INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND
EDUCATION PROGRAM
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1017 and Related Bills
BILLS TO PROMOTE MAXIMUM INDIAN PARTICIPATION
IN THE GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION OF THE INDIAN
PEOPLE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE FULL PARTICIPATION OF
INDIAN TRIBES IN CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
CONDUCTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR IN-
DIANS, TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
JUNE 1 AND 4, 1973
98-143
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1973
13/C
■
TV e\/\i i„ _ ,
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman
ALAN BIBLE, Nevada PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
LEE METCALF, Montana MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Jr., Louisiana JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York
JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin
Jerry T. Verklbr, Staff Director
William J. Van Ness, Chief Counsel
Forrest J. Gerard, Professional Staff Member
Harrison Loesch, Minority Counsel
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma
LEE METCALF, Montana JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona
(II)
i °2
•oo
CONTENTS
Page
S. 1017 3
Department of the Interior report 30
S. 1340 36
Department of the Interior report 42
S. 1342 44
Department of the Interior report 47
S. 1343 50
Department of the Interior report 57
Friday, June 1, 1973
STATEMENTS
Abourezk, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota 1
Carlucci, Hon. Frank, Under Secretary, Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, accompanied by John Ottina, U.S. Commissioner of
Education-Designate ; Frank E. Samuel, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Congressional Liaison; Charles M. Cooke, Jr., Director, Office of
Special Concerns ; Emery A. Johnson, Director, Indian Health Service ;
and Sidney Edelman, Assistant General Counsel, Public Health Service
Division 62
Cordova, Valentino, chairman, All Indian Pueblo Council, Albuquerque, N.
Mex., accompanied by members of the board of regents ; Juan B. Abeita,
vice chairman and past Governor of Isleta Pueblo ; Gilbert Lucero,
Governor of Zia Pueblo ; Governor Clyde Sanchez of Acoma Pueblo ;
Peter Chestnut, executive director of the board 106, 112
Gemmill, Lester, Indian Desk of the Michigan State Board of Education,
Lansing, Mich 137, 139
Kyi, Hon. John H., Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Public
Affairs, Department of the Interior, accompanied by James Hawkins,
Director of Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs ; Andrew Lawson, Edu-
cation Specialist, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Dennis Drabelle, staff
attorney, Office of Legislation 77
Plummer, Abe, Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc 126
Slickpoo, Allen P., HEW Subcommittee, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Com-
mittee, Lapwai, Idaho 147
Straight, Birgil Kills, executive president, Coalition of Indian-Controlled
School Boards, Denver, Colo., accompanied by Frank LaPointe, Rosebud,
S. Dak. ; Alfred Redman, Wyoming Indian High School, Ethete, Wyo. ;
Bill Roberts, associate executive director, Coalition of Indian-Controlled
School Boards ; and Larry Manuelito, associate director, Ramah Navajo
School Board, Inc., Ramah, N. Mex 119
Upicksoun, Joe, chairman of the Education Committee of the National
Tribal Chairman's Association, Washington, D.C 133
COMMUNICATIONS
Carlucci, Frank C, Under Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, letter to Senator Abourezk, dated June 4, 1973 71
Goss, Earle D., Department of the Interior, letter to Commissioner of
Indian Affairs 90, 91
Kyi, Hon. John, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, letter to Senator Jack-
son, dated August 3, 1973 85
(Hi)
IV
Monday, June 4, 1973
STATEMENTS
Barrett, Catharine, president of the National Education Association, Page
accompanied by Jean Flanagan, assistant director of research 149
Covington, Lucy, first vice president, Northwest Affiliated Tribes 199
Jim, Roger R., Sr., president, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians 202
Misiaszek, Lorraine F., acting director, Advocates for Indian Education,
the Northwest Tribes, Spokane, Wash 155
Oliver, Emmett S., supervisor of Indian Education, State superintendent
of public instruction, State of Washington, Olympia, Wash 165, 173
Trimble, Charles, executive director, National Congress of American
Indians 161
COMMUNICATIONS
Barrett, Catharine, president, National Education Association, letter to
Senator Abourezk, dated June 12, 1973 153
APPENDIX
Anderson, Dr. Willard R., superintendent, Hardin Public Schools, Hardin,
Mont., letter to Senator Metcalf, dated June 13, 1973 209
Barrett, Catharine, president, National Education Association, letter to
Senator Abourezk, dated June 12, 1973 214
El Paso Natural Gas Co., statement 252
Frizzell, Kent, letter to Senator Jackson, dated August 1, 1973 217
Gross, Michael P., attorney, Santa Fe, N. Mex., letter to Gerald Clifford,
dated March 27, 1973 230
Jackson, Hon. Henry M., letter to Kent Frizzell, dated June 18, 1973 216
Lazarus, Arthur, Jr., counsel, Indian tribes, statement 271
MacDonald, Peter, chairman, Navajo Nation, statement 259
Metcalf, Hon. Lee, letter to Senator Abourezk, dated June 28, 1973 208
Platero, Dillon, director, Navajo Division of Education, Window Rock,
Ariz., statement 235
Starr, Hickory, Jr., executive director, Oklahoma Indian Affairs Commis-
sion, letter to Senator Barrett, dated June 14, 1973 221
United Scholarship Service Inc., Denver, Colo., statement 281
'
INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION
PROGRAM
FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs,
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room 3110,
Dirksen Office Building, Hon. James Abourezk, chairman, presiding.
Present : Senators Abourezk, Bartlett, Fannin, and Hansen.
Also present : Jerry T. Verkler, staff director ; Forrest Gerard, pro-
fessional staff member ; Mary Gereau, consultant ; and Kick Lavis, leg-
islative assistant to Senator Fannin.
Senator Abourezk. The Indian Affairs Subcommittee hearings on
Indian education are now in order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ABOUREZK, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider testimony from public
and private witnesses on S. 1017, the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Reform Act of 1973, and other related legislation.
Three of the measures to be considered are identical to proposals
submitted by the administration to the 92d Congress: S. 1340, pro-
viding for the detail of civil service employees to tribal groups; S.
1342, extending the Johnson-O'Malley contracting authority and pro-
viding for the detail of Public Health Commissioned Officers to tribal
groups ; and S. 1343, providing for Indian takeover of Federal
programs.
The Indian Self-Determination Act, title I of S. 1017, which pro-
vides statutory authority to assist Indians in the implementation of a
realistic self-determination policy, was introduced in the last Congress
as S. 3157 by Senator Jackson and Senator Allott. Senate bill 3157
carried strong support from the various Indian tribes and organiza-
tions and passed the Senate in August of 1972. The bill, however,
received no action in the House.
There is, at present, a growing concern in the Indian community
and in the Federal Government regarding the need for administrative
reform in the delivery of Johnson-O'Malley services to the Indian
students enrolled in public schools. It is clear through the legislative-
history of JOM that the 1934 act was never intended to strengthen
the local Indian community but to provide a mechanism for assimila-
tion of the Indian people into the mainstream of society. The vague-
CD
ness p.nd the ambiguity of the Johnson-O'Malley Act resulting in
varied and inconsistent administrative procedures, the absence of a
clear, concise policy defining the compliance and programmatic re-
sponsibility of the contracting agency and the complete lack of mean-
ingful local Indian input, all evidence the glaring need for a fair
formula which can provide for the equitable distribution of JOM
funds and assure that the educational needs of Indian children are met.
We look forward to hearing the views and recommendations of the
administration and other witnesses today on this particular legisla-
tion.
At this point, I shall order that copies of S. 1017, S. 1340, S. 1342,
and S. 1343 and the executive communications to be made a part of the
official record.
[The texts of S. 1017, S. 1340, S. 1342, and S. 1343 and executive
communications follow :]
93d CONGRESS
1st Session
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
April 24, 1973
S. 1017
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 26,1973
Mr. Jackson (for himself and Mr. Abourezk) introduced the following bill;
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs
[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]
A BILL
To promote maximum Indian participation in the government
and education of the Indian people; to provide for the full
participation of Indian tribes in certain programs and serv-
ices conducted by the Federal Government for Indians and
to encourage the development of the human resources of the
Indian people; to establish and carry out a national Indian
education program; to encourage the establishment of local
Indian school control; to train professionals in Indian edu-
cation; to establish an Indian youth intern program; and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Indian Self-Determina-
4 tion and Educational Eeform Act of 1973".
2
1 CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS
2 Sec. 2. (a) The Congress, after careful review of the
3 Federal Government's historical and special legal relation-
4 ship with, and resulting responsibilities to, American Indian
5 people, finds that —
6 (1) the prolonged Federal domination of Indian
7 service programs has served to retard rather than en-
8 hance the progress of Indian people and their com-
9 munities by depriving Indians of the full opportunity
10 to develop leadership skills crucial to the realization of
11 self-government, and it has denied to the Indian people
12 an effective voice in the planning and implementing of
13 programs for the benefit of Indians which are responsive
14 to the true needs of Indian communities ; and
15 (2) the Indian people will never surrender their
16 desire to control their relationships both among them-
17 selves and with non-Indian governments, organizations,
18 and persons.
19 (b) The Congress further finds that —
20 ( 1 ) true self-determination in any society of people
21 is dependent upon an educational process which will in-
22 sure the development of qualified people to fulfill mean-
23 ingful leadership roles; and
24 (2) the Federal responsibility for and assistance to
25 education of Indian children, Indian adult education,
3
1 and Indian skills training has not affected the desired
2 level of educational achievement or created the diverse
:> I opportunities and personal satisfaction which education
4 can and should provide.
5 DECLARATION OF POLICY
6 Sec. 3. (a) The Congress hereby recognizes the obli-
7 gation of the United States to respond to the strong ex-
8 pression of the Indian people for self-determination through
9 maximum involvement and participation in, and direction
10 of, educational as well as other Federal services to Indian
11 communities which are more responsive to the needs and
12 desires of those communities.
13 (b) The Congress declares its commitment to the main-
14 tenance of the Federal Government's unique and continuing
15 relationship with and responsibility to the Indian people
K3 through establishment of a meaningful Indian self-deter-
17 mination policy which will permit an orderly transition from
18 Federal domination of programs for and services to Indians
19 to effective and meaningful participation of the Indian peo-
20 pie in the planning, conduct, and administration of those pro-
21 grams and services.
22 (c) The Congress declares that a major national goal
23 of the United States shall be to provide the quantity and
24 quality of educational services and opportunities which will
25 permit Indian children and adults to compete and excel
4
1 in the life areas of their choice, and to achieve the measure
2. of self-determination essential to their social and economic
3 well-being'.
4 DEFINITIONS
5 Sec. 4. For the purposes of this Act, the term —
6 (a) "Indian" means an Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
7 person who is a member of a tribe, band, nation, or
8 community, including any Alaska Native community as
9 defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
10 for which the Federal Government provides special pro-
11 grams and services because of their identity as Indians;
12 (b) "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band,
13 nation, or other organized group or community, in-
cluding any Alaska Native community as defined in the
15 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for which the
Federal Government provides special programs and serv-
' ices because of its Indian identity ;
(c) "tribal organization" means the elected gov-
erning body of any Indian tribe or any legally estab-
lished organization of Indians which is controlled by one
or more such bodies or which is controlled by a board
of directors elected or selected by one or more such
bodies (or elected by the Indian population to be served
by such organization). Such an organization shall in-
clude the maximum participation of Indians in all phases
of its activities;
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
o
1 (d) "Secretary", unless otherwise designated, refers
2 to the Secretary of the Interior ;
3 (e) "school district" means any political subdivision
4 of a State which is responsible for the provision, admin-
5 istration, and control of public education as defined by
6 the law of such State ; and
7 (f ) "State education agency" means the State board
8 of education or other agency or officer primarily re-
9 sponsible for supervision by the State of public ele-
10 mentary and secondary schools, or, if there is no such
11 officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the
12 Governor or by State law.
13 TITLE I— THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
14 ACT
15 Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the "Indian Self-
16 Determination Act".
17 CONTRACTS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
18 Sec. 102. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized,
19 in his discretion and upon the request of any Indian tribe,
20 to enter into a contract or contracts with any tribal organi-
21 zation of any such Indian tribe to plan, conduct, and admin-
22 ister programs, or portions thereof, provided for in the Act
23 of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended, and parts
24 A and D of title II of this Act, and any other program or
25 portion thereof which the Secretary of the Interior is au-
8
6
1 thorized to administer for the benefit of Indians under the
2 Act of November 2, 1921 (42 Stat. 208), and any Act
3 subsequent thereto.
4 CONTRACTS BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
5 AND WELFARE
6 Sec. 103. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
7 fare is authorized, in his discretion and upon the request of
8 any Indian tribe, to enter into a contract or contracts with
9 any tribal organizations of any such Indian tribe to carry
10 out any or all of his functions, authorities, and responsibilities
11 under the Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), as
12 amended.
13 GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS
14 Sec. 104. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Health,
15 Education, and Welfare are each authorized, upon the re-
16 quest of any Indian tribe, to make a grant or grants to any
17 tribal organization of any such Indian tribe for planning,
18 training, evaluation, and other activities specifically designed
19 to make it possible for such tribal organization to enter into
20 contract or contracts pursuant to sections 102 and 103 of this
21 Act.
22 DETAIL OF PERSONNEL
23 Sec. 105. (a) The Secretaries of the Interior and of
24 Health, Education, and Welfare are each authorized, upon
25 the request of any tribal organization, to detail any civil serv-
1 ice employee serving under a career or career-conditional
2 appointment for a period of up to one hundred and eighty
3 days to such tribal organization for the purpose of assisting
4 such tribal organization in the planning, conduct, or admin-
5 istration of programs under contracts or grants made pur-
6 suant to section 102, 103, or 104 of this Act. The appropri-
7 ate Secretary may, upon a showing by a tribal organization
8 of a continuing need for an employee detailed pursuant to
9 this section, extend such detail for a period not to exceed
10 ninety days.
11 (b) The Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), as
12 amended, is further amended by adding a new section 8 after
13 section 7 of the Act, as follows :
14 "Sec. 8. In accordance with subsection (d) of section
15 214 of the Public Health Service Act (58 Stat. 690), as
16 amended, upon the request of any Indian tribe, band, group,
17 or community, personnel of the Service may be detailed by
18 the Secretary for the purpose of assisting such Indian tribe,
19 group, band, or community in carrying out the provisions
20 of contracts with, or grants to, tribal organizations pursuant
2i to section 102, 103, or 104 of the Indian Self-Determination
22 and Educational Reform Act of 1973: Provided, That the
23 cost of detailing such personnel is taken into account in
24 determining the amount to be paid to such tribal organiza-
25 tion under such contract or grant, and that the Secretary
10
1 shall modify such contract or grant pursuant to subsection
2 (c) of section 106 of the Indian Self-Determination and
3 Educational Reform Act of 1973 to effect the provisions of
4 this section."
5 (c) Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of section 6 of
6 the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (81 Stat. 100),
7 as amended, is amended by inserting after the words "En-
8 viromental Science Services Administration" the words "or
9 who are assigned to assist Indian tribes, groups, bands, or
10 communities pursuant to the Act of August 5, 1954 (68
11 Stat. 674), as amended,".
12 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
13 Sec. 106. (a) Contracts with tribal organizations pur-
14 suant to sections 102 and 103 of this Act shall be in ac-
15 oordance with all Federal contracting laws and regulations
16 except that, in the discretion of the appropriate Secretary,
17 such contracts may be negotiated without advertising and
18 need not conform with the provisions of the Act of Au-
19 gust 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 793), as amended.
20 (b) Payments of any grants or under any contracts
21 pursuant to section 102, 103, or 104 of this Act may be
22 made in advance or by way of reimbursement and in such
23 installments and on such conditions as the appropriate Sec-
24 retary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title.
25 (c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the con-
11
9
1 trary, the appropriate Secretary may, at the request or con-
2 sent of a tribal organization, revise or amend any contract
3 or grant made by him pursuant to section 102, 103, or 104
4 of this Act with such organization as he finds necessary to
5 carry out the purposes of this title.
6 (d) The appropriate Secretory may, in his discretion,
7 enter into contracts pursuant to sections 102 and 103 of
8 this Act with tribal organizations, by negotiation, without
9 advertising, for the construction or repair of buildings, roads,
10 sidewalks, sewers, mains, or similar items: Provided, That
11 nothing in this title shall be construed as authorizing or
12 requiring a tribal organization to enter into an agreement,
13 directly or indirectly, with a non-Indian party for the con-
14 struction of buildings, roads, sidewalks, sewers, mains, or
15 similar items without compliance with requirements of ad-
26 vertising and competitive bidding if the same would have
17 been required had the agreement with the non-Indian party
18 been entered into directly by the United States.
19 (e) In connection with any contract or grant made pur-
20 suant to section 102, 103, or 104 of this Act, the appropri-
21 ate Secretaiy may permit a tribal organization to utilize, in
22 carrying out such contract or grant, existing school build-
23 ings, hospitals, and other facilities and all equipment there-
24 in or appertaining thereto and other personal- property
25 owned by the Government within his jurisdiction under such
12
10
1 terms and conditions as may be agreed upon for their use
2 and maintenance.
3 Sec. 107. The Secretaries of the Interior and of Health,
4 Education, and Welfare are each authorized to perform any
5 and all acts and to make such rules and regulations as may
6 be necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the
7 provisions of this title.
8 Sec. 108. (a) The Secretary shall promulgate regula-
9 tions relative to this title no later than six months from the
10 date of enactment of this Act.
11 . (b) .No later than sixty days prior to the promulgation
12 of such regulations, the Secretary shall publish the proposed
18 regulations in the Federal Register. No later than thirty
14 days prior to the promulgation of such regulations, the Sec-
15 retary shall provide, with adequate public notice, the op-
16 portunity for hearings on the proposed regulations, once
17 published, to all interested persons.
18 Sec. 109. Nothing in this title shall be construed as
19 authorizing or requiring the termination of an}- existing trust
20 responsibility of the United States with respect to the Indian
21 people.
22 .! TITLE II— THE INDIAN EDUCATIONAL REFORM
23 ACT OF 1973
24 Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the "Indian Educa-
25 tional Reform Act of 1973".
98-143 O - 73 -- 2
13
11
1 Part A— Education of Indians in ■• Public Schools
2 Sec. 202. For the purpose of providing education to
:> i Indians enrolled in the public schools of any State, the Sec-
4 retary is authorized to enter into contracts with any such
5 State or political subdivision thereof, or with any Indian
6 tribe or tribal organization residing in any such State (such
7 State, political subdivision, Indian tribe, or tribal organiza-
8 tion to be hereinafter referred to as "contractor") : Provided,
9 That, in the event the contractor is an Indian tribe or tribal
10 organization which resides in more than one State and the
11 (Secretary wishes to contract with such tribe or tribal orga-
12 nization to provide education to Indians enrolled, in the
13 public schools of more than one State, separate contracts
14 shall be negotiated with such tribe or tribal organization fol-
io each such affected State.
