Congress Archives » Native Voice One

Families

March 8, 2021 By Bob Petersen

The latest coronavirus relief package has a couple of more steps before it becomes law. But that path is now clear.

This is Trahant Reports.

There is a clear distinction between the way Republicans govern and how Democrats operate the levers. The Trump administration’s first act was for a $1.9 trillion tax relief bill, a bonanza for the wealthy. Now the first major piece of legislation from the Biden administration also costs $1.9 trillion and its impacts are more focused on working families and the poor.

The plan pumps money into the economy through all sorts of mechanisms, including $20 billion that will go directly to tribal nations and another $6 billion for Indian health programs. The plan has money for quicker vaccine distribution, expanded unemployment insurance, support for ailing businesses, funding for schools, and, of course, a check of $1,400 to most Americans.

This legislation does more to address poverty, especially child poverty, than any law since the 1960s and the Great Society or 1930s and the New Deal.

The most important provision may be the expansion of Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit. These laws currently lift 5.1 million children above poverty, and the new proposal would lift another 4.1 million children above the poverty line, cutting the remaining number of children in poverty by more than half, according to a study by Columbia University,

One of the odd things that has happened to our tax code over the past decade is that most people play more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Income tax is supposed to be progressive, make more, pay more. But it has not worked like that. The most famous example is Warren Buffett revealing that his tax rate was lower than his secretary’s rate. The Democrats’ plan addresses this inequity by making the Earned Income Tax Credit fully refundable. That’s money back in working families’ pockets.

The Biden plan also increases the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $3,000 per child, adding an additional $600 per child under the age of 6 (phasing it out for single parents making $112,500 and couples earning $150,000).

The money spent on families will have the quickest impact on the economy.

We also know that the tribal nations have significant challenges ahead.

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities put it in a recent report … “the pandemic has stretched tribal nations’ finances and health systems to the breaking point.”

National Congress of American Indians President Fawn Sharp said that “direct relief and other aid which is critical to the health, safety, and well-being of our communities and necessary to build back our distressed governments and economies.”

This bill will be a huge relief. For tribal nations. And for the families in those tribes.

I am Mark Trahant.

Budget Deadline

December 2, 2020 By Bob Petersen

It would be nice to have some quiet time. A few days, or better, a few weeks where the country doesn’t face a major challenge.

Of course in a pandemic that’s not going to happen. And lawmakers in Washington may make things worse.

Really.

This is Trahant Reports.

The deadline is December 11th. That’s when the federal government — once again — will run out of money. Three things could happen. First, Congress could enact a real budget for the year that already began in October. Second, there could be another temporary solution, a Continuing Resolution, in the language of Washington. Or finally the House, the Senate, and President Donald Trump could fail to reach a deal altogether. And if that happens … then once again the federal government will go into shutdown mode.

During a pandemic, no less.

So far the House and the Senate have different spending approaches. And after a deal is reached, then President Donald Trump will have to agree too. That might be complicated in a time when he still claims he won the election … “by a lot.”

This year’s spending bills are thorny because of the election results. Democrats want to spend more money on the priorities of the next administration. And, conversely, Republicans are hoping to protect as many of their policies as possible. Think border wall and immigration.

Congress has a lot on its agenda beyond the immediate budget. There are loud calls for a new pandemic relief bill.

And states and tribes are looking for money to distribute vaccines, a task that’s huge given the size of the country. Imagine reaching 100 million people or more so they can take one or two shots.

More than 125 economists have called on Congress to act soon. They wrote: “The COVID crisis has caused some of the most significant and unequal damage to the U.S. economy in modern history, leaving families and businesses alike struggling to get by. Unless policymakers act quickly to respond to the crisis at the scale necessary, we risk the damage to the economy lasting much longer than necessary, particularly for those at the bottom who have been hit the hardest.”

Tribes, and some states, could also use more time to effectively distribute the already funded

In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security or CARES Act. That $2.2 trillion stimulus package signed into law in late March, was by all accounts a successful factor in mitigating the economic impact of COVID.

But tribes have asked for more time. Building up an infrastructure, while fighting the pandemic itself, has been particularly challenging for smaller governments. The money is supposed to run out at the end of the year.

So far there doesn’t seem to be a lot of consensus about what to do next. Democrats are eager to pass something significant, while Republicans in the Senate remain cool to anything costly.

