[Senate Report 116-11]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 42
116th Congress } Report
SENATE
1st Session } 116-11
======================================================================
AMENDING THE NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974 TO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY AND REAUTHORIZATION TO ENSURE THE SURVIVAL AND CONTINUING
VITALITY OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES
_______
March 25, 2019.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 256]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 256)\1\ 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. 256 is to provide additional flexibility
for and reauthorization of the Native American Languages Act of
1992\1\ and the Esther Martinez Native Languages Preservation
Act of 2006,\2\ two grant programs administered by the
Administration for Native Americans (ANA) in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Native American Languages Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-524, 25
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2991b-3-2992d (1992).
\2\Esther Martinez Native Languages Preservation Act, Pub. L. No.
109-394, 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2991b-3-2992d (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''\3\ Further, NALA declares federal
support for ``the use of Native American languages as a medium
of instruction.''\4\ Congress recognized a number of reasons
for encouraging instruction in Native languages, including
language survival, community pride, improved educational
opportunity, and increased student achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Native American Languages Act of 1990 [NALA], Pub. L. No. 101-
477, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2903 (1990).
\4\Id at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two years later, Congress passed the Native American
Languages Act of 1992. Building on the policies set forth in
the original law, it directed the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the ANA, to award grants to eligible
tribal governments and Native American organizations to assist
Native communities in assuring the survival and continuing
vitality of their languages. Congress authorized use of these
grants for developing community language programs, training
language program personnel (e.g., teachers, interpreters,
broadcasters, and translators), producing teaching materials,
compiling oral language recordings, and purchasing language
revitalization related equipment.
The Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation
Act (NALPA), which further 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 languages, 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.\5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Oversight Hearing on ``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).
\6\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 115th Congress, the Committee held an oversight
hearing entitled ``Examining Efforts to Maintain and Revitalize
Native Languages for Future Generations.''\7\ ANA Commissioner
Jeannie Hovland testified about the Agency's work to support
Native language revitalization through NALA and NALPA
grants.\8\ She stated, ``Language revitalization is essential
for continuing Native American culture and strengthening self-
determination.'' Other witnesses echoed Commissioner Hovland's
observation, including Mashpee Wampanoag Vice Chairwoman Jessie
Baird, who testified that ``the preservation of our language is
the preservation of ourselves.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Oversight Hearing on ``Examining Efforts to Maintain and
Revitalized Native Languages for Future Generations'' Before the S.
Comm. on Indian Affairs, 115 Cong. (2018).
\8\Id at 8-10 (statement of Jeannie Hovland, Commissioner,
Administration for Native Americans).
\9\Id at 14 (statement of Jessie Little Doe Baird, Vice Chairwoman,
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservation and Maintenance and the Esther Martinez Initiative Grant
Programs
The Native American Languages Act of 1992 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. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the
Native American languages grant program was last reauthorized
by Congress through NALPA, and expanded it to include the
Esther Martinez Initiative (EMI). The EMI supports and
strengthens Native American language immersion programs, such
as 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 HHS, through the 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.
Between 2010 and 2018, the ANA received 843 applications
for the P&M and EMI programs. In FY2018, the ANA awarded over
$12,000,000 of funding for all Native American language grant
activities and programs at the Agency.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id at 11 (statement of Jeannie Hovland, Commissioner,
Administration for Native Americans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the ``2012 Impact and Effectiveness of ANA
Projects Report to Congress,''\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\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 suggested that the duration of language grants from
the current three-year time frame should be increased to up to
five-years.\13\ Commissioner Sparks further testified that, by
expanding its authority to increase the duration of awards,
projects would become more sustainable and yield increased
results.\14\ 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. 256 reflects ANA's feedback from
grantees 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\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).
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2014 testimony provided by Commissioner
Sparks, the ANA completed a preliminary analysis of the effects
that increased grant duration would have on the number of grant
awards made each year.\15\ Commissioner Sparks stated that she
did not anticipate a significant decrease in total number of
grants active each year but also noted that funding would shift
from new project awards to awards for continuing projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\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 also 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.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\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.\17\ Therefore,
Commissioner Sparks stated the ANA believed increasing the
duration of years would 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 expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language nests and survival school student minimums
During the November 18, 2015 Committee hearing,
Commissioner Sparks stated that grantees requested lowering the
criteria for student minimums.\18\ 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. S. 256 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\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
On January 29, 2019, Senator Udall, along with Senators
Cortez Masto, Heinrich, Murkowski, Schatz, Smith, Tester, and
Warren introduced S. 256. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Indian Affairs. On February 6, 2019, 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 January 30, 2019, Representative Ben Ray Lujan
introduced an identical House companion bill, H.R. 912.
Representatives Cardenas, Cole, Davids, DeFazio, Grijalva,
Haaland, Kildee, McCollum, Moore, Napolitano, Holmes Norton,
O'Halleran, Soto, Tipton, Torres Small, and Young (AK) joined
Representative Lujan as original co-sponsors of the bill. The
bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor
but no further action has been taken at this time.
During the 115th Congress, 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 November 29, 2017, the bill passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent. The amendment further amends
the Native American Programs Act of 1974 by striking ``such
sums''' and authorizing $13,000,000 for each FY beginning in
2019 through 2023. The bill, as amended, was referred to the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce. No further
action was taken on the measure.
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, 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
Johnson (SD) with Senator Akaka as an original cosponsor.
Senators Tester , Cantwell, Conrad, Franken, Inouye, and 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 Programs
Reauthorization 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 Preservation & M
grants and the EMI grants from a maximum of three years to
allow the grant awards lengths to expand to three, four, and
five year durations.
Section 3. Reauthorization of the Native American languages program
Section 3 reauthorizes Sec. 816(e) of the Native American
Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d(e)) by striking ``such
sums''' and authorizing $13,000,000 for each FY beginning in
2020 to 2024.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 11, 2019.
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. 256, the Esther
Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization
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,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 256--Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs
Reauthorization Act
S. 256 would authorize the appropriation of $13 million for
each year from 2020 through 2024 for a grant program to
preserve and maintain Native American languages. The authority
to make those grants expired at the end of 2012. However, the
Department of Health and Human Services has continued to
allocate funds for these grants. In 2018, the most recent year
for which data are available, that allocation was about $10
million. The bill would establish a period of availability of
up to five years for those grants and would allow grant
recipients to serve fewer children per grant than previously.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 256 will be enacted
before the beginning of fiscal year 2020, and that the
authorized amounts will be appropriated each year. Estimated
outlays are based on historical spending patterns. CBO
estimates that implementing the bill would cost $51 million
over 2020 through 2024 and $14 million after 2024. The costs of
the legislation, detailed in Table 1, fall within budget
function 500 (education, training, employment, and social
services).
TABLE 1--S. 256 ESTIMATED INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization............................ 0 13 13 13 13 13 65
Estimated Outlays........................ 0 1 11 13 13 13 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jennifer Gray.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee has received no communication from the
Executive Branch regarding S. 256.
REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires 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. 256 will
have minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with the Standing Rules of the Senate and the
Committee Rules, subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate is waived. 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.