16 Sec. 203. (a) In administering the various provisions
17 of this Act, the Secretary shall not enter into any contract
18 unless the prospective contractor has submitted to and has
19 had approved by the Secretary an education plan which
20 assures that — < .
21 (1) all taxable property within each school district
22 affected by any such proposed contract is taxed at a
23 rate equal to the average property tax rate in the five
24 most comparable school districts in such State which are
2,3 not eligible for assistance under part A of this title;
14
12
1 (2) ail funds which any such affected school dis-
2 trict receives under the provisions of the Act of Sep-
:j tember 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 1100), as amended, shall
4 be considered local tax income for the purposes of clause
,-) (1) of this subsection;
(j (3) per capita payments of State and local eduea-
7 tion funds to any such affected school district are not less
8 than the average of such payments made to such five
9 comparable school districts referred to in clause (1)
10 of this subsection:
11 ' (4) funds provided under any contract pursuant to
32 section 202 shall first be used, token added to funds
13 generated by clauses (1) and (3) , to provide operational
14 per pupil expenditures equal to the average operational
15 per pupil expenditures from State and local funds ex*
16 elusive of Federal funds, other than those referred to in
17 (2), of the five comparable districts referred to in clause
18 (1);
19 -f4f f unds provided under any- eon tra e t pursuan t to
20 section 2-&2- sha4i be u tilized by- the contracto r m as
21 to provide In d ian s e nrolled in schools el any- affected
22 ' dktriet with
23 (5) additional funds provided under any contract
24 pursuant to section 202 shall be utilized by the con-
15
1 tractor so as to provide Indians enrolled in schools of
2 . any affected district with such programs as:
3 I (A) guidance and counseling services for
4 ( Indian, students in grades, five through twelve at a
5 ratio of not less than one counselor for every fifty
5 Indian students;
7 (B) curriculum development programs, includ-
g ing production of special bilingual and bicultural
9 materials, to meet the needs of Indian students;
IQ (C) teacher aides (bilingual where appropria-
ble ate) at a ratio of one per twenty Indian students in
22 grades kindergarten through six, and one per thirty
13 Indian students in grades seven through twelve ;
14 -{Df funds necessary, when supplemented by-
15 . o the r State a«4 local e d u cation al f und s , te assure
1 £i t aai njii fifi t\t\ii «i I np v\it tun o\ ^ri'v .' n ni' 1 1 ) 1 1 1 on B TPf'Pi vp
± O tTtttr t rttHcititjiinT pn ouiiiit t oItt^iti^ ttttttttti" i rvti w
17 8ftlfti4e% includ mg- ffinge b enefits, - at least eq«a4 to
'18*"'! $** average of the s alary rat es of pro f e ss i o n al e4ttea-
19 te?9 m the aff e ct ed State, 6? in the affected sc hool
20 di s trict^ whichever hat* the h i gher average - ; , ,
21 -f-B)- (D) supplemental school lunch and school
22 breakfast funds for Indians as needed, provided there
23 is evidence of need, beyond assistance otherwise
21 provided by law;
16
n
1 ' '-fpf (E) school nursing services for Indians,
2 provided such services are coordinated with the In-
$ diatt Health Service of the Priblie I T ealth Service;
4 • -{€rf (F) summer school programs for Indians,
5 including academic as well as recreational, remedial,
6 and cultural and academic enrichment components,
T if desired by the Indian community ; and
8 -f&f (G) such other educational programs as
9 may be mutually agreed to by the Secretary and the
10 contractor;
11 (6) educational personnel serving Indians shall ve-
il beive salaries, including fringe benefits at least equal to
115 the average of the salary rates of professional educators
14 in the affected State, or in the affected school district,
15 ' whichever has the higher average;
16" -(&)- (?) and amount equal to not more than 3 per
Yt centum of any funds provided to the contractor under
18 any contract pursuant to part A of this title shall be avail-
19 able to the contractor for administrative rnd consultative
20 ' costs in carrying out such contract ; - . .-, ,-.,<
21 -f&f (8) in the event that the local public school
22 board of a school district directly affected by any such
23 contract is not composed of a majority of Indians, a
24 community education committee shall be established.
25 which shall be composed of members elected by the
17
1'5»
1 •'' parents of Indian students attending the school or schools
2 under the jurisdiction of such board, and which shall be
3 i so structured and carry out such duties as the Secretary
4 i shall by regulation provide, subject to the laws of the
5 affected State: Provided, That in the >evettt that a local
6 • Indian committee exists under the provision of section
7 411 of the Act of June 23, 1972 (86 Stati >285) , such
8 committee shall suffice and be utilized for the 'purposes
9 ! of this clause ; and ,
10 -f^f (9) school districts educating Indian- students
11 , who are members of Indian tribes which do not? normally-
12 reside in the affected State and who are residing in Fed-
13 eral boarding facilities for the purposes, of attending*
14 . public schools within such districts shall be . reimbursed
15 for the full amount of the per capita costs to such school
16 districts for educating students in comparable' grades': 1
17 i Provided, That where the family place of residence of
33 . any such Indian student is within the affected State the
19 Federal payment pursuant to part A of this title shall b'd
20 reduced by the. equivalent of the affected State's share of
21 the per pupil cost as defined in clause ;(&) of this sub-
22 section for each such Indian student. .,
23 ( D ) Whenever a prospective contractor is 'a State edu-
21 cation agency, prior to entering into a contract , with such
2,j prospective contractor, the Secretary shall be assured 'thatr-
18
1G
1 , (1) an Indian Advisory Council on Education com-
2 posed of educators and proportionally representative of
3 .• all tribes within such State has been established by the
4 State education agency ; ,
5... .; , (2) such Advisory Council has had the opportu-
6 nity to fully advise and make recommendations to the
7 chief . State schoolomeer in the preparation of the educa-
8. ;'j tion plan pursuant to subsection (a) of this section;
9 (3) such Advisory Council shall have the opportu-
10 nity to advise and make recommendations on the
11 development of other programs provided for in this title ;
12 and .
13 (4) on or before July 1 of each year, such Advi-
14 sory Council shall submit to the Secretary, in such, form
15 and manner as he shall prescribe, a report evaluating the
16 progress achieved in education of Indians in such State
17 under programs provided for in this title.
18 (c). The Secretary shall enter into a contract with the
19 State education agency of any State the public education
20 system of which is affected by a contract or contracts pur-
21 suant to section 202, regardless of who the contractor or con-
22 tractors may be, to provide the professional and support
23 staff and administrative service's necessary to assist local
24 • school districts affected by such contract or contracts in im-
25 plementing the purposes of this title.
19
17
1 Sec. 204. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated
2 for the first fiscal year after the enactment of this Act, and
3 for each succeeding fiscal year, such sums as may be neces-
4 sary to carry out the provisions of this part A.
5 (b) For the purpose of affording potential contractors
G adequate notice of available Federal financial assistance
7 under this part A, appropriations for contracts pursuant to
S section 202 are authorized to be included in the appropria-
9 tiOn Act for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for
10 which they are available for obligation. In order to effect a
11 transition to this method of timing appropriation action, the
12 preceding sentence shall apply notwithstanding that its initial
13 application will result in the enactment in the same year
34 (whether in the same appropriation Act or otherwise) of
15 two separate appropriations, one for the then current fiscal
1 g year and one for the succeeding fiscal year.
17 Sec. 205. The Secretary shall proceed expeditiously to
18 negotiate the contracts authorized by section 202. Such con-
19 tracts and the authority provided by this part A shall replace
20 existing education programs for Indians conducted pursuant
21 to, and the authority to conduct and administer such pro-
22 grams provided by, the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat.
23 596) , as amended. Upon June 30, 1975, all authority
24 to conduct and administer education programs for Indians
25 pursuant to the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596),
20
18
1 as amended, shall be rescinded and that Act shall be further
2 amended by deleting the word "education," wherever it
3 appears.
4 Paet B — Development of Professionals in Indian
5 Education
6 Sec. 206. (a) The Secretary is authorized to establish
7 and cany out a program of making- grants to, and contracts
8 with, institutions of higher education and other public or
9 private nonprofit organizations or agencies with relevant
10 experience and expertise in order to provide fellowships and
11 cany out programs and projects to —
12 (1) prepare persons to serve Indians in public,
13 private, or totally federally funded schools as educational
14 administrators, teachers, teacher aides, school social
15 workers, guidance counselors, school nurses, and ancil-
1G lary educational personnel ; and
IT (2) improve the qualifications of persons who are
18 serving Indians in such capacities.
19 (b) In selecting participants in or recipients for fellow-
20 ships to programs and projects under this section preference
21 shall be given to Indians.
22 (c) No grant or contract shall be authorized under this
23 section which does not provide for evaluation pursuant to
24 criteria determined by the Secretary.
25 Sec. 207. For the purpose of making grants or contracts
21
19
1 pursuant to section 206, there is authorized to be appropri-
2 ated $10,000,000 for the fiscal year after the enactment
3 of this Act, and $15,000,000 for each of the next two suc-
4 ceeding fiscal years.
5 Part C — School Construction
6 Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into
7 a contract or contracts with any State education agency
8 or school district for the purpose of assisting- such agency
9 or district in the acquisition of sites for, or the construction,
10 acquisition, or renovation of facilities (including all neces-
11 sary equipment) in school districts on or adjacent to or in
12 close proximity to any Indian reservation or other lands
13 held in trust by the United States for Indians, if such fa-
14 cilities are necessary for the education of Indians residing
15 on any such reservation or lands.
16 (b) Any contract entered into by the Secretary pur-
17 suant to this part C shall contain provisions requiring such
18 contracting agency or district to —
19 ( 1 ) provide Indian students attending such facilities
20 ■' with standards of education not less than those provided
21 non-Indian students in the school district in which the
22 facilities are situated ; and
23 (2) meet, with respect to such facilities, the re-
24 quirements of the State and local building codes, and
25 ■ other building standards set by the State agency or
22
20
1 school district for other public school facilities under
2 its jurisdiction or control or by the local government in
3 the jurisdiction of which the facilities are located.
4 (c) The Secretary shall consult with the governing
5 body of any Indian tribe or tribes the educational oppor-
6 tunity for the members of which Mill be significantly affected
7 by contracts entered into pursuant to this part C. Such consul-
8 tation shall be advisory to, and not binding upon, the Secre-
9 tary, but shall occur prior to the entering into of any such
10 contract.
11 (d) For the purposes of implementing the provisions
12 of part C of this title, the Secretary shall determine that
13 the rates of pay for laborers and mechanics engaged in the
14 construction or renovation of facilities pursuant to this section
15 208 will be not less than the prevailing local wage rates for
16 similar work as determined in accordance with the Act of
17 March 3, 1921 (46 Stat. 1491 ) , as amended.
18 Sec. 209. For the purpose of carrying out the provi-
19 sions of this part C, there is hereby authorized to be appro-
20" priated $30,000,000 for each of the first three fiscal years
21 after the enactment of this Act, and such sums as are neces-
22 sary for each fiscal year thereafter. Funds shall remain avail-
23 able until expended.
24 Part D — Youth Intern Program
25 Sec. 210. In order to provide meaningful and career-
26 related work opportunities for Indian youth who are not en-
23
21
1 rolled in educational programs during the . summer months,
2 the Secretary is authorized to establish and carry out an
3 Indian }*outh intern program for Indian students sixteen
4 years of age or older who are regularly enrolled in secondary
5 school, vocational school, or higher education programs dur-
6 ing usual school terms.
7 Sec. 211. (a) In establishing and carrying out the
8 Indian youth intern program, the Secretary shall designate
9 or recognize community service fields including those related
10 to education, child development, recreation, law, health serv-
11 ices, engineering, research, science, government, agriculture
12 and forestry, business and commerce, and other appropriate
13 pursuits, which can provide useful experience to Indian youth
1* in exploring and participating in activities related to their
15 future choices of possible careers.
1° (b) The Secretary shall determine the number of Indian
youth in the community or reservation who are interested
° in employment during the summer months in the fields desig-
- 19 nated in subsection (a) of this section.
u (c) The Secretary shall require negotiations with em-
1 ployers for the employment of each Indian youth participat-
ing in the Indian youth intern program, such negotiations to
^ include a job description outlining specific duties, evaluation
of the progress of the Indian youth intern, and formal con-
25 sultation by the employer with the Indian youth intern at
2" least once every two weeks.
24
22
1 Sec. 212. In establishing and carrying out the Indian
2 youth intern program, the Secretary shall take such action
3 as may be necessary to assure that —
4 ( 1 ) each Indian youth intern shall be paid not less
5 than the Federal minimum wage ;
6 (2) each Indian youth intern shall engage in ac-
7 tivities which are supplemental to those of the regular
8 / work force where he, is employed and shall not replace
9 any regular adult full-time employee, except as a tem-
10 porary substitute during any normal vacation or other
11 such leave of any such employee ;
12 (3) the total wages paid each Indian youth intern
13 employed by a nonprofit agency shall be paid out of
14 funds provided in this part D ;
15 (4) one-half the wages paid each Indian youth in-
16 tern employed by other than a nonprofit agency shall be
17 paid out of funds provided in this part D, and one-half
18 by the employer;
19 (5) each Indian youth intern shall be covered by
20 appropriate workmen's compensation laws;
21 (6) no Indian youth intern shall be entitled, by
22 reason of his employment as an intern, to participate in
23 any pension, retirement, or unemployment compensation
24 programs ;
25 (7) there shall be one supervisor for each twentv
25
23
1 Indian youth interns during their period of employment ;
2 that such supervisor shall be compensated at a rate not
3 in excess of the minimum rate for GS-9 of the General
4 Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States
5 Code ; and that with respect to the position of supervisor,
6 preference shall be given to qualified persons residing
7 in the locality in which the interns are employed.
8 Sec. 213. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions
9 of this part I), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
10 $10,000,000 for the first fiscal year after the enactment of
11 this Act* and $15,000,000 for each of the next two suc-
12 ceeding fiscal }^ears.
13 Part E — Educational Research and Development
14 Sec. 214. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make
15 grants to and contracts with universities and colleges and
16 other public and private nonprofit agencies, institutions, and
17 organizations, and to and with individuals for research, sur-
18 veys, and demonstrations in the field of Indian education and
19 for the dissemination of information derived from such re-
20 search, surveys, and demonstrations.
21 (b) ~No grant shall be made or contract entered into
22 pursuant to this section until the Secretary has obtained the
23 advice and recommendations of educational specialists who
24 are competent to evaluate proposals as to the soundness of
25 design, prospects of productive results, and adequacy of the
26
24
1 resources of any applicant to conduct research, surveys, or
2 demonstration projects. Wherever possible among the edu-
3 cational specialists consulted shall be Indians who are not
4 employees of the Federal Government.
5 (c) No grant shall be made or contract entered into
6 pursuant to this section until the Secretary is satisfied that
7 the activities to be funded do not substantially duplicate re-
8 search, surveys, or demonstrations the results of which are
9 or will be accessible to the public.
10 Sec. 215. For the purposes of carrying out the pro-
11 visions of this part E, there is hereby appropriated $2,000,-
12 000 for the first fiscal year after enactment of this Act, and
13 $3,000,000 for each of the next two succeeding fiscal years.
14 Part F— Adult, Vocational, and Early Childhood
15 Education
16 Sec. 216. The Secretary, after consultation with per*
17 sons competent in the appropriate field of education, which
18 persons shall include Indians who are not employees of the
19 Federal Government, shall present to the Ninety-fourth
20 Congress, within sixty days of the convening thereof —
21 (1) a proposed program of adult and continuing
22 education designed to meet the needs of Indian people;
23 (2) a proposed program designed to meet the
24 vocational and technical career education needs of In-
25 dian people;
27
25
1 (3) a proposed program designed to meet the early
2 • childhood education needs of the Indian people ;
3 (4) a proposed program designed to meet the spe-
4 cial education needs of gifted and handicapped Indians
5 aged three to twenty-one years ; and
6 (5) a review and analysis of existing programs in
7 higher education for Indians administered by the De-
8 partment of the Interior, and a proposed program of
9 higher education designed to meet the needs of the
10 Indian people.
11 Sec. 217. For the purpose of carrying out the provision
12 of this part F, there is hereby authorized $750,000 for the
13 first fiscal year after the enactment of this Act.
14 Paet G— General Provisions
15 Sec. 218. No funds from any grant or contract pursuant
16 to this title shall be made available to any school district
17 unless the Secretary is satisfied that the quality and stand-
18 ard of education, including facilities and auxiliary services,
19 for Indian students enrolled in the schools of such district
20 are at least equal to that provided all other students from
21 resources, other than resources provided in this title, avail-
22 able to the local school district.
23 Sec. 219. No funds from any contract or grant pursuant
24 to this title except as provided in part B shall be made
25 available by any Federal agency directly to other than pub-
28
26
1 lie agencies and Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations :
2 Provided, That school districts, State education agencies,
3 and Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations assisted
4 by this title may use funds provided herein to contract for
5 necessary services with any appropriate individual, organi-
6 zation, or corporation.
7 Sec. 220. In the event that Indian students comprise
8 the majority of any class or school assisted by this title, non-
9 Indian students enrolled in the class or school may partici-
10 pate in programs funded by this title: Provided, That such
11 participation is approved by the local public school board
12 if such board is composed of a majority of Indians or the
13 community education committee established pursuant to sec-
14 tion 203 (a) (6) and by the parents of the non-Indian chil-
li dren: And provided further, That such non-Indian children
16 are not counted for the purposes of section 203 of this Act.
17 Sec. 221. (a) The Secretary shall promulgate regula-
18 tions relative to this title no later than six months from the
19 date of enactment of this Act.
20 (b) No later than sixty days prior to the promulgation
21 of such regulations, the Secretary shall publish the proposed
22 regulations in the Federal Register.
23 (c) No later than thirty days prior to the promulgation
24 of such regulations, the Secretary shall —
29
27
.1 (1) submit the proposed regulations, once pub-
2 lished, to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs
o of the United States Senate and House of Representa-
4 tives; and
5 (2) provide, with adequate public notice, the op-
6 portunity for hearings on the proposed regulations, once
7 published, to all interested persons. To the extent pos-
8 sible, all such hearings shall be held in the States and
9 areas to be affected by this title.
10 Sec. 222. The Secretary, before expending funds ap-
11 propriated for purposes of this title, shall be assured that
12 such funds shall be in addition to, and not replace, other
13 funds provided in Federal programs for the benefit of Indians.