Congress returns to work this week and the deadlines are coming fast.

I am Mark Trahant.

Fairness

May 18, 2020 By Bob Petersen

The federal government “rushed” payments of $8 billion to help tribal governments navigate the coronavirus pandemic.

Only rushed isn’t the right word. It’s way more complicated and disappointing than that.

This is Trahant Reports.

By any measure a payment of $8 billion is not enough to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19 in Indian Country.

The economy went from, oh, say, 90 miles an hour to 10 miles an hour in an instant. And revenue across the board pretty much stopped flowing in. But on the expense side of the ledger, payroll and other costs of operations, continued to mount.

Congress basically appropriated the money without parameters, that was left up to the Treasury Department to figure out.

The first debate centered on whether Alaska Native corporations qualify as “governments” for the purpose of the tribal government relief funds. That question is now in court and 40 percent of the $8 billion are on hold until there is an answer.

Another question is how many people are citizens of tribes? You would think this would be an easy answer. Nope. The Treasury Department came up with its own definition using figures from federal Housing programs.

A new policy brief by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development

looks at how that data is producing winners and losers in Indian Country. The bottom line is that Housing data is “clearly not reflective of tribal citizens or tribal needs,” says the study by researchers Randall K.Q. Akee, Eric C. Henson, Miriam R. Jorgensen and Joseph P. Kalt. The housing formula “produces arbitrary and capricious allocations of CARES Act funds across tribes.”

The better alternative: Use tribal enrollment data. The study said: “the case is strong that an appropriate allocation rule would employ the current tribal enrollment figures submitted by tribes to the Treasury Department in mid‐April.”

Some of that data was leaked and that means there is a public test that can track both the formula and the fairness of that allocation.

And, as the study points out, this creates an “inequity” because some tribes are under-represented in the funding while others come out ahead. This creates “conditions that are ripe for extensive and intensive challenges and even litigation.”

One lesson from the pandemic. Indian Country needs a better way to collect and maintain data. We need a better gauge of what we have and what’s needed. Data is much more than a measurement; it’s a method of setting priorities.

Then this is not new. Think about how data collection has always been a part of the people’s story. We counted on buffalo robes, on belts, or in carvings. The data always has helped tell a larger story.

I am Mark Trahant.

CARES

April 13, 2020 By Bob Petersen

The federal government is moving quickly to transfer $8 billion to tribes. So fast in fact that it’s making up the rules as it goes. And it raises a thorny question: Are Alaska Native corporations considered tribes?

This is Trahant Reports.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or the CARES act will transfer $8 billion to tribes not later than 30 days after the enactment of the March 27th law.

So everything is running at hyperspeed.

National Congress of American Indians’ President Fawn Sharp, Quinault, wrote the Secretary of the Treasury Stephen Mnuchin and said the funding should be “distributed to Tribal governments.” However, she said the legislation uses a definition that lumps federally recognized tribes together with for-profit corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

“It is important to note the distinction between Alaska Native tribal villages and ANCSA regional or village corporations,” Sharp wrote. “Alaska Native tribal villages exercise sovereign governmental authority over their lands and citizens, possess a government-to-government relationship with the United States.”

Sharp’s letter was blunt: “These funds will be critical to assist Tribal governments in withstanding the impacts of COVID-19.”

If the 13 regional Alaska Native Corporations, and the 270 village corporations are included in the fund that would significantly reduce the funding available to 574 federally-recognized tribes, including those in Alaska.

A consultation letter Monday from the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association went even further.

“Please do not allow Alaska Native Corporations to be counted as Tribal governments under the CARES Act … that would be contrary to the plain language of the CARES Act, and it would allow for double or triple counting of Alaska Natives since members of federally-recognized Alaska Native villages are also shareholders in Alaska Native Regional Corporations and Alaska Native Village Corporations,” wrote Harold Frazier, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association.

Alaska Native corporations also have profit-making as their primary mission, not governmental services such as public safety, health, or education. Still, their businesses from telecommunications, fisheries, oil and gas support, to logging have been deeply impacted by the national emergency.

The CARE Act the single largest investment ever made by the United States in Indian Country– yet how that money will be spent remains a open question.

I am Mark Trahant.

Native members play key roles in House debate over Violence Against Women Act

April 8, 2019 By Bob Petersen

What difference does it make to have Native Americans in the Congress? The debate last week about the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act provided a textbook answer.

