Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment. As currently written, the Department of Interior appropriations bill states that education "funds made available under this Act may not be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school.'' My amendment would allow money appropriated under this bill to be used for charter schools. Now, the bill grandfathers in charter schools funded prior to 1999, but bars no new charter schools. The committee report is silent on this.

As of the 2005 census, children made up 1.4 million of the total of American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. They, and their parents, deserve educational choices. Charter schools are semi-independent schools usually within a State's public education system that are designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others. As of 2006, a total of 40 States and the District of Columbia have passed charter school laws allowing this type of school to be part of their system. I see no reason to deny this opportunity to American Indians.

I believe administrators of such schools may worry about administrative issues in terms of accounting for students who transfer between a charter school and a noncharter school and the moneys that are appropriated. This is sometimes referred to as the "ownership'' of the student. But such administrative concerns should not be a basis to completely abandon this option. Competent administrators at the BIA, the tribes, and the State educational associations can work out the transitional issues.

Further, to the extent someone does not like charter schools, so be it. Don't send your child to one. But we in Congress should not be picking winners and losers. Charter schools should be an available choice to those tribes that want them. If a tribe chooses not to offer a charter school approach, that is its decision. But another tribe may do so on its own. There's no reason in this appropriation bill to foreclose this option. We should not impose our personal likes and dislikes on others.

It is my further belief that allowing the tribes the maximum ability to choose the best educational program is consistent with self-determination. Having the right to decide local school decisions is a part of self-determination, and I don't see why we in Congress should deny that right. A key part of self-determination is choosing the manner in which the tribes educate their children. As far back as 1970, President Nixon addressed this issue that was then emerging, and stated: "It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal Government begin to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.''

Indeed, that is what Congress did when it passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Allowing the tribes to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination perspective.

Finally, according to the Center for Education Reform, there are over 5,000 charter schools nationwide. There are examples of charter schools with spectacular successes and results. I'm sure there are some charter schools that have failed in their mission. The point here, however, is about choice and allowing the tribes to decide what educational opportunities they want to create.

It is well-known that charter schools are schools of choice. Unlike traditional public schools, students may choose to attend charter schools, and if those students determine that the school is not serving their needs, they may choose to leave. It is true that many charter schools typically have longer schooldays, longer school years and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. For those concerned about the current public educational system, these trends should be encouraged, but let's allow the tribes to make that choice.

It is Congress' duty to describe and allow such choices as part of its oversight and application of our treaties with which American Indian tribal relations are governed. I ask for support of this amendment and support for Indian self-determination and school choice.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Madam Chair.

As someone who has practiced chair-side dentistry for 25 years, I know firsthand the profound value of oral health, particularly for children. Oral health care access early in life is shown to be a critical aspect of primary preventative care. This is especially true in the Native American community, which I am proud to serve as a Representative of Arizona, which has 21 federally recognized tribes.

For this reason, my amendment would transfer $4,367,000 from the Office of the Department of the Interior Solicitor General to the Indian Health Service. The committee report recommends $4,367,000 less than the President's request for dental health within IHS, and while the bill does not name dental health specifically, I would like to make it clear on this floor tonight that this reallocation of funds is explicitly intended to fund dental health programs within IHS at the level recommended by the administration.

The United States Government took on long ago a number of treaty obligations to our Native people, and health care was among them. In particular, I cannot state strongly enough how imperative it is that the Indian tribes have this effort in the area of oral health fully funded.

Believe it or not, the incidence of early childhood caries, or commonly understood tooth decay, occurs among the Native American and Native Alaskan populations at 300 percent the rate of the United States average. This is unacceptable; and, again, as someone who has practiced dentistry as long as I have, I can tell you that this epidemic will have dire consequences for these children throughout their lives.

Worse still, the severity of decay is substantially higher in these children compared to the population as a whole. Preschool Native children average more than five decayed teeth compared to one decayed tooth among U.S. preschool children of all races. In many Native communities, between 25 and 50 percent of preschool children have such extensive tooth decay that they require full mouth restoration under general anesthesia, compared to less than 1 percent for non-Native children.

We have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs, and so I offer this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it for the sake of these Native children to whom we have an obligation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source