98-143 O - 73 -- 3
30
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY uAy o -i 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 ^
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to your request for the views of this Department on
S. 1017, "To promote maximum Indian participation in the government
jand education of the Indian people; to provide for the full parti-
cipation of Indian tribes in certain programs and services conducted
by the Federal Government for Indians and to encourage the develop-
ment of the human resources of the Indian people; to establish and
carry out a national Indian education program; to encourage the
establishment of local Indian school control; to train professionals
in Indian education; to establish an Indian youth intern program;
and for other purposes."
While recognizing the close relationship between Title I of this bill,
the Indian S elf-Determination Act and, Title II the Indian Educational
Reform Act of 1973, we believe that our advice to the Congress will
be more helpful if we consider and discuss the titles in two discrete
sections of this letter.
I. The Indian Self-Determination Act
We would prefer enactment of S. 1343, the Administration self-
determination proposal, which would provide more complete Indian
control over programs devoted to their betterment and would place
the decision to assume such control with Indians themselves. How-
ever, we recommend enactment of this title, if amended as suggested
infra , as an interim measure to provide increased Indian direction
of Federal Indian programs. Certainly the enhanced ability to
contract with Indian tribes which Title I would afford could be a
very useful authority for the Department to have.
Title I adopts a contractual approach to endowing American Indians
with increased self-determination. The title authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to contract with Indian tribes to plan,
conduct, and administer programs or portions of programs carried
out under the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended,
commonly known as the Johnson O'Malley Act; the Act of November 2,
1921 (42 Stat. 208), commonly known as the Snyder Act; and all
acts subsequent thereto. The Snyder Act provides basic authority
for virtually every Indian program carried out by the Department
of the Interior. The Johnson O'Malley Act permits the Department
to contract for the performance of certain educational and other
31
responsibilities with state and local institutions. Thus, enactment
of this title would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the
authority to contract out the full panoply of the Department's
Indian programs to Indian tribes. (This Department has submitted
legislation - S. 1342 - which would enable Indians to become con-
tracting parties under the Johnson O'Malley Act, albeit by a
somewhat different technique, that of amending the Act itself.
Should S. 1017 be enacted, the purposes of S. 1342 would be fulfilled,
and we would consider it moot.)
/& parallel provision of the title would authorize the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to contract with Indian tribes to carry
out all his functions, authorities, and responsibilities under the Act
of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), as amended. These functions center
on the maintenance of Indian health.
One of the more important aids in carrying out the goal of transferring
programs to Indian control by way of contract appears in section 104,
which authorizes both Secretaries to make grants to Indian tribes to allow
them to make necessary preparation for entering into contracts authorized
by the bill. We consider such grant authority to be a most useful means
of removing one of the major obstacles to contracting with tribes - their
inability to meet general Federal standards for contractors. The Federal
contracting rules are predicated on arms-length transactions; however, many
tribes lack the needed sophistication to deal at arms- length with the
United States. More specifically, before a Federal contract can be
effectuated, the contracting officer must make' a finding that the proposed
contractor is capable of performing his part of the bargain. Vis-a-vis
many Indian tribes or tribal organizations, such a finding would be
impossible to make, and the Department's efforts to contract with them
would be stymied. The grants authorized by Title I would fund preparatory
training and other activities necessary to raise Indians to the level where
they can meet Federal contracting standards.
Section 105 of the bill authorizes the two Secretaries, upon the request
of an Indian tribe, to detail Civil Service personnel needed by the tribes
in connection with programs contracted, for a period of 180 days. The
period of detail can be extended for a period not to exceed an additional
90 days if the tribe can show a need therefor. The bill specifically
amends the Act of August 5, 1954, to allow the detailing of Health Service
personnel and allows the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
consider the expense of such details in determining payments made by him
pursuant to the contract or grants to which the details are attached.
In addition, Section 105 would amend paragraph (2) of section 6(a) of the
Military Selective Service Act of 1967. The amendment would allow com-
missioned officers of the Public Health Service serving under an agreement
which credits their Public Health Service service against their military
obligation under the provisions of the Selective Service Act to continue
to enjoy such credit while on detail to Indian tribes.
32
Section 106 establishes certain administrative procedures to be
followed by the two Secretaries in contracting with Indian tribes.
First, although requiring compliance generally with all Federal
contracting laws and regulations, the section permits certain exceptions,
the most important of which would enable construction contracts to be
negotiated without compliance with the bonding requirements of the Act
of August 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 793), commonly known as the Miller Act.
Second, the section would permit advance payments on contracts with
tribes and tribal organizations on such conditions as the Secretary
deems necesary. (Contracts are now restricted by the requirements of
the Act of June 30, 1949 (63 Stat. 396), and the applicable provisions
of the Federal Procurement Regulations.)
Third, the section would empower the appropriate Secretary, with the
consent of the tribal organization, to revise or amend any contract
or grant made by him under the authority of this bill. This provision
would provide the flexibility needed to insure that beneficiaries of
Indian programs do not suffer, particularly during the incipience of
tribal administration of such programs.
Fourth, the section would authorize the appropriate Secretary to permit
a tribal organization to utilize real and personal property under his
jurisdiction in connection with any contract or grant made pursuant to
the bill. The existing authority for such use under the Johns on-0'Malley
Act would thus be extended to Indian tribes, and broadened to include
all contracts under this bill.
Section 107 gives the Secretaries needed authority to carry out the
provisions of the bill and to make rules and regulations.
Section 108 of the bill appears to be a restriction on the authority
granted in section 107 since it sets the terms and conditions that
will be followed by the Secretary of the Interior (not both Secretaries)
in the preparation and publication of the rules and regulations made to
carry out the provisions of the bill. First, we see no reason to treat
the two Secretaries differently and therefore recommend that both be
guided by these procedures. Second, we recommend that the procedures
be incorporated into a single, revised rules section, by deleting section
108 and rewriting section 107 as follows:
"Section 107. The Secretaries of the Interior and of
Health, Education, and Welfare are each authorized to
perform any and all acts and to make such rules and
regulations as may be necessary and proper for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of this title.
33
The Secretaries shall (a) no later than six months from
the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate said
regulations, (b) no later than sixty days prior to the
promulgation of said regulations, publish them in the
Federal Register, and (c) no later than thirty days
prior to the promulgation of said regulations, make
provision, with adequate public notice, for the
opportunity for hearings on the proposed regulations,
once published, to all interested parties."
Finally, Title I disavows any imputation of terminating the United
States' Indian trust responsibilities.
II. Indian Educational Reform Act of 1973.
Title II of S. 1017, the Indian Educational Reform Act of 1973, con-
tains many new programs and would endow the Secretary of the Interior
with a good deal of new authority. We have been hard-put to arrive
at a recommendation concerning this Title because of the difficulty of
fitting its provisions into the existing statutory scheme. More
specifically, there is overlapping among Title II of this bill and
Title IV of Public Law 92-318, a recent and major addition to
Indian education law, and the Snyder Act as well.
At the outset of our discussion of Title A, we recommend the following
clairlfication of the terms "Indian" and "Indian tribe". In section 4
of the bill, delete subsections (a) and (b) and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
"(a) "Indian" means a person who is a member of an Indian tribe;"
"(b) "Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group or community, including any Alaska Native
community as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act which is recognized as eligible for the special programs
and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians."
Part A of Title II, Education of Indians in Public Schools, authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with States,
their political subdivisions, or Indian tribes and organizations
for the purpose of educating Indians in public schools. Any contract
which the Secretary enters into must be predicated on a plan which
assures, essentially, that public schools educating Indian students
are funded at the same levels as comparable schools' which do not
have substantial Indian enrollment. Funds provided under contract
would be used for certain specified purposes, including counseling,
teacher training, production of bilingual teaching materials, and
supplemental meal programs. Indian advisory education committees
would be formed and utilized by the Secretary whenever a majority
of the members of a local school board affected by such a contract
34
was not Indian. If the contracting party were a State educational
agency, prior to entering into such a contract the Secretary would
require that the agency have established, and considered the recom-
mendations of, an Indian Advisory Council on Education which is
representative of all the tribes in the State. Contracts entered
into under this title would replace existing Indian education pro-
grams, and on June 30, 1975, Indian education would be phased out
of the Act of April 16, 1934. Part A would authorize the appropriation
of such sums as might be necessary to carry out its provisions.
The provisions of Part A are similar to those of the Administration's
proposal to amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act, S. 1342. The requirements
imposed by Part A upon States in their education of Indian children —
and on the Secretary in entering into such contracts — do not appear
in S. 1342. Certainly, however, there is no inconsistency between
the two bills, and we have no objection to the safeguards which
Part A would afford public school Indian students.
We recommend expanding the scope of Federal education activities
included under section 203(a)(2) to include all Federal education
funds as local tax income under this section. This will provide a
more realistic funding picture, in regard to both basic support and
supplementary services of the contractor and would result in a more
equitable funding pattern.
Part B of Title II authorizes the Secretary to make grants to and
enter into contracts with various institutions to train educators
who will work in schools serving Indians and to improve the qualifi-
cations of persons presently so engaged. Preference to Indians
would be given in determining grant recipients. This part authorizes
$10,000,000 to be appropriated for the fiscal year after enactment and
$15,000,000 for each of the next two fiscal years. We view Part B
as duplicative of existing authority under the Snyder Act and therefore
recommend against its enactment.
Part C authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with State
education agencies or school districts involving the construction,
renovation, or acquisition of facilities for Indian education in
school districts on or near Indian reservations. Authority for
construction of public schools which educate Indian children is
contained within the authority of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to render impact aid to public school districts (Act of
September 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 1100), as amended). We defer to the views
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on this Part.
Part D establishes an Indian youth intern program for summer employment.
Since there is comparable authority under existing law, we recommend
against enactment of this Part.
35
Part E provides funds to the Secretary of the Interior for grants
and contracts with appropriate nonprofit institutions and agencies
for research and development in the fields of Indian education.
The authorization for Part E is $2,000,000 for the first. "fiscal
year and $3,000,000 for each of the next two fiscal years. We
recommend that this Part not be enacted because it would duplicate
authority provided by the Snyder Act.
Part F of S. 1017 directs the Secretary to present to the 94th Congress
several programs which would show how to meet the educational needs
of the following Indian groups: adults, persons desirous of technical
education, young children, gifted and handicapped Indians aged 3 to
21 years, and those desirous of higher education. This Part would
appropriate $750,000 to carry out its purposes. We recommend that Part F
not be enacted because the development and evolution of these programs is
the continuing responsibility of the Interior Department and is currently
authorized.
Part 6 provides general standards and requirements related to Title II.
We recommend deletion of section 219 to make this part consistent with
the above recommendations.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
fcwfahflj Secretary of the Interior
Honorable Henry M. Jackson
Chairman, Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
36
93d CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1340
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22,1973
Mr. Jacksox (for himself, Mr. Abourezk. and Mr. Faxxix) (by request)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To retain coverage under the laws providing employee benefits,
such as compensation for injury, retirement, life insurance,
and health benefits, for employees of the Government of
the United States who transfer to Indian tribal organizations
to perform services in connection with governmental or
other activities which are or have been performed by Govern-
ment employees in or for Indian communities, and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 Section 1. This Act may he cited as the "Federal Em-
4 ployees Indian Tribal Organization Transfer Act".
5 Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding other statutes, Executive
II
37
2
1 orders, or regulations, an employee serving under an appoint-
2 inent not limited to one year or less who transfers on or
3 before December 31, 1981, to an Indian tribal organization
4 in connection with governmental or other activities which
5 are or have been performed by employees in or for Indian
6 communities is entitled, if he and the Indian tribal organiza-
7 tion so elect, to the following:
8 ( 1 ) To retain coverage, rights, and benefits under sub-
9 chapter I of chapter 81 (compensation for work injuries)
10 of title 5. United States Oode, and for this purpose his em-
11 ployment with the Indian tribal organization is deemed em-
12 ployment by the United States. However, if an injured em-
13 ployee, or his dependents in case of his death, receives from
14 the Inidan tribal organization any payment (including an
15 allowance, gratuity, payment under an insurance policy for
16 which the premium is wholly paid by the Indian tribal
1" organization, or other benefit of an} T kind) on account of
18 the same injury or death, the amount of that payment shall
19 be credited against any benefit payable under subchapter I
20 of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, as follows:
21 (A) payments on account of injury or disability
22 shall be credited against disability compensation payable
23 to the injured employee ; and
21 (B) payments on account of death shall be credited
38
3
1 against death compensation payable to dependents of
2 the deceased employee.
3 (2) To retain coverage, rights, and benefits under chap-
4 ter 83 (retirement) of title 5, United States Code, if neces-
5 sary employee deductions and agency contributions in pay-
q ment for coverage, rights, and benefits for the period of
7 employment with the Indian tribal organization are currently
8 deposited in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
9 Fund (section 8348 of title 5, United States Code) ; and
10 the period during which coverage, rights, and benefits are
H retained under this paragraph is deemed creditable service
12 under section 8332 of title 5, United States Code. Days
13 of unused sick leave to the credit of an employee under a
14 formal leave system at the time he transfers to an Indian
15 tribal organization remain to his credit for retirement pur-
16 poses during covered service with the Indian tribal
17 organization.
18 (3) To retain coverage, rights, and benefits under
19 chapter 97 (life insurance) of title 5, United States Code, if
20 necessary employee deductions and agency contributions in
21 payment for the coverage, rights, and benefits for the
22 period of employment with the Indian tribal organization are
23 currently deposited in the Employees' Life Insurance Fund
24 (section 8714 of title 5, United States Code) ; and the pe-
39
4
1 riod during which coverage, rights, and benefits are retained
2 under this paragraph is deemed service as an employee under
3 chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code.
4 (4) To retain coverage, rights, and benefits under
5 chapter 89 (health insurance) of title 5, United States Code,
6 if necessary employee deductions and agency contributions
7 in payment for the coverage, rights, and benefits for the pe-
8 riod of employment with the Indian tribal organization are
9 currently deposited in the Employees' Health Benefits Fund
10 (section 8909 of title 5, United States Code) ; and the pe-
ll riod during which coverage, rights, and benefits are re-
12 rained under this paragraph is deemed service as an em-
13 ployee under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
14 (5) To be reemployed within thirty days of his appli-
15 cation for reemployment in his former position or a position
16 of like seniority, status, and pay in the agency from which
17 he transferred, if he transferred at the time such activity
18 was transferred to the Indian tribal organization or within
19 ninety calendar days after such a transfer of activities and
20 (A) he makes application for reemployment not later than
21 five years after the date of his transfer to the Indian tribal
22 organization, or (B) the activity is transferred back to the
23 Government of the United States. On reemployment, he is
24 entitled to the rate of basic pay to which he would be en-
25 titled had he remained in the agency from which he trans-
26 f erred. On reemployment, the agency shall restore his sick
40
5
1: leave account, by credit or charge, to its status at the time
2 of transfer. If, at the time of transfer to the Indian tribal
3 organization the employee received a lump-sum payment for
4 annual leave and he is reemployed under this paragraph
5 within one year from the date of transfer, he shall refund
6 to the agency from which he transferred the amount of the
7 lump-sum payment, and the leave covered by the said
8 lump-sum payment shall be restored to his account. If an
9 employee is reemployed under this paragraph, the period
10 of his service with an Indian tribal organization and the
11 period necessary to effect his reemployment are deemed
12 creditable service for all appropriate civil service employ-
13 ment purposes.
14 (b) During a transferred employee's period of service
!-5 with an Indian tribal organization, that organization shall
16 deposit currently in the appropriate funds the employee
17 deductions and agency contributions required by paragraphs
18 (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) of this section.
19 Sec. 3. An employee who transfers to an Indian tribal
20 organization under section 2 of this Act and the Indian tribal
21 organization to which he transfers shall make the election to
22 retain the coverages, rights, and benefits in paragraphs ( 1 ) ,
23 (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) of section 2 of this
24 Act before the date of his transfer to the Indian tribal or-
25 ganization. An employee who transfers to an Indian tribal
26 organization under section 2 of this Act shall continue to be
41
1 entitled to the benefits of section 2 of this Act if he transfers
2 to the employment of another Indian tribal organization
3 to perform service in activities of the type described in sec-
4 tion 2 of this Act.
5 Sec. 4. For the purposes of this Act —
6 (a) "employee" means an employee as defined in
7 section 2105 of title 5, United States Code;
8 (b) "Indian tribal" includes, but is not limited to,
9 Alaska Native; and
10 (c) "Indian tribal organization" includes, but is not
11 limited to, Indian tribal governing bodies, their agen-
12 cies and instrumentalities, and corporations and other
13 organizations which are controlled by ( 1 ) one or more
14 of the described Indian tribal governing bodies or their
15 agencies or instrumentalities, or (2) by a board of di-
16 rectors elected or selected by one or more of the de-
17 scribed Indian tribal governing bodies or their agencies
18 or instrumentalities.
19 Sec. 5. The President may prescribe regulations nec-
20 essary to carry out this Act and to protect and assure the
21 compensation, retirement, insurance, leave, reemployment
22 rights, and such other similar civil service employment rights
23 as he finds appropriate.
24 Sec. 6. This Act shall be effective sixty days after the
25 date of its enactment.
42
yWll' 1 0/
F* : •' '.' : ^:- , United States Department of the Interior
\.V-.;.: „...'/ / OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210
Dear Mr. President: MAR 1 5 7973
Enclosed is a proposal "To retain coverage under the laws providing
employee benefits, such as compensation for injury, retirement, life
insurance, and health benefits for employees of the Government of the
United States who transfer to Indian tribal organizations to perform
services in connection with governmental or other activities which
are or have been performed by Government employees in or for Indian
communities, and for other purposes."
V.'e recommend that the pi-oposal be referred to the appropriate com-
mittee for its consideration, and that it be enacted.
This proposal is a companion to our proposal that authorises Indian
tribes to assume control and operation of programs and services now
rendered for them by the Federal Government. This proposal allows
civil service employees to transfer with the program or service and
retain the coverage that they now enjoy as civil servants and also
gives them preferential reemployment rights for a period of five
years. In most instances, where programs or services are transferred
to an Indian tribal organization, the organization will request that
cerlain employees who are operating the program or service be trans-
ferred with it. By enabling employees to retain all of their civil
service benefits, this proposal will be an important factor in
encouraging those employees to make a transfer to an Indian tribal
organization, thus lending continuity to the programs and services
transferred. We believe that without the opportunity for continuity
in the operation of transferred programs, as provided in this proposal,
most if not all such transfers would be doomed to failure.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that this legislative
proposal is in accord with the program of the President.
Sinpcsely yours,
Secretary of the Interior
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
43
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
Section 1 Gives the A.ct the name of the "Federal Employees Indian
Tribal Organization Transfer Act."