This is Trahant Reports

I can’t think of another issue where Indian Country was more front and center than the debate in the House over the Violence against Women Act.

Rep. Sharice Davids, Ho Chunk, a Democrat from Kansas, sat in the speaker’s and presided over the debate. Rep. Deb Haaland, Laguna Pueblo,a Democrat from New Mexico, introduced amendments that could make the law more effective in Indian Country, and Rep. Tom Cole, Chickasaw, a Republican from Oklahoma, made the bipartisan case telling Republicans about the big picture significance of the bill while urging Democrats to find a compromise that will ensure the bill becomes law. The fourth tribal citizen in Congress: Rep. Markwayne Mullin, Cherokee Nation, also a Republican from Oklahoma, continued his long opposition to this legislation.

The House passed this expanded version of the Violence Against Women Act, including the renewal of the tribal provisions, as well as new measures to improve the collection of data and provide resources to American Indians and Alaska Natives living in cities. And amendment by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, would give five Alaska Native villages new authority to prosecute sexual crimes in a pilot program.

Congress voted 263 to 158 in favor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Thirty-three Republicans joined the majority Democrats in favor, but the legislative path through the Senate is complicated by the sharp divisions.

Haaland said: “I belong to a community where women are 10 times more likely to be murdered than the national average – and the silent crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women is linked to violence.”

The legislation now moves to the Senate where many of the House priorities could come to an end. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decides which legislation will even come up for a vote in that body. While there is bipartisan support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, there is also significant opposition because of the expansion of transgender rights and a provision that strips gun rights from people convicted of misdemeanor crimes for abuse or stalking. The law currently applies only to felony convictions.

That is one of the provisions that some Republicans in the Senate hope to remove. Leader McConnell has called for a clean extension of the act without the new provisions. And Senators Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, are working on another version of the legislation.

I am Mark Trahant.

Trump’s New Budget

February 20, 2018 By Bob Petersen

National Economic Council discusses White House infrastructure plan. (White House photo)

Budgets are statements: This is what “we” care about. It’s money that reveals priorities. The “we” could be, and ought to be, the country. Or the “we” could be a presidential administration that’s really not equipped to govern.

This is Trahant Reports.

President Donald J. Trump’s budget this year, like last year, expresses the administration’s desire to cut federal Indian programs, wipe out public broadcasting, end student loan forgiveness, starve Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, housing programs, and generally, limit just about every federal program that serves poor people.

As Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters: “This is a messaging document.”

And what a message. Rich people face tough times so they deserve a huge tax cut. Poor people are poor because of their own failures. And more money is needed for a wall that’s not needed, for the largest military in the world, and the Republicans no longer believe that deficits matter.

Mulvaney has a different version. Here is what he says are the messages.

“Number one, you don’t have to spend all of this money, Congress. But if you do, here is how we would prefer to see you spend it,” he said.

Now the action is in Congress. But even Republicans on Capitol Hill know that this budget cannot be. It’s chaos as numbers. Because for this proposal would become law only if you overwrite the current spending bill. Then, the House and Senate would have to agree on a budget. And that’s unlikely. As I have said before there are lots of votes against any budget but not enough votes to pass any budget.

The most popular part of the president’s budget is infrastructure spending. But most of his plan would be funding from state, local, and tribal governments. That’s a problem. Congress will not be easy to follow this approach, especially in an election year. Members of Congress love announcing new roads and other projects. It means jobs back home.

In theory infrastructure spending should be easy. This is an area where Republicans and Democrats agree (actually anyone who looks at the crumbling state of infrastructure can figure this one out). But in Congress? We shall see.

At the State of the Indian Nations Monday, National Congress of American Indians President Jefferson Keel said: “Tribal infrastructure is American infrastructure. In 2018, NO infrastructure bill should pass, UNLESS it includes Indian Country’s priorities.”

This 2019 presidential budget will accomplish one thing: It will serve as a mile post for the fall election. And the messages are clear for both Republicans and Democrats.

I am Mark Trahant.

Congress Faces New Pressure to Cut Federal Spending

January 3, 2018 By Bob Petersen

President Donald J. Trump celebrates the passage of tax legislation. That new law will reduce money going into the federal treasury by some $1.5 trillion. (White House photo)

Congress is governing at short-term intervals because there are not enough votes to pass a real spending bill. And that’s not a good sign going forward because the budget only gets more complicated because of all the issues that Congress has been avoiding.

