive Branch regarding S. 254.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
On February 8, 2017, the Committee unanimously approved a
motion by Chairman Hoeven to waive the Cordon rule. Thus, in
the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with
subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