Section 2 entitles a federal employee who transfers to an Indian
organization to carry out a federal program to retain the follow-
ing federal benefits, if agreed upon by him and that organization:
(1) workmen's compensation rights, except that payments made
by the tribal organization shall be deducted from the compensation
due from the federal government;
(2) retirement benefits, provided that necessary payments
continue to be made to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund;
(3) life insurance benefits, provided that necessary payments
continue to be made to the Employees' Life Insurance Fund;
(k) health insurance benefits, provided that necessary payments
continue to be made to the Employees' Health Benefits Fund;
(i>) the entitlement to be reemployed by the federal government
in a comparable position if he makes application for transfer not
later than 5 years after transferring to a tribal organization, and
him time spent with the tribal organization shall be credited with
respect to all appropriate civil service employment purposes.
During a federal employee's sojourn with a tribal organization,
that organization shall deposit in the appropriate funds the pay-
ments necessary with respect to benefits numbered 2, 3, and k,
described above.
Section 3 directs a transferring federal employee and the Indian
organization to which he transfers to choose -beforehand whether
or not to retain benefits numbered 1, 2, 3, and k, described above.
Section 'i contains definitions.
Section 5 authorizes the President to prescribe necessary regulations.
Section 6 declares that the Act shall take effect 60 days after enactment.
44
93d CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1342
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22, 1973
Mr. Jackson (for himself, Mr. Abourezk, and Mr. Fannin) (by request)
introduced the following bill ; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To amend Acts entitled "An Act authorizing the Secretary of
the Interior to arrange with States or Territories for the
education, medical attention, relief of distress, and social
welfare of Indians, and for other purposes", and "To
transfer the maintenance and operation of hospital and
health facilities for Indians to the Public Health Service,
and for other purposes", and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 1 of the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596) ,
4 as amended by the Act of June 4, 1936 (49 Stat. 1458) , be
5 amended to read as follows :
II
45
o
44
1 "That the Secretary of the Interior be, and hereby is,
2 authorized, in his discretion, to enter into a contract or con-
3 tracts with any State or political subdivision thereof, or with
4 any State university, college, or school, or with any appro-
5 priate State or private corporation, agency, or institution, or
with any Indian tribe, band, group, or community, recog-
7 nized by the Secretary, for education, medical attention,
8 agricultural assistance, and social welfare, including relief of
9 distress, of Indians, through the agencies of the State, tribe,
10 band, group, or community, or of the corporations and orga-
11 nizations hereinbefore named, and to expend under such con-
12 tract or contracts, moneys appropriated by Congress for the
13 education, medical attention, agricultural assistance, and
14 social welfare, including relief of distress, of Indians in such
15 State."
16 Sec. 2. The Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), as
>
17 amended by the Act of July 31, 1959 (73 Stat. 267) is
18 amended —
19 (a) by redesignating sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 as sec-
20 tions 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
21 (b) by adding after section 3 the following:
22 ''Sec 4. That the Secretary of Health, Education, and
23 Welfare is authorized to contract with any Indian tribe,
24 band, group, or community to carry out all functions, au-
98-143 O - 73 -- 4
46
3
1 thorities, and responsibilities conferred upon him by this
2 Act, in accordance with the Act of June 4, 1936 (49 Stat.
3 1458)."
4 (c) by adding a new section 9 at the end of the
5 Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674) , as amended, as
6 follows :
7 "Sec. 9. In accordance with section 214(d) of the
8 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 215(d)), upon the
9 request of an}' Indian tribe, band, group, or community,
10 personnel of the service may be detailed by the Secretary
11 for the purpose of assisting such Indian tribe, band, group, or
12 community, in work related to the functions of the service."
47
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is a proposal "To amend Acts entitled 'An Act authorizing
the Secretary of the Interior to arrange with States or Territories
for the education, medical attention, relief of distress, and
social welfare of Indians, and for other purposes', and 'To transfer
the maintenance and operation of hospital and health facilities for
Indians to the Public Health Service, and for other purposes' and
for other purposes."
We recommend that the proposal be referred to the appropriate committee
and that it be enacted.
In his Indian message of July 8, 1970, President Nixon emphasized the
need for Johnson-0 ' Malley funds, which are used to help Indian students,
to be expended in accordance with the problems and desires of Indians.
The President proposed that this goal be reached by amending the
Johnson-0 ' Malley Act (US Stat. 596, as amended by k9 Stat. IU58), to
authorize the Department of the Interior to channel funds appropriated
under the Act directly to Indian tribes and communities. The amend-
ment proposed in section 1 of our proposal will carry out this
Presidential request. This amendment will add to the present authority
of the Secretary of the Interior to contract with State and local institu-
tions, new authority to contract directly with Indian tribes, bands,
groups, or communities who run their own educational institutions,
thus enabling the Secretary to arrange for direct Indian involvement
in carrying out his responsibilities for Indian education, agricul-
tural assistance, and social welfare. This new authority will be
exercised in conjunction with President's directive that the Depart-
ment make every effort to ensure that Johnson-0 'Malley funds which
are presently directed to public school districts are actually spent
to improve education of Indian children in those districts.
The same authority to contract directly with Indians — although in
the area of Indian health — will be given to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare by virtue of the amendments in section 2 of our
proposal. (Responsibility for Indian health was transferred from the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare by Public Law 568 of the 83rd Congress.) In both cases the
amendments allowing contracting to take place directly with Indian
tribes consist of inserting a variation of the phrase "any Indian
tribe, band, group, or community" in the appropriate place in the
appropriate act. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
48
will also be given authority to detail personnel from the Public
Health Service to Indian groups who need aid in carrying out health-
service contracts.
I
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that this proposal
is in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Enclosure
49
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
Section 1 amends the Johnson-0 'Malley Act to add the terra "or with
any Indian tribe, band, group, or community, recognized by the
Secretary" and to strike the word "Territory" wherever it appears
in the first section of the Act, as being no longer applicable to
the Act, The addition of the phrase set out above means that
Indians would join the public and private groups with which the
Federal Government may contract for the carrying out of Federal
responsibilities in education, agricultural assistance, and social
welfare .
Section 2 amends the Act of August 5, 195*+, by adding two new
sections and renumbering other sections accordingly. The first added
section, to be the new section k, authorizes the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to contract with "any Indian tribe, band, group,
or community" to carry out his health responsibility to the Indians.
The second added section, to be the new section 9, gives the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare the authority to detail Public Health
Service personnel for the purpose of assisting an Indian tribe, band,
group, or community in carrying out Indian health functions.
50
93d CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1343
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 22, 1973
Mr. Jackson (for himself, Mr. Abourezk, and Mr. Fannin) (by request)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A BILL
To provide for the assumption of the control and operation by
Indian tribes and communities of certain programs and
services provided for them by the Federal Government, and
for other purposes.
1 Be if enacted bfl the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 Section 1. For the purposes of this Act —
4 (a) "Indian tribe" and "Indian community" means an
5 Indian tribe, band, nation, or Alaska Native Community for
6 which the Federal Government provides special programs
7 and services because of its Indian identity. The terms may
8 also include the reservation or other land area in which the
II
51
i tribe or community is located and tribally recognized com-
2 munities within a reservation.
3 (b) "Indian tribal organization" includes the elected
4 governing body of an Indian tribe or community. The terms
5 may also include legally established organizations which are
6 controlled by one or more such bodies or which are con-
7 trolled by a board of directors elected or selected by one or
8 more such bodies.
9 (c) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior or
10 the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, as appro-
11 priate.
12 (d) "Programs" and "services" include the local activi-
13 ties and undertakings of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the
14 Department of the Interior and the Indian health service
15 program of the Public Health Service of the Department of
16 Health, Education, and Welfare serving Indian communities
17 and the related facilities, equipment, supplies, materials, and
18 budget. Such other programs as may be designated by a
19 Federal department or agency responsible for the adminis-
20 tration thereof may also be transferred pursuant to this Act.
21 Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of
22 law, if an Indian tribe or community, after consultations with
23 the Secretary requests that it be given the control or opera-
24 tion of a program or service administered by the Secretary,
25 the Secretary shall within one hundred and twenty days from
52
3
1 such request, or such later date as may be agreed to by the
2 Secretary and the organization, transfer such control or op-
3 eration to the Indian tribal organization: Provided, however,
4 That no such transfer may be made unless the Secretary
5 has determined that the tribes or communities involved have
6 obtained general public liability insurance, motor vehicle
7 insurance, and other appropriate insurance which shall pro-
8 vide coverage to the tribes or communities in amounts which
9 shall be comparable to the minimum insurance coverage car-
lo ried by other persons or organizations in the same general
11 areas performing similar activities as determined by the Sec-
12 retary. Such immunity to suit as a tribe or community which
13 assumes control of a program pursuant to this section may
14 have shall be waived with respect to suits arising out of its
15 operation of that program but only to the extent of the cov-
16 erage required by the Secretary. Any request made pursuant
17 to this subsection must be accompanied by a plan for carrying
lg out the program or service requested. A tribe or community
19 assuming such control may enter into agreements to carry
20 out all or any part of such program or service. A transfer
2i under this subsection shall stipulate the retrocession pro-
22 cedures provided for in subsections (d) and (e) of this
23 section which are designed to safeguard the residual trust
24 responsibilities of the Federal Government. In the case
25 where a requested program or service is serving the mem-
53
4
1 bers of mure than one Indian tribe or community, the re-
3 quested transfer of such service or program must be approved
by each tribe or community served by said program or
- service before any transfer shall be required under this Act.
5 (b) During the period preceding or immediately subse-
b quent to an}' transfer required by this Act, the Secretaiw shall
7 provide assistance, other than financial, on the request of
8 the Indian tribal organization, to insure an orderly transfer
9 of the control and operation of the program or service
10 involved.
11 (c) For each fiscal year during which an Indian tribal
12 organization engages in an activity pursuant to any program
Ac or service transferred to it under this Act, the Indian tribal
14 organization shall submit a report to the Secretary including
1,3 an accounting of the amounts and purposes for which Fed-
iij eral funds were expended and information on conduct of the
17 program or service involved. The reports and records of
jy such Indian tribal organizations with respect to such pro-
29 gram or operation shall be subject to audit by the Secretary
20 and the Comptroller General of the United States.
21 (d) Should an Indian tribe or community request retro-
oo cession to the Secretary of any program or service which
2;> was assumed by the Indian tribal organization under this Act,
2i such retrocession shall be effective upon a date specified by
25 the Secretary within one hundred and twenty days of such
54
5
1 indication or such later date as may agreed to by the Secre-
2 taty and the organization. Such retrocession will not prejudice
3 the tribe's or community's right to again assume control of a
4 service or program at a later date.
5 (e) In any case where the Secretary determines that
6 any program or service assumed by an Indian tribal or-
7 ganization is being accomplished in a manner which in-
8 volves ( 1 ) the violation of the rights or endangers the health,
9 safety, or welfare of individuals served by such program or
10 service, or (2) gross negligence or mismanagement in the
11 handling or use of Federal funds provided to the organization
12 pursuant to this Act, the Secretary may, under regulations
13 prescribed by him, after providing notice and hearing to
11 such Indian tribal organization, reassume control or operation
15 of such program or service if he determines that the orga-
16 nization has not taken corrective action as prescribed by the
17 Secretary. The Secretary may retain control of such pro-
18 gram or service until such time as he is satisfied that the
19 violation of rights, endangerment of health, safety, or wel-
20 fare, or the gross negligence or mismanagement which neceg-
21 sitated the reassumption has been corrected as indicated by
22 the plan accompanying a request by an Indian tribal organi-
23 zation to again take control or operation of such program or
24 service.
25 (f) In the allocation of available funds, Indian tribal
55
6
1 organizations that assume control or operation of programs
2 or services under the provisions of this Act, or retrocede
3 control or operation to the Secretary, shall be treated in the
4 same manner as they would have been if the control or op-
5 eration had been maintained continuously by the Federal
q Government.
7 Sec. 3. The Secretary is authorized, upon the request of
8 any Indian tribe, band, group, or community, to detail any
9 civil service employee serving under a career or career-
10 conditional appointment for a period of up to one hundred
H and eighty days to such Indian tribe, band, group, or com-
12 munity for the purpose of assisting such Indian tribe, band,
13 group, or community in its control or operation of a program
14 or service transferred to it pursuant to this Act. The Secre-
15 tary may, upon a showing by an Indian tribe, band, group,
16 or community of a need for an employee detailed pursuant to
17 this section, extend such detail for a period not to exceed
18 one hundred and eighty days.
19 Sec. 4. The Act of August 5, 1954 (68 Stat. 674), is
20 amended by inserting a new section 9, as follows :
21 "Sec. 9. In accordance with section 214 (d) of the Pub-
22 lie Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 215 (d) ) , upon the
23 request of any Indian tribe, band, group, or community, per-
24 sonnel of the service may be detailed by the Secretary for the
56
7
1 purpose of assisting such Indian tribe, band, group, or com-
2 munity, in work related to the functions of the sendee."
3 Sec. 5. Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as au-
4 thorizing or requiring the termination of any existing trust
5 responsibility of the United States with respect to Indians.
K .- — * -s. 'a-
57
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210
MAR 1 5 1373
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is a proposal "To provide for the assumption of the control
and operation by Indian tribes and communities of certain programs
and services provided for them by the Federal Government, and for
other purposes."
We recommend that the proposal be referred to the appropriate
committee for its consideration and that it be enacted.
In his Indian message of July 8, 1970, President Nixon expressed the
rationale of this proposal:
"For years v. T e have talked about encouraging Indians
to exercise greater self-determination, but our prog-
ress has never been commensurate with our promises.
Part of the reason for this situation has been the
threat of termination. But another reason is the
fact that when a decision is made as to whether a
Federal program will be turned over to Indian
administration, it is the Federal authorities and
not the Indian people who finally make that decision.
"This situation should be reversed. In my judgment,
it should be tip to the Indian tribe to determine
whether it is willing and able to assume administra-
tive responsibility for a service program which is
presently administered by a Federal agency."
This proposal (a sectional analysis of which serves as the appendix
to this letter) will enable any Indian tribe, band, group, or
community to request and assume control of any program or service
now extended to it by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department
of the Interior or the Indian health service program of the Public
Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The tvro program areas are the ones that deal most directly with
Indian people.
President Nixon reaffirmed the need for this proposal in his
March 1, 1973, message on Human Resources to the Congress.
If any Indian group decides it is willing and able to assume adminis-
trative responsibility for a service or program which is pre'sently
administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs cr Public Health Service,
58
it can request that such service or program be turned over to it.
The only prerequisite that the group must meet is to obtain adequate
insurance. The bill waives the group's immunity to suits arising
•out of its operation of a program only to the extent of this .insurance.
We believe that this condition is necessary to protect persons v. r ho
may be injured or property which may be damaged in the carrying out
of a program. Since Indian tribes would not otherwise be subject to
suit, lack of insurance could work substantial injustice to innocent
parties.
The turnover will be made after the tribe has consulted with the
appropriate Department, has worked out a transfer plan with that
Department, and has submitted that plan formally along with its
request for the turnover. But it will be the Indian group whose
decision will prevail. That is, if the Indians persist in their
request, the program or service will be turned over to their control
even if, in the judgment of the appropriate Department, they are not
adequately equipped to operate that program or service. The transfer
will be made subject to the right of the Indian group to retrocede
any program or service to the appropriate Secretary. Such a retrocession
would not prejudice the group's right to reassume control of any service
or program at a later date.
, In those instances where there is a question about the adequacy of the
Indian group to control or operate the transferred service or program,
the Secretary will monitor the program or service to be certain that the
rights, health, safety and welfare of the Indians involved is not
endangered. The proposal empowers the Secretary to move to reassume
control of a service or program at any point where he thinks the health,
safety or welfare of an Indian is jeopardised. The proposal contemplates
that the Secretary will make every effort to assist Indian groups in their
efforts to assume the control and operation of the program or service.
The proposal will allow the Secretary to detail to the Indian group those
civil servants who, although not transferring with the service or program
to Indian employment (under a companion to this proposal), might be useful
during the transition period. Such employees could be detailed for a
period of 180 days, with the possibility of extending their assignment
for an additional l80 days. The proposal also authorizes the detailing
of Public Health Service employees to Indian tribes and groups.
The proposal makes it clear that there will be no discrimination- against
those tribes who assume control or operation of a service or program.
In particular, the proposal assures Indians that any transferred program
or service will be given the same consideration in the allocation of budget
funds as it would have received if it had continued under the control of
the Federal government.
The last section of the proposal provides that nothing in the. proposal
shall be interpreted as authorizing or requiring the termination of any
59
existing trust responsibility of the United States with respect to
Indians. This provision makes it clear that even though an Indian
group assumes the control and operation of a program or service, the
Federal government will retain its ultimate responsibility for that
program or service and will maintain its trust relationship with that
Indian group.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that this legislative
proposal is in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
#4^6. £vAl£zz^
Adiftg Secretary of the Interior
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D. G. 20510
Enclosures
60
APPENDIX
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OE PROPOSAL
Section 1 contains definitions.
Section 2 provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, if an Indian tribe or community requests that it be given the
control or operation of a program or service administered by the
Federal Government, the Secretary shall turn over to that tribe
or community, within 120 days after the request or such other
period as may be agreed to, the control and operation of such pro-
gram or service. The only prerequisite that the group must meet
is to obtain adequate insurance. The bill waives the group's
immunity to suits arising out of its operation of a program only
to the extent of this insurance. We believe that this condition
is necessary to protect persons who may be injured or property
which may be damaged in the carrying out of a program. Since
Indian tribes would not otherwise be subject to suit, lack of
insurance could work substantial injustice to innocent parties.
Section 2 requires that the request made by the Indian tribe or
community be accompanied by a plan for carrying out the service
or program involved. It authorizes the tribe or community to
enter into agreements to carry out all or any part of the trans-
ferred program or service. Such a transfer shall stipulate the
retrocession provision provided for in a later subsection of this
section.
In subsection (b) of section 2, the Secretary is required to
provide assistance, other than financial, to any Indian tribal
organization which requests it during the period preceding or
immediately following a transfer made under this proposal.
Subsection (c) of section 2 requires that for each fiscal year
during which an Indian tribal organization engages in the opera-
tion or control of a program or service transferred to it under
the provisions of this proposal, it must report to the Secretary,
such report to include an accounting of the amounts expended and
the purposes for which Federal funds were expended. Subsection (c)
opens reports and records of the Indian tribal organization
maintained in connection with such program or operation for audit
by the Secretary and Comptroller General.