The New Year starts with all kinds of resolutions. One issue that’s been put off for a “later” day is a resolution about how the federal government spends money. That later day will be Jan. 19.

This is Trahant Reports.

Government budgets are policy documents. What programs are more important and therefore get more funding? Which agencies should get less?

The Trump administration has been clear since the election that it wants smaller government. But Congress, not the president, makes that call. And that’s where the problems begin.

Congress is supposed to enact spending bills by October 1. But the votes are not there to make that so. Some conservatives want the federal government to spend far less across the board, while others want more money for Defense. Neither of these wings has enough votes to pass their spending plan. So they need help from Democrats. And Democrats are against harsh budget cuts in domestic programs.

So instead of a spending plan, Congress has been enacting short term budgets. The latest temporary bill includes money for the Children’s Health Insurance Program — a program that includes insurance for American Indian and Alaska Natives. That program expired in October.

But Congress has avoided most of the contentious issues that divide Republicans. The leadership says it will address immigration, health care and national security in the next spending bill.

Right.

Over the next year or two there will be much more pressure for Congress to cut the budget. Deeply. The new tax law means there will be fewer dollars going into the federal treasury. Roughly one point five trillion dollars less.

So the White House is already telling federal agencies to prepare for severe budget cuts in the 2019 budget. A memo recently surfaced that called for a government-wide pay freeze just to save money.

The Washington Post reported that federal employment has dropped by some 16,000 workers. That’s a small percentage. But it includes the slow appointment of political posts — the president is choosing not to fill many slots — and it masks even deeper reductions in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Administration or the Internal Revenue Service.

The president is “committed to streamlining government for the 21st century, reducing bloat, duplication and waste, and focusing resources on key priorities like public safety and protecting our nation’s homeland,” a White House spokesman told the Post.

The president is shrinking government — as he promised.

I am Mark Trahant.

Children’s Health Insurance Program

November 27, 2017 By Bob Petersen

The Children’s Health Insurance Program expired Sept. 30. This federal program insures young people and pregnant women who make just enough money not to qualify for Medicaid (but can’t afford private insurance). The idea is to make sure that every child has the resources to see a doctor when they are ill. But unless Congress acts soon, some 9 million children will lose their insurance.

Congress has yet to reenact the Children’s Health Insurance Program and states will soon run out of funds to prop up the program. That will mean that thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native children will lose their health insurance. And, the result is the Indian Health Service will have to stretch its already thin dollars to try and cover a growing budget hole.

This is Trahant Reports.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program expired on Sept. 30. This federal program insures young people and pregnant women who make just enough money not to qualify for Medicaid (but yet who can’t afford private insurance). The idea is to make sure that every child has the resources to see a doctor when they are ill.

It’s hard to break down precise numbers because agencies lump funds from the Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP into overall Medicaid data. But we do know that the law worked really well.

We also know there are more than 216,000 Native children that have health insurance because of Medicaid and CHIP. Indeed, Native American children rely on Medicaid and CHIP at much higher percentages than other population groups. A study by Georgetown reported that 54 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native children were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP as compared to 39 percent of all children. “Even though much progress has been made in extending Medicaid coverage to American Indians and Alaska Natives, the uninsured rate for American Indian and Alaska Native children and families remain unacceptably high,” the report said.

This is a big deal and here’s why: The Indian Health Service is a health care delivery operation that works best when insurance (third-party billing in government-speak) pays for the medical costs. Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and other third-party billing now accounts for 22 percent of the IHS’ $6.15 billion budget.

But if Children’s health is no longer funded (because Congress did not reauthorize the legislation) then the Indian Health Service will have to make up the difference. That means taking money away from other patients and programs. It will be a critical problem for clinics because by law dollars from third-party billing (or Medicaid and CHIP) remain local.
Alaska is the state most impacted by Congress’ failure to act because two-thirds of the children in the Native health system are covered by Medicaid or CHIP. Other states that will be hit: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and California.

Across the country, some nine million low- and middle-income children rely on CHIP for health coverage.

I am Mark Trahant.

Tax Code Values: The tax code debate is about what a nation values

November 20, 2017 By Bob Petersen

The first federal tax return in 1931 only required a single page.

What’s important to a country? The best way to tell is through its tax code.

This is Trahant Reports.