Subsection (d) provides that should an Indian tribe or community
request a retrocession to the Secretary of any program or service
which it assumed pursuant to this proposal, such retrocession
shall be effective within 120 days after such request or such
later period as may be agreed to by the Secretary and the Indian
61
group. This subsection specifically provides that retrocession
of any program or service will not prejudice the Indian tribe or
community's right to again assume control of the service or program.
In subsection (e) of section 2, if the Secretary determines that any
program or service assumed by an Indian tribe is being accomplished
in a manner which would violate the rights or endanger the health,
safety or welfare of individual Indians served by such program or
service or that there has been gross negligence or mismanagement in
the use of Federal funds provided pursuant to this proposal, the
Secretary may reassume control of the program or service under such
regulations as he may prescribe but only after providing notice and
hearing to the Indian tribal organization involved. The Secretary
is authorized to retain the service or program until he is satisfied
that the problems causing him to reassume control of it have been
corrected.
Subsection (f ) of section 2 provides that in the allocation of funds
for programs and services to Indians, those Indian tribal organizations
which assume control or operation of programs or services pursuant to
this proposal or which retrocede control or operation to the Secretary
shall be treated in the same manner as if the control or operation of
the program or service had been maintained continuously by the Federal
'Government.
Section 3 aiithorizes the Secretary, upon the request of any Indian
group, to detail any Civil Service employee for a period of up to 180
days to assist the Indian 'group in it.? control or operation of a program
or service transferred pursuant to this proposal. This section also
provides that the Secretary may, upon a showing of need by an Indian
group for the continued services of the detailed employee, extend the
detail of the employee for a period not to exceed 180 days.
Section k amends the Act of August 5, 195^ 3 to enable physicians, nurses,
and other health personnel of the Public Health Service to be detailed
to tribes to assist them in taking over Federal programs or services.
Section 5 provides that nothing in this proposal shall be interpreted
as authorizing or requiring the termination of any existing trust
responsibility of the United States with respect to Indians.
98-143 O - 73
62
Senator Abourezk. The first witness, or panel of witnesses, this
morning is headed by Mr. Frank Carlucci, who is Under Secretary of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We are happy
to have you here this morning, and I would like you to introduce
your panel that you have with you, if you would, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CARLUCCI, UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOM-
PANIED BY JOHN OTTINA, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION-
DESIGNATE; FRANK E. SAMUEL, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON; CHARLES M. COOKE,
JR., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SPECIAL CONCERNS; EMERY A. JOHN-
SON, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE; AND SIDNEY EDEL-
MAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
DIVISION
Mr. Carlucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my left is Mr. Charles
Cooke, who is Director of the Office of Special Concerns in HEW. To
his left is Mr. Frank Samuel, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Liaison. To his left is Sidney Edelman, Assistant Gen-
eral Counsel in the Public Health Service Division. To my right is
Dr. John Ottina, who is our designee for Commissioner of Educa-
tion, and to his right is Dr. Emery Johnson who is Director of the
Indian Health Service.
Senator Abourezk. You may, if you would like to give your testi-
mony, proceed.
Mr. Carlucci. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear to testify
on S. 1017, S. 1340, S. 1342, and S. 1343, which seek to assure the In-
dian people the right of self-determination.
As you know, the administration is deeply committed to Indian
self-determination. The President stated in his message to Congress,
on July 8, 1970, transmitting his "Recommednation for Indian
Policy'" :
For years we have talked about encouraging Indians to exercise greater self-
determination, but our progress has never been commensurate with our prom-
ises. Part of the reason for this situation has been the threat of termination.
But another reason is the fact that when a decision is made as to whether a
Federal program will be turned over to Indian administration, it is the Federal
authorities and not the Indian people who finally make that decision.
This situation would be reversed. In my judgment, it should be up to the
Indian trible to determine whether it is willing to assume administrative re-
sponsibility for a service program which is presently administered by a Federal
agency.
The Department is vitally interested in the enactment of legisla-
tion which would promote and encourage further self-determination
for the Indian people to attain the ultimate goal of "Indian solutions
to Indian problems."
As we advance the priority of self-determination, however, we must
also be sensitive to the need for maintaining Federal support and
concern for the Indian people. As we strengthen the Indian's sense
of autonomy, we must be sure not to threaten his sense of community
and tribal life. That means making it clear to Indians that they can
become independent without losing their unique relationship with the
63
Federal Government and that self-determination and the assump-
tion of control of HEW programs and services by Indian tribes repre-
sents a reinforcement rather than a termination of this unique rela-
tionship.
Before I discuss the four bills under consideration I would like
to quickly highlight a few of the things being done under existing
mandates to advance Indian self-determination. These actions include :
Over the years, Office of Education assistance benefiting Indian
children and adults has been substantial. In fiscal year 1973 it is esti-
mated that $87.3 million in OE obligated funds will benefit Indians.
Included in this amount is $24.4 million under title I of the Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act for the special needs of education-
ally deprived children ; $32.5 million in payments to local school dis-
tricts under the impact aid legislation. Public Law 874; $874.8 million
for school construction under section 14 of Public Law 815 ; $6.1 million
in student financial aid; $713,000 in special projects for adult educa-
tion ; and $2.7 million in teacher training projects.
The Indian Health Service has made notable progress in improving
the delivery of health services to American Indians and Alaskan Na-
tives since 1955 through the growing participation of the Indians and
Alaskan Natives in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of
health service programs. Some examples of tribally managed health
efforts include the operation of community health services activities
such as alcoholism projects, family planning programs, maternal and
child health programs, and health screening and nutrition programs.
Progress is illustrated, also, by the development of the community
health aid program in Alaska, and the community health representa-
tive program in other States which enable tribal groups to directly
provide health services in their communities by employing workers
trained by the Indian Health Service. The Indian tribes are now a
major employer of health service workers formerly in the Indian
Health Service. These tribal employees now number about one-fifth
of the health workers on reservations.
Another indication of the progress toward Indian self-determina-
tion in the Department is the emergence of local, areawide, and national
Indian health boards. These groups, formed at the Indians' initiative,
advise the Indian Health Service on every aspect of health program
management.
To advance the President's policy of Indian self-determination, the
administration on March 15 sent to Congress several bills which to-
gether make up a comprehensive legislative program. Three, S. 1343,
S. 1342, and S. 1340, of these are being considered by the subcommittee
this morning, and I would like to describe them briefly now.
S. 1343 would accomplish the goals of the self-determination by
requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and HEW to transfer to an
Indian tribe, at its request, control and operation of programs and
services now under the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department
of the Interior and the Indian Health Service of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
S. 1342 would amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act and the act of
August 5, 1954, which transferred responsibility for Indian hospitals
and health facilities to the Public Health Service. It would provide the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of HEW with the much-
64
needed authority to contract with any Indian tribe, band, group, or
community to carry out any of the programs under those acts.
S. 1340 would provide for continued fringe benefits (such as com-
pensation for injury, retirement, life insurance, and health benefits)
for Federal employees who transfer to Indian tribal organizations to
perform services they formerly performed as Government employees.
We view the contract authority contained in S. 1342 as an interim
measure, allowing us to contract out to an Indian tribe or organiza-
tion responsibility for those functions the tribe feels itself sufficiently
experienced to handle. On the other hand, as a tribal organization de-
termines that it is capable of assuming complete control over one or
more of its programs, we want to be able to guarantee to that organiza-
tion that, by law, it would be able to do so. For this reason, we urge the
enactment of S. 1343, which would provide that authority, as a nec-
essary complement to the contract authority provided in S. 1342.
In summary, these three bills would give the Indian people three
levels of choice : One, contract with HEW to carry out the IHS pro-
grams ; two, request the complete transfer of the programs to Indian
control; three, allow those civil servants that the Indians wish to
employ — in transferred programs — to retain certain benefits they had
as Federal employees.
This three option approach would assure that if an impasse were
reached in negotiations between HEW and an Indian tribe, the final
determination of whether program control would shift to the Indians
would rest entirely with the Indian tribe.
I should caution that we would not want the transfer authority we
seek to be interpreted as a way for the Federal Government to termi-
nate its proper responsibilities to the Indian people. To begin with,
the transfer would only occur at the request of an Indian tribe or com-
munity. If the tribe believes that it is not yet ready to assume the
responsibilities which would accompany transfer, it could contract
under S. 1342 to assume whatever responsibilities it felt ready to
assume. However, if a tribe wants to remain at status quo with the
Federal Government being fully responsible for carrying out the pro-
grams, that too would be its option. In addition, S. 1343 contains a pro-
vision to assure continuing Federal concern after program transfers
occur.
S. 1343 also gives the Secretary authority, after providing notice and
hearing to the tribes, to reassume control or operation of the program
if he determines that the tribal organization is operating or conduct-
ing the program in a manner involving : One : a violation of the rights
or endangering the health, safety and welfare of the individual
Indians, or two : gross negligence or mismanagement of Federal funds.
We do not view this safeguard as a punitive mechanism. We see it as a
necessary protection for Indian people. The bill provides that tribes
may resume their operations as soon as the Secretary is satisfied that
the deficiencies in tribal operations have been corrected.
S. 1343 assures that the funding of the programs transferred to the
tribe would be at the level stipulated in section 2(f) "As if the control
or operation has been maintained continuously by the Federal Govern-
ment." This assures the tribe a continuity of financial support. The
tribes are more likely to opt for assuming control of their programs
with this specific legislative provision to assure them that they will
not get less funding by assuming control.
65
While the conditions for assuming operating responsibility of the
various Indian programs should be made as easy and as flexible as pos-
sible, the Federal Government nevertheless has a responsibility to
assure that programs are being operated and administered in keeping
with requirements of Federal law. S. 1343 assures this by requiring the
tribes to submit annual reports to the Secretary including an account-
ing of the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds are
expended.
Although S. 1342 provides contract authority, and therefore does not
specifically refer to the safeguards contained in S. 1343, we would pro-
vide similar safeguards in the contract whenever the situation
warranted.
I would now like to turn to S. 1017 which you, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Jackson have introduced.
While we prefer enactment of S. 1342 and S. 1343, we believe that
enactment of certain provisions of S. 1017 as cited would be substan-
tially consistent with the administration's policy of self-determination
for Indians.
However, we have serious problems with portions of title II of
S. 1017. This title would give to the Secretary of the Interior author-
ity to:
Enter into contracts with States and their political subdivisions or
Indian tribes and organizations for the purpose of educating Indians
in public schools ;
Make grants and contracts to train education professionals to work
with Indians ;
Enter into contracts with State and local education agencies for
construction, acquisition, or renovation of facilities in school districts
on or near Indian reservations ;
Establish a summer employment program for Indian youth ;
Make grants and contracts for research, surveys, and demonstrations
in the field of Indian education ; and
Provide a report to Congress in March 1975 proposing programs to
meet the needs of Indian people in areas of adult, vocational, early
childhood, gifted and handicapped, career, and higher education.
Our figures also show that nearly three-fourths — 73 percent—of
the children of native Americans residing on federally recognized
reservations attend public schools operated by State and local agen-
cies. Thus, the education needs of native Americans are being met
substantially by our public school system.
Basically, part A accepts the administration's recommendation, as
proposed in S. 1342, to expand the contracting authority of the De-
partment of the Interior to include Indian tribes and organizations
for educational services and fills in the present broad provisions of
the Johnson-O'Malley Act with more detailed legislative specifica-
tions. We defer to the Department of the Interior for discussion on
the merits of part A of title II.
However, duplication of existing programs benefiting public schools
that educate Indian children is encountered in part C of title II.
Public Law 815, 81st Congress, now authorizes a program for con-
struction for school districts educating Indian children who reside on
Federal property. The administration budget calls for an increase in
the Public Law 81-815 program and under which construction of
66
facilities to meet the needs of Indian children is a priority. Approxi-
mately $4.8 million will be obligated for this purpose in fiscal year
1973.
With regard to parts B, D, E, and F, our position is that there is
sufficient existing authority under the Snyder Act [42 Stat. 208, act of
Nov. 2, 1971] to allow for the activities listed under these parts.
In conclusion, we believe that enactment of title I and part A of
title II of S. 1017 would provide useful authority for the development
of Indian self-determination as proposed bj' the administration.
Regardless of which bills are adopted, however, the manner in which
its provisions would be carried out by the Federal agencies involved
is critical. The development of implementing regulations and guide-
lines will determine the success or failure of any measure. We believe
that it is the right of the Indian people to be involved in the programs
that affect their lives, and we intend to consult with Indian tribal rep-
resentatives in developing such regulations and guidelines to assure
that the methods developed for carrying out the provisions of the bill
are consistent with the desires and needs of the tribes affected.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is important as we work toward
our common objective, Indian self-determination, to bear in mind the
following statement from the President's message to Congress of
July 8, 1970:
Both as a matter of justice and as a matter of enlightened social policy, we
must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long heen
telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the
conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts
and Indian decisions.
That concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I and my
colleagues are ready to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Abotjrezk. Thank you, Mr. Carlucci.
I want to ask if you think that the authority for taking over a school
board by the Indian people should rest only with a recognized tribe, or
should other Indian groups in a community, not necessarily a tribe, be
allowed to take over these schools ?
Mr. Carlucci. Well, the legislation, as we have proposed it, would
authorize the federally recognized tribes to do this. I think if you ex-
tend it to urban Indian groups, you get into a very complex admin-
istrative situation.
Senator Abotjrezk. There aren't to my knowledge, any schools being
operated by the BIA at this time in urban areas. Can somebody correct
me on that ? Mr. Kyi is here. So far as I know there are no urban schools
being operated by the BIA, is that correct ?
Mr. Kyl. Not in urban areas.
Senator Abourezk. I am thinking not so much of an urban school.
I am think more of a school that is within a reservation but is in essence
run by and has a vested interest by the community rather than the
tribal government. Let me give you an example. I spoke at a commence-
ment at the Kyle, South Dakota, school, just about 3 days ago ; Kyle is
on the Pine Ridge Reservation. It is a rather sprawling reservation as
some are in Arizona as well. The Kyle school is run by an Indian
schoolboard, at this time. I am not sure what connection it has with
the tribe, but I do know that Kyle considers itself as a distinct com-
munity, as does Wounded Knee, by the way.
67
As a matter of fact, the people out there pretty much resent politi-
cians or Government officials coming out and staying just in Pine
Ridge. They are always complaining about the fact that people seem
to forget there are other communities.
In that particular circumstance, if you vested the power in the tribe
to run these schools out there, I think you would see a lot of political
difficulties in the Kyle area and Wounded Knee area, and so on.
I just wonder if there might not be a better way to do it, to allow
Indian communities to organize and elect their own school boards, to
run the schools out in those areas ?
Mr. Carlucci. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to examine that ques-
tion. My initial reaction is that it would be a very complex, a very
complex thing to administer. I don't know what kind of guidelines
you would lay down. Furthermore, where you do have recognized
tribal government I think it is important that we deal with that tribal
government, but if you would like, I would be glad to look into it in
more detail and submit something for the record.
Senator Abourezk. I would appreciate it, because it disturbs me that
we might see this kind of political difficulty arise, and I just wonder
if you might not look into some of the Navajo Tribes, for example.
Mr. Kyi.
Mr. Kyl. Of course, you have spoken of one of the difficulties of the
government of the Oglala-Sioux, where various communities do re-
gard themselves as independent. But as a matter of fact, we do now
operate in some instances, for instance at Wind River, in the fashion
that is suggested here. The only necessity is that there be a legal sub-
division of the tribe or group endowed by the tribe with the authority.
Senator Abourezk. In other words, so the approval does come from
the tribe, but the tribe doesn't necessarily pick the school board.
Mr. Kyl. That is exactly right.
Senator Abourezk. In view of that, then, would the language of
this legislation allow that same thing to continue ?
Mr. Carltjcci. I would defer to the Department of the Interior
on that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kyl. Yes, it would.
Senator Abourezk. That is, on S. 1017, now ?
Mr. Kyl. Yes, sir.
Senator Abourezk. We would like to get the statement on the record
for legislative history. You believe that the language of S. 1017 does
allow individual communities to run their own school boards within the
framework of the tribal government ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Abourezk. I guess you won't need to investigate that any
more, Mr. Carlucci.
If the provisions of title II duplicate those of title IV of the Edu-
cation Amendments of 1972, how do you square this decision in light
of the President's request for recision of title IV funds?
Mr. Carlucci. I think we have to make a distinction, Mr. Chairman,
between authorizing legislation and the President's budget. That fact,
that you duplicate authorizing legislation, does not mean in any way
that the President's budget would be altered. One is a money issue and
the other is an authorizing issue.
Let me ask Dr. Ottina to comment specifically.
68
Dr. Ottina. Regarding the Indian Education Act of the Education
Amendments of 1972, as you may recall, we have commented in other
Senate hearings, that the Indian Education Act itself duplicate sub-
stantially our present authorizing legislation in the Office of Educa-
tion. Our position here would be basically that this new proposed
legislation would duplicate something that already duplicates some-
thing for which we have authority.
Mr. Carlttcci. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that we are accepting
applications under that program right now and appropriate applica-
tions will be funded.
Senator Abourezk. In other words, that is per the court order to
release the money ?
Mr. Carlttcci. I don't know if there was a specific court order.
Dr. Ottina. There was a court order, but we were well into the
implementation process before the court order to implement that pro-
gram was rendered. While we are talking about that, I would like to
speak further, for just a moment.
In Mr. Carlucci's testimony he indicated about $87 million of pro-
grams which the Office of Education was spending was benefiting the
Indian children and Indian adults. These are the programs already
in place and does not include the Special Indian Education Act that
we are just now referring to, so now there are $18 million in addi-
tion to that $87 million that would be spent in 1973 for the benefit of
Indians.
Mr. Carlucci. I might also note, Mr. Chairman, that we feel that
these provisions of title II would duplicate authorities that are in the
Snyder Act as well.
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if you would estimate for me the
number 4 of Indian children served under Public Law 81-874, and how
many are category A students and how many are category B?
Dr. Ottina. Yes ; I do have those numbers with me, Mr. Chairman.
The category A amount of money is about $25.4 million and category
B is about $1.9 million. My recollection, and I will be pleased to sup-
ply it for the record, is that there are totally about 60,000 Indian
children, the majority of which would be part A, that are served by
this combined act. I will break it down for the record.
Senator Abourezk. You have the exact figures somewhere?
Dr. Ottina. We do have the exact figures somewhere.
Senator Abourezk. And you will provide those for the committee.
Thank you.
[The figures referred to follow :]
Average daily attendance of Indian children on whom Public Law 81-874 funds
are paid — 1972-73 academic year
Sec. 3(a) 55,000
Sec. 3(b)l 6, 000
Sec. 3(b)2 14, 000
ADA is from 5 to 10 percent lower than membership.
Children who reside on Indian lands are eligible under section 14 of Public
Law 81-815.
Senator Abourezk. Would you please tell the committee your views
in general on the various provisions of title II of S. 1017? Do you
have anything beyond your testimony ?
69
Mr. Carlucci. I think that was covered in our testimony. Our prin-
cipal concern is that it duplicates existing; authorizing legislation.
Senator Abotjrezk. What would you consider to be the unmet con-
struction cost of public schools serving Indian students from federally
recognized tribes ?
Mr. Carlucci. I don't know if we could put a dollar figure on that at
this point, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Ottina. We were very much concerned, Senator, about that
problem, and as Mr. Carlucci testified earlier, in 1973 we had earmarked
a larger amount of money to be spent to fill some of these unmet needs,
$4.8 million. Our 1974 plans called for an increase. In our budget prep-
aration and testimony before the Appropriations Committee, we are
asking for additional funds to be used for that purpose. The total
would be about $6.8 million that would be spent for that purpose in
1974.
Senator Abotjrezk. That is for school construction ?
Dr. Ottina. Yes, sir; that would be under Public Law 815, which
would be the construction of facilities.
Senator Abotjrezk. You aren't going to seriously contend that that
is going to build very many schools ?
Dr. Otttna. No. It's going to certainly help the conditions but it
does not, as you quite accurately point out, meet all of the needs. We
do have on file with this office a list of all programs and all projects
which have been submitted for Public Law 815, and I would be pleased
if you would like to provide a list for the record of all of those projects
which have been submitted to the Office of Education.
Senator Abotjrezk. In other words, you are offering to submit the
backlog of requests for Indian construction ?
Dr. Ottina. Yes, sir, by school and by amount.
Senator Abotjrezk. We would be pleased to have that. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows :]
COMBINED PRIORITY LISTING SECTION 14 (a) AND (b)
Number of applications per— Estimated entitlement per—
Priority index
Interval
Cumulative
Interval
Cumulative
6
1
6
7
7
9
12
18
22
26
28
37
39
39
39
39
40
40
41
43
43
45
46
52
54
56
8, 202, 565
2, 304, 000
1, 939, 500
2, 175, 835
9, 131, 073
2, 407, 630
5, 162, 632
909,712
4, 093, 438
1, 020, 817
42, 000
450, 000
219, 506
582, 556
337, 600
2,011,604
326, 400
13,969,511
8, 202, 565
10, 506, 565
10, 506, 565
2
3
6
4
4
2
9
2
12, 446, 065
14,621,900
23,752,973
26, 160, 603
31, 323, 235
32, 232, 947
36, 326, 385
37, 347, 202
37, 347, 202
37, 347, 202
37, 347, 202
1
37, 389, 202
37, 389, 202
1
2
37, 839, 202
38, 058, 708
38, 058, 708
2
1
6
2
2
38, 641, 264
38, 978, 864
40, 990, 468
41, 316, 868
55, 286, 379
100 and above
90 to 99.9
80to89.9 _
70 to 79.9
60 to 69.9 _
50to59.9
40to49.9
30 to 39.9
20 to 29.9
10 to 19.9 _.._
0.1 to 9.9
Zero priority applications ranked in subpriority order:
100
90 to 99.9
80 to 89.9
70 to 79.9.
60 to 69.9
50 to 59.9
40 to 49.9
30 to 39.9..
20 to 29.9
10 to 19.9. _
0.1 to 9.9
Tentatively ineligible _
70
ORDER OF PRIORITY INDEXES AND FUNDS NEEDED-SUBSECS 14 (a) AND (b)
Priority
Funds needed
Project No.
Applicant
Tenative
Firm
Tenative
Firm
NEBR-73-C-3001 Knox Co. Pub. S.D., Niobrara
N. MEX-73-C-402 Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Navajo Waiver).
ARIZ-73-C-1403 Sacaton C.S.D. No. 18 1 (68/70/72)__
MONT-72-C-2001 H.S.D. No. 55, Brockton
KANS-72-C-404 Powhatan Unit. S.D., No. 510
ARIZ-73-C-904 Monument Valley H.S.D.' (1971)
ARIZ-73-C-607 Kayenta E.S.D. No. 27 ' (1970)
N. MEX-73-C-402 Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Thoreau-
Waiver).
MINN-69-C-403 I.S.D. No. 707, Nett Lake...
WASH-72-C-403 Taholah Sch. Dist. No. 77 1 (1971)
ARIZ-71-C-517 Indian Oasis S.D. No. 401(1970)
ARIZ-71-C-805 Union E.S.D. No. 62
N. MEX-73-C-402 Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Tohatchi Wai-
ver).
ARIZ-73-C-902 _ Whiteriver E.S.D. No. 20' (1972)
ARIZ-70-C-16 Yuma S.D. No. 27, Parker ' (1969;
MONT-73-C-14 Browning E.S.D. No. 9
ARIZ-72-C-1001 Apache Co. S.D. No. 19, Ganado...
ARIZ-73-C-413 Alchesay H.S.D.' (1972)
ARIZ-73-C-14 Northern Yuma Co. U. H.S.D
MINN-71-C-401. Redlake S.D
S. DAK-71-C-1801.
N. MEX-73-C-402.
Waubay I.S.D
Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Crown Point
W.).
MONT-68-C-404 Lodge Grass E.S.D No. 27...
N. MEX-73-C-402 Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Tse Bonito
Waiver).
WASH-71-C-25 Clallan Co. S.D
ARIZ-73-C-16 Yuma Co. S.D. No. 27, Parker
MONT-70-C-1801 Harlem H.S.D
N.MEX-73-C-402 Gallup-McKinley Bd. of Ed. (Towa Yallane
Waiver).
KANS-7C-C-1802 Mayetta S.D
UTAH-72-C-401 Unitah S.D.' (1970)
IOWA-69-C-1701 C.S.D. of South Tama Co
WASH-71-C-44 WapatoS.D. No. 207
OREG-70-C-13 Jefferson Co. S.D
CALIF-71-C-619 Bishop Union S.D
M0NT-69-C-15 Blaine Co. S.D. No. 50
ARIZ-72-C-414 Tuba City E.S.D.' (1971)
N.DAK-72-C-503 New Town Pub. S.D. No. 1
MONT-71-C-7 Ronan S.D
IDAHO-73-C-5 Blackfoot S.D. No. 55
158.9
79.0
59.6
51.2
42.6
34.4
32.2
31.4
26.2
15.0
10.2
9.0
.8
200.0 968,000
463,125
130.9
128.8
113.0
100.4
96.0
78.9
67.9
63.9
61.6
59.4
56.4
51.6
50.3
45.9
44.0
42.8
1,850,000
1,050,000
4, 180, 427
900, 000
3, 382, 470
1,000,000
600, 290
1,788,680
2, 304, 000
89, 500
733, 835
1, 285, 000
117.000
987, 000
1,302,646
1,092,000
"~5i9~666
415,600
773, 280
318,750
38.2 _ 152,000
162,500
667, 705
4, 180, 427
29.6 159,712
750,000
18.2 130,000
916, 000
13.8
13.5
13.1
12.0
11.6
10.8
219, 800
456, 750
226, 000
102, 690
289. 168
1,638,750
114,280
580,817
440, 000
ZERO PRIORITY APPLICATIONS-
WYO-69-C-403 Mill Creek S.D. No. 14
WASH-72-C-1902 Mount Adams S.D
NEV-69-C-701 Elko Co. S.D
WASH-72-C-512 IncheliumS.D
MONT-68-C-1601 Lodge Grass H.S.D. No. 2
N.DAK-72-C-1901 Couture S.D
S.DAK-73-C-3001 West River I.S.D. No. 18, Faith
MONT-69-C-8 Harlem E.S.D. No. 12
N.MEX-69-C-406 Grants Mun. S.D
WASH-70-C-67 LaConner S.D. No. 311
MONT-70-C-13 Lame Deer S.D. No. 16
WASH-70-C-56 Marysville S.D
CALIF-71-C-530 San Pasqual Valley U.S.D
MONT-68-C-405 Heart Butte E.S.D. No. 1
NEV-69-C-404 Humboldt Co. S.D
2 20.2
2 17.2
275.5 42,000
2 53.2 430,000
243.7 170,000
240.2 49,506
222.6 336,000
246,556
337,600
2 9.3 .. 210,000
2 7. 9 . 783, 264
2 7.0 91,440
2 2. 8 440, 000
2 2.8 286,900
2.6. 200,000
2 95, 400
2 231, 000
TENTATIVELY INELIGIBLE
ARIZ-73-C-404 Chinle Common S.D. No. 24.
N.MEX-73-C-513 Cuba Independent Schools..
( 3 )
( 2 )
( 2 )
<11, 745, 111
4 2, 224, 400
' Latest application includes pupils eligible or potentially eligible for payment in prior unfunded applications.
- Subpriority.
3 Ineligible.
4 Request.
71
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Carlucci, I have got a somewhat unrelated
question that I would like to ask you. During the 92d Congress, Con-
gress saw fit to increase the operating budget of the Indian Health
Service by $6 million with the expectation that sufficient funds would
be expended to meet some glaring curative and preventative health
needs of the Indian people during the 1973 fiscal year. Unfortunately,
the administration disagreed with this action and in fact called for
recision of the funds.
In view of the historic July 8, 1970, message from which you have
liberally quoted, the message that the President sent to Congress on
American Indians and the great glowing words and phrases that this
message contained and which held out great hope for the Indian peo-
ple ; that their social and economic needs would be met through some
dynamic policies and programs with the resources to back them up
with. I would appreciate your providing this committee within the
next couple of weeks, well, 2 weeks, a status report with respect to
these funds, when you intend to release them and whether or not the
administration intends to spend them for the purposes for which they
were appropriated.
[The status report follows :]
June 4, 1973.
Hon. James Abourezk,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Abourezk : I am pleased to respond to the request you made at
the hearing on June 1 and to inform you that I have authorized the Indian Health
Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to obligate the
full amount of the 1973 appropriation for Indian Health Services including the
amount previously requested for rescission. In accordance with this authorization,
it is the plan of the Department to carry out as fully as possible the 12 projects
and activities for which the Congress added funds in the 1973 appropriation.
Based on our review of the proposed activities, and taking into consideration
the fact that we are near the close of the fiscal year, we plan to carry out fully
the following programs :
Contract Medical Care.
Three Pilot Urban Indian Health Projects.
Expansion of programs administered by the California Rural Indian Health
Board.
50 Additional Community Health Representatives.
Leasing of Health Clinics in Alaskan Villages.
Health Care Communications in Alaska.
We have reviewed the remaining proposed activities and are making plans
to undertake them as fully as possible, again in light of the time of the fiscal
year, and also with a view to avoiding commitments for activities in fiscal year
1974 which are not now included in the President's budget. The selection of
activities must also take into account the limits on the employment of Federal
staff under which the Department is operating. The implementation of these
activities is dependent upon the completion of action on the FY 1973 Second
Supplemental Appropriation bill which would provide the funds needed for the
increased pay cost for the Indian Health Service. On this basis, we believe that
we can proceed with some aspects of all of the remaining programs :
Additional treatment of middle ear disease ( Otitis Media ) .
Additional Eye Care.
Additional Dental Services : Alaska and Aberdeen and Billings Areas.
Mental Health Program.
Additional Ambulatory Care.
Additional Services at Belcourt, North Dakota.
We are proceeding with the implementation of these decisions as rapidly as
possible.
Sincerely yours, _ , „ .
Frank C. Carlucci, Under Secretary.
72
Senator Abourezk. I just want to make a comment that I think that
that kind of action in the earlier freezing of the $18 million gives the
President's Indian message a pretty hollow ring and it doesn't sur-
prise me that we have seen things like the BIA takeover in which
you were involved, and the Wounded Knee takeover, and so on. I
just wonder if there might not be a way that we can work here to
prevent such things from happening in the future by fulfilling at least
some promises we make to the Indian people.
Mr. Carlucci. I would like to comment on that because I think that
that particular recision request has to be looked at in the light of the
overall budget for Indian health needs. The overall budget for In-
dian health needs has practically doubled in the past 5 years. The
figrue for 1969 was $91 million. The projected budget figure, the
figure in the President's budget for 1974 is $176 million. If we include
construction costs the respective figures are $112 million and $218
million. That is a very substantial increase in the budgeting for In-
dian health needs.
As you are aware, we are also embarked on a renewed program of
construction and construction planning. I think the overall figures do
show a real commitment to the President's Indian message.
I will be glad to supply the committee with a report on what we have
decided on these funds. As you know the Congress is presently consid-
ering a supplemental appropriation bill which addresses itself to the
question of the recision. So we are awaiting what the Congress final
decision will be on the recision before determining what action should
be taken.
Senator Abourezk. I might say, Mr. Carlucci, that the increase was
very welcome, but when you start with an insufficient amount to be-
gin with, an increase, while helpful, can give a misleading picture of
what is really happening.
I would like to ask, further, if you know how much of the increase
that you talk about was required simply for inflation rather than
for increased benefits ?
Mr. Carlucci. I would have to check that out. I don't know what
the inflation rates were for each of those years.
Senator Abourezk. I think if you would furnish that
Mr. Carlucci. Obviously any item in the President's budget is
eaten up to a certain degree by inflation, but substantial Federal ex-
penditures in themselves, if not kept under control, contribute to in-
flation, so we get ourselves in a vicious circle. If we simply meet every
need we contribute to inflation, so what the President has tried to do
is provide a balanced approach in terms of the budget.
I might also note that these expenditures are going up in what is
perhaps the most difficult budget year in recent history, in the overall
budget. Whereas many programs have suffered cutbacks and decreases,
here I am pointing to an increase in the Indian Health Service budget,
and Indian programs generally were either maintained level or in-
creased in the 1974 budget, and let me emphasize there was not an
awful lot of margin in putting that budget together.
Senator Abourezk. You will provide the committee with the amount
of increase due to inflation of that increased budget?
Mr. Carlucci. We will break that figure down.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much.
73
[The information follows :]
4. Amount of increase in the Indian Health Service budget over the past five
years required by inflation.
The amount of increase in the Indian Health Service budget over the past five
years required by inflation and mandatory salary increases is $54,370,000.
For the Indian Health Facilities Budget (construction) the amount over the
past five years is $10,800,000.
Senator Abourezk. I have one question I would like to ask Dr.
Emery Johnson.
A couple of years ago, Dr. Johnson, we talked about establishing
some alcoholism centers, deintoxication and treatment centers because
of the tremendous alcoholism problem among the Indian people na-
tionwide, and we specifically talked about one in South Dakota.
I just wondered what further action you have taken on that since
2 years ago.
Dr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the alcohol programs really got off
the ground following the President's message in 1970, when he iden-
tified fundings from two sources, one, the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity and the National Institute of Mental Health, to begin to fund
alcohol programs directly on Indian reservations.
That first year, as I recall, there was something in the neighborhood
of $2 million that was identified for projects like that. At the moment
there are some 50 projects, to the best of my recollection, that are now
being funded almost exclusively by the new Institute of Alcoholism
and Alcohol Control. The amount of money involved in these is
roughly about between $4 and $5 million. So there has been a very
significant impact in the number of both projects that are funded to
tribal organizations, and the amount of money that is being appro-
priated for that.
Senator Abourezk. Do you have available with you now, or per-
haps, if not here, in your office, the locations of the alcoholism centers
that have been established in the last 2 years ?
Dr. Johnson. Yes; we could provide that for the record.
Senator Abourezk. Would you, please?
Dr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
[The information follows :]
5. List of locations of alcoholism centers established in last two years :
Salamanca, N.Y. Miami, Fla.
Superior, Wis, Santa Fe, N. Mex.
Albuquerque, X. Mex. Tahlequah, Okla.
Clinton, Okla. San Fidel, N. Mex.
Zuni, N. Mex. Mescalero, N. Mex.
Bernalillo, X. Mex. Pine Ridge. S. Dak.
Rapid City, S. Dak. Scottsdale, Ariz.
Winterhaven, Calif. Sells, Ariz.
Federal Way, Wash. Marietta, Wash.
Anchorage, Alaska. Tok, Alaska.
Pendleton, Oreg. Claremore, Okla.
Seminole, Fla. Baltimore, Md.
Cleveland, Ohio. Highland Park, Mich.
Tulsa, Okla. Dallas, Tex.
Topeka, Kans. Salt Lake, Utah.
Denver, Colo. Sacramento, Calif.
Oakland, Calif. Flagstaff. Ariz.
San Francisco, Calif. Seattle, Wash.
Portland, Oreg.
74
Senator Abourezk. Senator Bartlett, do you have any questions?
Senator Bartlett. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carlucci, nice to see you again. There seems to be a little simi-
larity between this and the Oklahoma plan as far as the OEO is
concerned.
In the administration proposals, am I correct that there is no grant
for training or equipping the tribal leadership to prepare itself for
the decisions it would have to make in the programs that would be
taken over ?
Mr. Carlucci. That is correct, Senator, and the reason is that we
think sufficient authority exists already in the Snyder Act.
Senator Bartlett. Sufficient authority exists. Sufficient moneys ex-
ist for the tribes and particularly those tribes that might have a little
more difficulty than other tribes ?
Mr. Carlucci. I would defer to the Department of the Interior since
that would be contained in their budget, but I would like to stress
once again that the question of money is separable from the question
of authorizing legislation in any event. Simply because there may
not be enough money to meet the total need does not mean that we
should duplicate authorizing legislation.
The authorizing legislation will not deal with the money issue. The
money issue is dealt with in the President's budget.
Senator Bartlett. Do you think there is a need for specialized
training for tribal councils and tribal leaders to enable them to better
assume their duties of making the many decisions that need to be met
as they take appropriate action ?
Mr. Carlucci. I think there is a very definite need and I cannot
speak for the Department of the Interior programs, but I recall when
I was in OEO we made a determined effort to direct our programs
toward equipping tribal leadership to take on the responsibilities that
they would have under a self-determination policy.
Senator Bartlett. You do not think that there is anything lacking
in the administration bills that would preclude those programs
being
Mr. Carlucci. I think there is sufficient authority to do that in a
wide range of legislative provisions. I just mentioned the OEO legis-'
lation. As you know, the OEO Indian programs will be coming over
to HEW and there is certainly broad authority in that legislation to
meet needs. There is authority in some of our education legislation
and there is authority in the Snyder Act.
Senator Bartlett. As I understand the administration's programs
and S. 1017, the administration proposal is to permit a takeover by
the tribe if they desire to take over all programs, not only HEW,
but all the Indian programs, whereas S. 1017 is not, does not include
all programs ; is that correct ?