There is no better way for any legislature — be it a tribal council, a state assembly, or a Congress — to telegraph what’s most important to a society than through its tax policy. How a government collects revenue says what constituent groups are seen to matter. And, conversely, what groups and issues are insignificant.

That of course, is Indian Country. Tribes are not treated the same as cities or states when it comes to federal tax policy.

For example: There is a tax credit for adoption — but it does not apply when a tribal court adjudicates the case.

So Indian Country is a perfect illustration of my larger point: A country’s tax policy shows what it values. The key to this idea is simple when a nation wants more of something, then taxes it less. And, other hand, if a nation wants less of something? Tax it more.

The tax reform bills in the House and Senate say a lot about the power of corporations and the value of inherited wealth. Tax less, get more.

Both of these bills will sharply reduce federal spending. Last week the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Finance Officers Association came out against the bills. A news release said: “With respect to tribal nations, unless tribal provisions are included, the current tax reform legislation amounts to little more than a $1.5 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the next ten years. This deficit increase will inevitably create pressure to cut federal programs and services that are extremely important to tribal communities.”

The House tax bill is also an all-out attack on higher education. This is nonsense. Especially when the country needs to be competitive in a digital, knowledge-based world.

The House would eliminate the deduction of interest for student loans. Americans now owe more than $1.4 trillion on student loans. So instead of solving a problem, Congress is making it worse.

The House bill would also classify tuition waivers as income, making a graduate student wealthy for tax purposes. This will make it more difficult for people to pay for graduate school, and increase the debt levels for those who do. As a national policy this makes no sense.

And for Indian Country? There is already a shortage of graduate students and PhDs. Why should we make it more difficult?

And in the debate about values there is a powerful metaphor: College does not matter.

The House has already passed its version and the The Senate will vote on tax reform in early December. Republican leaders hope to pass the legislation before the end of this year.

I am Mark Trahant.

Native women raising money for Congress

October 24, 2017 By Bob Petersen

Deb Haaland and Diane Benson at an Anchorage fundraiser. Haaland is running for Congress in New Mexico and Benson has been a candidate four times in Alaska. (Trahant photo)

How many Native American women have ever been elected to Congress? This is Trahant Reports.

New Mexico congressional candidate Debra Haaland is criss-crossing Indian Country. She’s determined to get her name out there — and to raise enough money to be competitive. She began last week in Milwaukee at the National Congress of American Indians and she wrapped up the week in Anchorage at the Alaska Federation of Natives.

Politics is a tough business. Most Native American candidates cannot dip into their personal wealth to run for office (at least the Democrats). It’s all about raising money five bucks at a time. A good haul is when someone writes a check with more than one zero.

Yet it’s hard to understate how important money is to a campaign.

Haaland, unlike most Native American Democrats, is running in a district with a lot of other Democrats. That means she has an excellent shot at capturing a seat in Congress — the first Native American woman to do that.

Haaland is Laguna Pueblo.

Haaland’s fundraiser in Anchorage was typical. It was much more of an introduction than a call for hard cash. That’s important. It was great to hear stories. We need that in politics. But it will take money, too. If we really want to see more Native Americans in Congress, because thousands of five-plus dollar donations will make all the difference.

At that event one of the most touching moments was when Diane Benson, who ran for Congress in Alaska against Rep. Don Young, talked about why she ran. Her son had been injured in the military and yet politicians were making war and peace decisions without an understanding of the consequences.

I have been collecting information about Congress and Native American representation. And, it turns out, I was wrong about the actual numbers. I checked this morning and according to the House of Representatives historian since March 4, 1789, there have been 10,273 people elected to that body. There has never been a Native American woman. Ever.

Here is my list of the Native American women who have at least run for Congress, starting in 1988, Jeanne Givens, a Couer d’Alene tribal member in Idaho was the first. Georgianna Lincoln in Alaska, Ada Deer, Menominee, in Wisconsin, Kalyn Free, Choctaw, in Oklahoma, Diane Benson, Tlingit, in Alaska, and Denise Juneau, Mandan Hidatsa Arikara, in Montana.

And in this election cycle, Carol Surveyor, Navajo, is running in Utah’s 2nd congressional district.

I better stick with “at least” because I am sure more names will surface. But the point remains: It’s long past time to elect the first Native American woman to Congress.

I am Mark Trahant reporting from AFN in Anchorage.