Mr. Carlucci. I defer to the Department of Interior on an analysis
of what programs would be covered under S. 1017, but the difference
that I was pointing to in my testimony is the difference between con-
tracting and actually transferring programs. The administration bill
would go further than 1017 in that it would allow the transfer of pro-
grams, whereas 1017 would only allow the contracting. We view the
contracting device as an interim measure because the ultimate goal is
to allow Indians the choice of having the programs transferred to
them and with the right of retrocession, if at some subsequent time
75
they wish to transfer the programs back to the Federal Government,
so the distinction is one of contract versus transfer than program
coverage, I believe, but I think the Department of Interior can proba-
bly clarify this issue a little more when they testify.
Senator Bartlett. If a tribe asked for a certain program to be trans-
ferred to it, and if it received some help, perhaps even a lot of help,
in equipping the leadership, but still there were problems, and the
tribe didn't choose, though, to turn the program back, but preferred
to try to fight it out, as you know, I think this kind of situation can
develop in business, can develop in governmental programs often,
would it be possible to get extra help beyond what would be normal to
try to work out the difficulties with the existing legislation ?
Mr. Carlucct. Yes; there would be sufficient authority to provide
technical assistance and advice to the tribes in working these problems
out. Yes ; I don't think that would pose any problems, Senator.
Senator Bartlett. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you.
The staff, Mr. Gerard, has a couple of questions he would like to ask
at this time.
Mr. Gerard. I would like to refer to page 3 of your statement.
About midway in the paragraph, you refer to the community health
aid program in Alaska and the community health representative pro-
gram in the other States. I would presume that these two programs
have been established under contracts with the Indian Health Service?
Mr. Carltjcci. I would like to ask Dr. Johnson to answer that.
Dr. Johnson. Yes ; that is correct.
Mr. Gerard. With that answer, under what authority have the con-
tracts been negotiated with the Alaskan representatives and the tribal
groups in the other States ?
Dr. Johnson. Basically under the Buy-Indian Act.
Mr. Gerard. You consider the Buy-Indian Act authority in terms
of meeting such contingencies as advance payments ? Are you exempt
from the Federal procurement regulations ? In other words, how much
flexibility do you have ?
Dr. Johnson. The authorities that we have there, of course, are
fraught with a number of problems in attempting to contract directly
with the tribes. A number of Federal procurement regulations which
still prevail do handicap our ability to deal directly with the tribe. The
advancement payment, of course, is one. It is possible to get a special
exception for advanced payments, but there are a number of impedi-
ments within that. I think this is one of the major reasons why we
would support the new contracting authorities that are being pro-
posed, because it does give us much more flexibility and would en-
hance our ability to contract with the tribal governments and their
agencies.
Mr. Gerard. Going to section 106 of 1017, you will note that specific
exceptions to the Federal procurement regulations are suggested in the
bill. The next question in that regard is, if the committee were to
amend the bill further and take all of the tribal contracts from the
Federal procurement regulations and instead permit the respective
secretaries, HEW and Interior, to establish their own rules and regu-
lations for Tribal contracts, would you consider this a more desirable
76
approach, rather than just a few specific exceptions? You may want
your legal counsel to respond to that, or you yourself may respond.
Mr. Edelman. We would consider that while the general authority
you propose would certainly give us unlimited flexibility, we do think
that specific exemptions could accomplish much the same result.
Mr. Gerard. In other words, you don't see the need for a total exemp-
tion from the Federal procurement regulations ? The exemptions cited
here in your opinion are sufficient to implement the contracting pro-
gram?
Mr. Edelman. No ; I think the record submitted by the department
indicates further technical amendments to this section. If those amend-
ments were made we think this would accomplish much the same re-
sults as you suggest.
Mr. Gerard. Would you be willing to describe the technical amend-
ments?
Mr. Edelman. Exemptions from competitive bidding and exemp-
tions from bonding, as I recall.
Mr. Gerard. Perhaps, for the record, Mr. Edelman, you would give
us the specific citations for those various acts ?
Mr. Edelman. We will be glad to submit it.
[The information follows :]
Proposed Amendment to S. 1017 To Provide for Assignment Rather Than
Detail of Personnel
On page 6, line 22, strike out "DETAIL" and insert in lieu thereof "ASSIGN".
On page 6, line 25, strike out "detail" and insert in lieu thereof "assign".
On page 7, line 8, strike out "detailed" and insert in lieu thereof "assigned".
On page 7, line 9, strike out "detail" and insert in lieu thereof "assignment".
On page 7, line 17, strike out "detailed" and insert in lieu thereof "assigned".
On page 7, line 23, strike out "detailing" and insert in lieu thereof "assign-
ing".
reason for amendment
Civil service employees are protected in negligence suits by the Federal Tort
Claims Act. Employees of the Public Health Service are also protected in suits
for malpractice or negligence by section 223 of the Public Health Service Act.
However, were any such employee to be "detailed" to an Indian tribe or organiza-
tion which had assumed control of a program pursuant to S. 1017, the employee
would lose those benefits. This would not be the case if the employee were
"assigned". Since this Department would prefer that the rights of civil service
employees and those of employees of he Public Health Service who are working
at Indian hospitals not be affected by the transfer of such hospitals to the In-
dians, we would prefer that the mechanism by which employees are temporarily
transferred be referred to as an "assignment" rather than as as a "detail."
Proposed Amendment to S. 1017 To Provide for Waiver of Certain Federal
Contracting Laws
Beginning with line 13 on page 8, strike out all down through line 19 on page
8 and insert in lieu thereof the following :
Sec. 106. (a) In entering into contracts with tribal organizations pursuant to
sections 102 and 103 of this Act, the appropriate Secretary may waive the re-
quirements of 40 U.S.C. 270a-270d (dealing with bonds of contractors for public
buildings or works) and the Federal Properties and Administrative Services
Act, 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq. (dealing with management and disposal of government
property) .
reason for amendment
The revised subsection (a) would enable the appropriate Secretary to waive,
whenever appropriate, provisions of the Miller Act, which require performance
bonds from certain contractors, and provisions of the Federal Property and Ad-
ministrative Services Act, which require that certain procedures such as ad-
77
vertising and competitive bidding be followed. The imposition of minimum wage
rates could seriously disrupt the economic balance in many Indian communities,
and the imposition of the costs of bonding on Indian contractors would, in some
cases, pose an insurmountable financial burden. Finally, many of the requirements
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act may prevent the making
of contracts with the appropriate tribal organization because the requirements
such as advertising and competitive bidding could result in another agency or
organization making a better offer.
Senator Abotjrezk. Unless you have anything further, that is all
the questions the committee has. We thank you very much for your
appearance and your testimony.
The next witness will be John Kyi, Assistant Secretary for Con-
gressional and Public Affairs of the Department of the Interior,
and his staff of people with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Interior Department.
Mr. Kyi, welcome back to the committee again today, and there
is one benefit to appearing, I guess, 2 days in a row. I don't ask you
the same questions about the Indian Commissioner and why he wasn't
appointed yet because we found out yesterday you don't know why.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. KYI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES HAWKINS, DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; ANDREW LAWSON,
EDUCATION SPECIALIST, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; AND
DENNIS DRABELLE, STAFF ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Kyl. Mr. Chairman, as usual I bring the experts with me.
Senator Abourezk. If you would, introduce them.
Mr. Kyl. On my left is Dennis Drabelle, with the Legislative Office,
Department of Interior. Seated next to me is Jim Hawkins, Director
of Education Programs for BIA. To his right, Andrew Lawson, who
is an education specialist. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, he is a Tshim-
shian Indian from Alaska working on his doctorate in the field of
educational administration.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to testify on these
bills dealing with Indian self-determination and education.
We appear here again in a spirit of cooperation, feeling that we
can't afford the kind of adversary situation which sometimes develops
because that leads to inaction and we must proceed with this business.
We do cover a great deal of ground in these bills and therefore I
will try to be brief, but again this interjection before I get to the
reading of the statement itself.
In order to answer better a couple of questions that have been raised,
may I first point to the fact that we do not have at present any
specially marked funds for training or educating Indian tribes for
this takeover, this assumption of authority.
Senator Abourezk. Do you think it would be a good idea to have
such funds?
Mr. Kyl. Yes, sir, and this is what I intend to indicate here. We do,
of course, have personnel at the BIA, personnel which is detailed to
tribes, very frequently to help with problems of this kind, but there is
no special program.
98-143 O - 73
78
In our report we note that one of the more important aids in carry-
ing out the goal of transferring programs to Indian control by way
of contract appears in section 104, which authorizes both Secretaries
to make grants to Indian tribes to allow them to make necessary prep-
aration for entering into contract authorized by the bill.
We consider such grant authority to be a most useful means of
removing one of the major obstacles to contracting with tribes. That
thought is continued on page 2 of our report.
One other item I would like to place in the record at this point is
that there were some questions regarding construction of schools. In
the last several years we have been spending $30 to $35 million a year
on construction, both on BIA schools and on public schools. But I
hasten to point out that so far as we know there really is no authority
in the statute for assisting with this construction of public schools.
This is done in a line item in appropriation bills and as long as there
is no objection the items do stay in the bills. There has been an expendi-
ture of $35 million per year, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing, then, with the statement. I first would like to summar-
ize the three administration proposals which you have before you this
morning, and then discuss S. 1017 separately and in a little more
detail.
S. 1343 is the admiinstration's effort at enabling Indians to exert
more control over their own lives. Its central provision is one whereby
any tribe could ask for transfer of a Federal Indian program to its
control, and the appropriate Secretary would be obliged to make such
a transfer. The only prerequisite would be a showing by the tribe that
it had obtained adequate insurance to cover possible injuries resulting
from operation of the program. The bill has a retrocession provision,
allowing a tribe which runs into difficulty in operating a transferred
program to return it to the Federal Government without prejudice;
an emergency section, which permits the appropriate Secretary to
seize control of a program operated in a drastically inappropriate
manner such as the mismanagement of funds; and a provision guar-
anteeing that a transferred program would receive at least the same
funding as if it had remained with the Federal Government. This is
what we have come to call in recent years a "hold harmless provision."
S. 1340, a companion to the administration's transfer bill, would
enable any Federal employee who accompanies programs transferred
to the tribes to retain his civil service benefits. This bill also would
give such an employee the security of being rehired by the Federal
Government for a position comparable to his previous one within 5
years of the transfer. We consider this bill a necessity inasmuch as the
expertise of Government employees will be vital to the success of trans-
ferred programs.
S. 1342 would amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act, which is the ve-
hicle by which the Secretary of the Interior is able to contract for
the education of Indians. Presently the Secretary's authority is limited
to contracting with States or State institutions. The amendments
in S. 1342 would add Indian tribes and organizations as possible con-
tracting parties. This added authority will aid the Secretary in in-
suring that Johnson-O'Malley funds are actually spent to improve
the public education of Indian children.
Mr. Chairman, all three of these bills emanate from the President's
Indian message of July 8, 1970. We recommend their enactment.
79
On the other hand, we do not believe we have a monopoly on ideas or
increasing Indian self-determination. As will become clear in our
discussion of S. 1017, we believe there is merit to the approaches to
self-determination contained in that bill.
Title I of S. 1017 adopts a contractual — rather than an outright
transfer — approach to self-determination and applies to both general
BIA programs and to public education via Johnson-O'Malley funds.
Thus, under title I the Secretary would be authorized to contract with
Indian tribes to plan, conduct, and administer programs carried out
under the Snyder or Johnson-O'Malley Acts. With a few amendments
discussed in our report, we recommend enactment of title I as a means
of greatly enhancing the ability of American Indians to shape their
own lives. If this title were enacted, we would consider S. 1342, our
Johnson-O'Malley proposal, moot.
Title II of S. 1017 would provide several education programs. Part.
A of that title covers the area of contracting for public education
which we have already discussed, with one key difference. Under part
A the Secretary would not enter into any contract — whether it be with
the State or subdivision thereof or with Indians — unless he was fur-
nished with a plan by the contracting party. This plan would have to
assure the Secretary that the public school involved in the potential
contract was receiving equitable fiscal treatment in comparison with
schools and school districts in the same general area. No such provision
appears in our Johnson-O'Malley Act proposal. We believe that this
kind of safeguard may prove most helpful to Indian students in public
schools, and as a whole we find much merit in part A of title II.
On page 11 of the bill, section 203, line 23, we talk about an average
property tax rate, and I suggest to the committee that you might want
to consider this factor in developing language if you go in this direc-
tion. The tax rate is not really a very good yardstick of effort because
the assessed evaluation techniques mean as much or more sometimes
than the simple tax rate.
Continuing on that same vein, on page 16 of the bill, we call for an
Indian advisory council on education composed of educators and pro-
portionately representative of all tribes within such States as have
been established by the State education agency. I doubt if that situa-
tion is subject to being achieved for the simple reason that in the
State of Alaska, as an illustration, there are so many villages which
are considered tribes. It is not a serious matter, but something you
might want to look at as you proceed with the markup of the bill.
Parts B, D, E, and F, Mr. Chairman, I would like to consider
together, putting part C aside for a moment. We recommend against
the enactment of parts B, D, E, or F because they are duplicative of
existing authority.
Mr. Chairman, I put part C to the side because it deals with public
school construction, a matter that presently falls within the jurisdiction
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and because of
that added factor that I made a moment ago, the fact that we do now
actually achieve this purpose in some instances through a line item in
the appropriations process. We defer to the views of HEW on this
part.
One further item I would like to add to this report. Getting back to
a matter which we discussed yesterday and which both the committee
80
and the Department feel is an important item, I would like to mention
the business of publication and auditing.
In the Jackson bill the auditing would be part of the contractual
arrangement. In our bill there would be an annual report which would
be both directed to the fiscal management and to the achievements of
the program, and that report to the Secretary would be subject to audit
by the Secretary or by the Controller General, GAO.
I mention this fact again, as I close my formal testimony this morn-
ing, because I continue to want the committee to be satisfied when this
bill is presented that we do have adequate control for keeping track of
not only the expenditure of funds so far as physical management is
concerned, but also to see that the money is really reaching the stu-
dents, is in fact achieving the purpose for which the bill is being
created.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abotjrezk. Those are good suggestions and we are grateful
for their offer to the committee.
I believe you did state that the existing authority that you are using
now is the Buy-Indian Act. Was it Mr. Hawkins who made that state-
ment a minute ago ?
Mr. Hawkins. No, sir.
Senator Abotjrezk. Under what authority is the Bureau of Indian
Affairs currently approving contracts with private groups and organi-
zations for the takeover of various Bureau programs and services ?
Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is based on the Buy-Indian
Act, and I am not sure whether the Snyder Act is involved in that or
not, but the Buy-Indian Act is the primary.
Senator Abotjrezk. Do you consider that this authority is adequate,
and if not, I would like you to highlight the major deficiencies or
shortcomings of the authority that you talk about.
Mr. Hawkins. I am not familiar, Mr. Chairman, with all of the
aspects of contracting in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. My experience
has been limited primarily to contracting for educational services and
at the present time, in terms of educational services, we do find that the
authority is fairly adequate. There is the problem already mentioned :
the present method of contracting, the Federal contracting regulations,
if you will, under which we operate, presume an adversary position, or
at least an arm's-length position with the contractor. This is the normal
Federal Government-contractor relationship. However, we feel that
many of our Indian contractors are not able to partake of an arm's-
length relationship. They request, and we are happy to give, continued
technical assistance during the life of the contract in order to make
certain the services provided are adequate. The normal Federal con-
tracting procedures do not envision this sort of a close relationship
between a contractor and the Federal Government. For that reason
there are certain strains, if you will, placed between an Indian con-
tractor and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in attempting to achieve the
joint goal of providing a better educational program for Indian
children.
Senator Abotjrezk. You think essentially though the Buy-Indian
Act is adequate authority ?
Mr. Kyl. May I expand on that just a moment •? I don't believe the
Buy-Indian Act gives us any grant authority.
Senator Abotjrezk. No ; I think that is true.
81
Mr. Kyl. In the report, on page 2, we do consider this matter at
length.
Senator Abourezk. It doesn't have advanced payment authority
either, does it ?
Mr. Kyl. That is correct. We do on page 2 in the report have addi-
tional language regarding the specific matter. I started to read this
sentence a moment ago :
We consider such grant authority to be a most useful means of removing one
of the major obstacles to contracting with tribes — their inability to meet general
Federal standards for contractors. The Federal contracting rules are predicated
on an arms-length relationship with the United States. More specifically, before
a Federal contract can be effectuated, the contracting officer must make a find-
ing that the proposed contractor is capable of performing his part of the bar-
gain. Vis-a-vis many Indian tribes or tribal organizations, such a finding would
be impossible to make, and the Department's efforts to contract with them would
be stymied. The grants authorized by Title I would fund preparatory training
and other activities necessary to raise Indians to the level where they can meet
Federal contracting standards.
Senator Abourezk. If S. 1017 were enacted into law, would title I
be useful to the administration in achieving the stated objectives for
the Indian people?
Mr. Kyl. It certainly would be, sir.
Senator Abourezk. On title I again, section 106 provides that con-
tracts with private organizations pursuant to the act shall be exempt
from specified Federal procurement regulations. If the committee were
to amend the bill to provide that contracts with tribal organizations
shall be exempt from Federal procurement regulations and that the
Secretaries of Interior and HEW are authorized to establish their own
rules and regulations to govern contracts with tribal organizations,
would the administration be opposed to such an amendment ?
Mr. Kyl. I believe that accomplishes the same purpose, sir, and may
I proceed once again to this matter of publication and auditing. If we
relax all these standards, then we have to keep a closer contact, con-
tinuously, day -by-day with this entire process.
Let me give you a specific illustration without alluding to a specific
tribe, but I am citing an actual case.
In this instance we have a tribal housing authority. We don't have
to go to bids because it is an Indian project. The individual who comes
in is a friend of the tribal attorney and therefore has one leg up in
consideration by the tribe. On close questioning he did not have the
bonding capacity he needed and had to find a partner so he could ac-
quire the adequate bonding capacity. Then the project got underway.
Because there was no scrutiny, one of the members of the board is now
in the penitentiary. When the project management failed, the board
decided they needed a project manager to assure that all of the hous-
ing construction, management, et cetera, was the best type. Who do you
suppose was selected as the manager of the property? Members of
the contracting firm that were building the houses, and at a pretty
good salary.
Now, if we are going to relax the standards — and I am in favor of
doing it as I have read here from the report — we will need a totally ade-
quate followup program to review, not once a year but continuously,
the fiscal responsibility of the tribes.
In many cases — I don't want to use the word "malfeasance" — but
the inefficiency which sometimes leads to malfeasance is simply a re-
82
suit of the fact that we don't have a sufficiently sophisticated tribal
group or group of individuals operating these programs.
Senator Abourezk. Of course, this would presume that the Secre-
tary would be vested with the authority to make regulations that he
sees would fit or dovetail in with the needs of the Indian tribe and the
Indian people ? Wouldn't that be an improvement over the fact that
they might have standards, and rather rigid standards of construction ?
Mr. Kyl. Yes, sir, I think, however, that I would personally prefer
to have some mutually acceptable language in the bill, because in the
absence of that language, then the Secretary will have to prescribe
all the rules and regulations.
Senator Abourezk. Language that would do what ?
Mr. Kyl. That would actually establish a very close system of re-
view, continuous review, and so on.
Senator Abourezk. By the Secretary ?
Mr. Kyl. Yes, by the Secretary ; but I would rather have some con-
gressional guidelines, at least more inclusive than we had in the bill,
because otherwise what we are going to have unfortunately is a situa-
tion in which tribes who think they are somehow aggrieved by a Sec-
retary's decision are going to be running to the Congress, the House,
and the Senate, and seeking help to change the attitude of the Sec-
retary.
Mr. Chairman, before the meeting started this morning, we had a
little conversation with staff members regarding the possibility of
working some of these matters out together and I want to reiterate at
this point that we certainly stand ready at any moment that is conveni-
ent to you to consider some of the matters in greater detail, and to see
if we can't arrive at something satisfactorily.
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask Mr. Gerard of
our Indian Subcommittee staff to proceed with a question or response
to your statement.
Mr. Gerard. Mr. Kyl, we have been contacted by some of the private
people who are currently engaged in contracts for the operation of
the Bureau schools. Now, on the other side of the argument, they con-
tend that the Federal procurement regulations are so rigid that in nego-
tiating the contracts between the Indian group and the Bureau, that it
is necessary to develop, sometimes, 30-page documents, and when you
are in the area of education, according to their argument, it is a little
more difficult to define the results as opposed to, let's say, if the Bu-
reau were purchasing a piece of hardware where you can set specific
requirements. Its been their recommendation, at least the Indian peo-
ple who contacted the committee, that the bill should be amended
further to exempt the contracts from the Federal procurement regula-
tions to permit the Secretary of the Interior, and in the case of HEW,
the Secretary there, to develop their own rules and regulations that
would probably be more in keeping with the peculiar circumstances of
the Indian people.
They feel the Federal procurement regulations, while desirable for
government in general, have no place in negotiation of Indian
contracts.
Mr. Kyl. May I respond first, that I don't think they have no place,
but I would certainly agree that they ought to be adjusted. And for a
more detailed, accurate response, I would like to defer to Mr. Hawkins
because he is involved in this every day of the year.
83
Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Chairman, I tend largely to agree with Mr.
Gerard's statement. There has been misunderstanding and difficulties
posed by the Federal contracting regulations and as I said previously,
they envision an arms-length relationship with the contractor when, in
fact, the relationship ought to be very different from that.
I would agree, however, that we do need, and I would recommend,
the possibility of our working together to develop, perhaps, an appro-
priate part of the bill which might give the sense of the Congress that
the Government's investment ought to be protected and would make
clear the Government's intent to provide better services to Indians as
a replacement for the Federal contracting regulations.
Senator Abourezk. Of course, Ave don't really want to get into the
business of writing regulations ourselves, but we would be very happy
to work with you on some form of guideline operation and even if it
went into the committee report, if nothing else, I think it would be a
help perhaps to you and to the whole situation, so if you would have
your legal staff work with us, with Mr. Gerard, I think we could
expedite that kind of thing.
Mr. Ktl. We will be pleased to do so at your convenience.
Senator Abourezk. I would like you to provide for the record within
2 weeks' time, if you can, a current listing of all contracts entered into
with tribal organizations pursuant to your existing authority. And
beyond that, would you add contracts that you have entered into with
nontribal Indian organizations or groups and distinguish between
the two.
Mr. Kyl. The second part of that, sir; do you mean relating to
Indians?
Senator Abourezk. Yes; that is what I mean, relating to Indians
I hope the BIA hasn't gone outside of that area yet.
Senator Abourezk. The legislative history of Johnson-O'Malley in-
dicates that the intent of the 1934 act was never to strengthen the local
Indian community but that Johnson-O'Malley was designed to trans-
fer the responsibility for Indian education from the Federal Govern-
ment to the States and to facilitate the assimilation policy then current
in the BIA by encouraging enrollment of Indian students in public
schools. Do you agree with that ?
Mr. Kyl. I have not read all of the legislative history which at-
tended the passage of that act. I know there have been diversions from
that purpose. First let me speak to the difficulties which some public
schools have in managing this particular fund. It is not simply a ques-
tion of somebody trying to take this money for non-Indian purposes.
There are difficulties involved and I believe they would be cleared by
either approach in the two bills we have before us.
The second item I would like to cover is to have our expert in that
field detail very briefly the result of court cases involved in this busi-
ness of State responsibility for education.
Senator Abourezk. Before that I wonder if Mr. Hawkins would like
to make an attempt at answering that question. Do you agree with
that assessment?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, I think there is no question but that the
legislative history of the Johnson-O'Malley Act does show the intent
was to provide for the transfer of Indian students to public schools
84
and what might be called the assimilation of Indians into the main-
stream of American life.
Senator Abourezk. Please proceed.
Mr. Lawson. I think because there is no mention of education in
the Federal Constitution that education then is a responsibility of the
States for the children within that State, and I am sure that applies
to Indian children as well The Federal Government doesn't deny that
because
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if I might stop you there. For example,
the 1868 Treaty, do you know what that treaty contains ?
Mr. Lawson. No; I don't.
Senator Abourezk. If I am not mistaken, I think the responsibility
for educating Indian children lies with the Federal Government. Do
you disagree with that ?
Mr. Hawkins. I can't respond in terms of the treaty, Mr. Chairman'
without knowing the specific treaty and having done some research
on it myself.
Senator Arourezk. I wonder if you might not be willing to qualify
your statement that States have the entire responsibility for educating
Indian children ?
Mr. Kyl. We are still to get to this point of the court cases, and I
would like to have Mr. Lawson address
Mr. Lawson. The money provided by the Federal Government for
the education of children living on trust lands, we understand that —
the States draw on that fund to educate Indian children in public
school districts. The question arose whether or not the education of
children on trust land is State responsibility.
The court determined that no, that the education of military de-
pendants and therefore Indian children is not a State responsibility
but that once a State draws upon 874 for the education of one Indian
child or one military dependent, therefore it then assumes a responsi-
bility for all such children that are eligible.
States have done that. They have drawn upon 874 to educate In-
dian children. Therefore, they have admitted that the education is a
State responsibility.
Senator Fannin. What case are you quoting from, that would
justify that statement?
Mr. Lawson. I don't have the information with me.
Senator Fannin. I would dispute your statement. I think it is all-
encompassing and I think incorrect. I think you can draw some con-
clusions from some of the cases, but I think you are protracting that
far beyond the court cases.
Mr. Hawkins. Could we get the citations for you, Senator Fannin ?
Senator Fannin. Please. I would like to have it. It was never in-
tended, and when we talk about impact, I think you discussed that
somewhat within the line of intent, but unfortunately it was not
carried out to that basis.
As you know, the impact aid was also all-encompassing. It covered
many areas where there was not a need, and unfortunately that was
the greatest problem that was involved. The need was not a consider-
ation in most instances because here we had some of the wealthiest
counties in the United States receiving impact aid and we had many
of the areas in our Nation that were direly in need that received
very little impact aid.
85
Senator Abourezk. I think I might want to adjust one more piece
of correction. The impact money is furnished not because they are
Indian students, but because they come from tax exempt lands.
Senator Fannin. Other facilities were involved, the people involved
were people employed -by the Federal Government. That was so wide
in its coverage that it did not really take care of the need. There
was no relationship between need and the application of the impact
funds, or very little relationship. I wouldn't say no relationship, but
very little.
Mr. Kyl. We don't argue the State has the sole responsibility in this,
and we are not trying to shirk the Federal responsibility.
Senator Fannin. I think we should get that very clear in our mind
because what I think the States have done is assumed a responsibility
in many instances which was not justifiable, and, of course, the States
do have schools on reservations and, unfortunately, we have a dupli-
cation of effort in many instances. But I will wait until my turn to
question comes before I get further into that.
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if your legal staff might not be willing
to prepare a legal memorandum distinguishing and setting out both
the Federal and State responsibilities for educating Indian children.
I think it would be very beneficial in considering this legislation.
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, we will provide that.
[The memorandum follows :]
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, D.G., August 3, 1973.
Hon. Henry M. Jackson,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : This responds to the request of Senator Abourezk, during
the June 1 Indian Affairs Subcommittee hearings on S. 1017, S. 1340, S. 1342, and
S. 1343, for a legal memorandum outlining the respective responsibilities of the
Federal Government and the States for Indian education. No one entity — either
the Federal Government or the States considered collectively — is solely respon-
sible for the education of Indians. Rather, the responsibility is lodged with and
exercised by both entities in certain complicated ways.
I. THE STATES' RESPONSIBILITY
The responsibility of the States with regard to the education of Indians is to
provide, in so far as possible, the opportunity for such education, on the same
terms under which public education is made available to citizens generally. In
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), the United States Su-
preme Court held that the opportunity for public education, "where the State has
undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal
terms." Moreover, the courts have long held that the availability of Federal Indian
schools does not justify turning away Indians from the public schools. United
States v. Dewey County, 14 F. 2d 784 (D.C.S. Dak., 1926), aff'd sub nom. Dewey
County v. U.S. 26 F. 2d 434 (Eighth Circuit, 1928), cert. den. 278 U.S. 649 (1928) ;
Piper v. Big Pine School Dist, 193 Cal. 664, 226 Pac. 926 (1924). It can be fairly
stated, then, that in so far as possible, the States have the basic responsibility to
educate Indians as they do all of their citizens. Indeed, each of the States has
bound itself by statute to provide this "universal" education to all eligible
students.
II. THE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
It is important to note, however, that two factors render State education of
Indians on reservations a difficult task. First, reservation land is held in trust
for Indians by the United States and therefore is not subject to local taxation,
the nearly universal source of funding for American public education. Thus,
the public education of Indians is often a cost which the States must look else-
86
where than the Indian community to meet. (In many cases, the States look to
the Federal Government, which contracts with local educational agencies for the
education of Indians under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, 48 Stat. 596, as amended
by 49 Stat. 1458. )
Second, many Indians live in remote areas of large reservations, very far from
public school facilities. The combination of these factors results in public educa-
tion of some Indians being a herculean task.
Because of the tax exempt status of the trust land and frequent absence of
organized public school districts, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has assumed
responsibility for providing schools. This Federal responsibility for educating
Indians, however, is not tied to any specific, primordial statutory or constitutional
mandate. (Not even those treaties which provide for the education of Indians
specifically impart this duty to the Federal Government.) This is not to say that
the Federal Government has any intention of shirking its responsibilities in
Indian education. Indeed, it is submitted that the United States has a strong
moral call to meet these responsibilities. Rather, the point to be made is simply
that the Government's activities in educating Indians should be considered as
being exercised in lieu of the basic State responsibilities. This analysis is borne
out in practice in that more than two-thirds of Indian children from reservation
areas are currently enrolled in the nublic schools.
In addition to considerations which flow from Indian trust land status, another
major factor has resulted in the Federal Government's assuming some responsi-
bility for Indian education : in some cases the basic education programs offered by
the States to all their citizens are not fully responsive to the special needs of
Indian students. In such instances, the Federal Government has often contracted
with State educational agencies to provide special programs tailored to meet
Indians' needs. Such contracting is generally carried out under authority of the
Johnson-O'Malley Act, supra.
The Federal Government discharges its responsibilities for educating Indian
children in the following ways :
(1) 87,080 Indian students are enrolled in public schools which receive
financial assistance from the Federal government through Johnson-O'Malley
funding.
(2) 53,763 Indian students are enrolled in day and boarding schools con-
ducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(3) 4,025 Indian students live in Federal dormitories and attend public
schools.
(4) 2,222 Indian students attend Indian-controlled schools in Indian com-
munities.
(5) 61,000 Indian students (most of whom are also counted in group 1,
supra) attending public schools are the beneficiaries of Federal "impact aid"
provided to their schools by the Office of Education ; additional resources for
Indian education will be provided through the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare by the newly-funded Title IV of P.L. 92-318.
(6) Indian children in public schools throughout the country whose par-
ents live at the poverty level are provided special educational opportunities
through resources provided by the Office of Education pursuant to the Ele-
mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Sincerely yours,
John Kyl,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if you would also explain to the com-
mittee at this time the criteria used in determining Johnson-O'Malley
contracts ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, the Johnson-O'Malley contracts are pre-
pared subsequent to a plan provided by the prospective contractor,
normally a State department of education. In some instances through
the Buy Indian Act we are contracting with tribal groups for the dis-
tribution of Johnson-O'Malley funds. And in a few instances we are
contracting directly with an individual school district where there are
so few school districts in the State, such as Nebraska, that it would be
inconvenient to go through the State department of education.
87
After review of that State plan or the plan for the purpose of edu-
cating children, and some negotiations, the plan is then approved and
a contract is prepared pursuant to that plan. The contract can be quite
different from one State to another, one area to another, depending
upon the needs of the children. *■«„*„
The criteria have been changing recently in terms of attempting to
move the funding of these programs much more in the direction ol
supplementary programs rather than programs for basic support ol
In a aU n cases the regulations now require that there be tax-exempt
Indian land within the school district as a precondition ot Jonnson-
O'Malley funds. ., ,., *
Senator Abourezk. We note that the per pupil expenditure of
Johnson-O'Malley allocations ranges from less than $100 per child
in some States, to more than $900 per child in others. How do you
explain the discrepancy? .
Mr. Hawkins. I wonder if Mr. Lawson could answer that question
°Mr. Lawson. I think it is based on need, not a per capita expend-
1 "senator Abourezk. Based on need ? How is that criteria determined ?
Mr Lawson. Under the contract with the State.
Mr Hawkins. A number of factors are taken into consideration.
For instance, a judgment as to the adequacy of the basic program,
the adequacy of the tax base on which the school district receives basic
funds, the amount of State aid which is received by a school district
which varies widely from State to State, and the quality of the sup-
plementary program which is being proposed. These are all factors
which enter into the judgment in this respect, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abourezk. Would it be accurate to state that there is no
real uniform criteria for these disbursements of Johnson-O Malley
funds to States, and also no uniform criteria in determining the pur-
pose for which Johnson-O'Malley funds are used?
Mr. Hawkins. This is by and large correct, Mr. Chairman, and
something which needs to be addressed in the very near futureit
Johnson-O'Malley continues as it is or is modified by this bill. We
certainly need to address ourselves to this. ' .
Senator Abourezk. How would you propose to make that criteria
uniform? , nl , ..,
Mr. Hawkins. I think that this would need to be addressed either
through legislation or a combination of legislation and the publish-
ing of new regulations which would address themselves specifically to
the need expressed by school districts and which would provide lor
a more uniform meeting of the specific needs of Indian kids.
Senator Abourezk. Is that ability to make Johnson-O'Malley uni-
form, within the existing authority of the Secretary of the Interior (
Mr. Kyl. May I clarify this first? When you speak of making the
program uniform, you are speaking of a formula which can lead to
a uniform application, rather than uniformity in dollars? Is that
correct ?
Senator Abourezk. Yes.
Mr. Kyl,. Go ahead.
88
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, I think within our present authority we
do have the ability to issue regulations which would provide for a
more uniform distribution of the resources.
Senator Abottrezk. Can we get an idea of when the Secretary in-
tends to do that kind of thing ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, we had hoped this would have happened
previous to now. One of the reasons it has not happened is that the
funding of title IV of the Higher Education Act with HEW pro-
vides for a possibility of conflict or of duplication since some of the
language in that act would duplicate the current expenditure of John-
son-O'Malley funds with public school districts.
It was our hope that the regulations would be issued from HEW,
from the U.S. Office of Education, and that our Johnson-O'Malley
regulations would be modified to supplement those regulations, rather
than to duplicate or conflict with them in any way.
Senator Arourezk. Weren't they in the process of revision before
the act was passed, through ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; they were.
Senator Abottrezk. In public school districts where there is more
than one school community and in one of the school communities
there is heavy Indian enrollment, are the Johnson-O'Malley funds
targeted to the schools which educate Indian children, or do they go
into the general operating budget of the school district as an entirety,
or as a whole ?
Mr. Hawkins. The intent is that these funds be targeted for the
schools enrolling Indian kids.
Senator Abottrezk. What is the practice ?
Mr. Hawkins. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Abottrezk. Understanding the intent, what is the practice ?
Mr. Hawkins. The practice has not always followed intent. Our
review from time to time has indicated this, and we are attempting to
modify contracts now to make certain that the money does flow to the
Indian child and not to the general fund.
Senator Abottrezk. How recent was the last review ?
Mr. Hawkins. I believe we have had reviews as recently as this
past winter in several States. I would have to get you those reviews.
Our Office of Survey and Review has made several audits of various
programs.
Senator Abottrezk. Would part of title II of 1017 solve that
problem %
Mr. Hawkins. It would go a long way toward solving it, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Abottrezk. What further language would be required in
that bill to solve it all the way or at least as far as we could get
with it?
Mr. Hawkins. Other than what is in our report, I am hesitant to
recommend any further language. I think that very specifically this
does target Johnson-O'Malley funds so that we can point to the bill
and say this is the intent of Congress. We would still have flexibility
in meeting the special needs of Indian children since there have been
some changes which indicate that the programs being suggested in
the act are not the only ones covered, but there are others that certainly
can be provided for.
89
One of the things that concerned me in the original bill was that
there was no provision for authorizing funds for what we call pa-
rental costs. As you may know, many Indian families are so poverty
stricken that they do not have the funds for gym clothes, gym shoes,
other kinds of costs that are required if a child goes to high school,
let's say. And as the bill now stands, it has the flexibility which
would permit us to provide for parental costs where required.
Senator Abourezk. I would be interested in having that review.
Does it provide the names of the schools and the school districts
where J-O'M funds are not getting to the Indian children?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, we will be glad to provide it for you.
[Due to the voluminous nature of the material it has been retained
in the committee files.]
Senator Abottrezk. I would like to know if the urban Indian kids
are covered under title IV of the Education Amendments of 1972?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, they are.
Senator Abourezk. What form of monitoring, evaluation, and ac-
countability system does the BIA have for the programs under the
Johnson-O'Malley contract?
Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Chairman, I think that I would have to say
that the monitoring is provided by the various area offices involved
in the Johnson-O'Malley contracts. The education specialists in those
area offices are charged with the monitoring and assistance, if re-
quired, under various Johnson-O'Malley contracts. I might say that,
in fact, we provide a minimal amount of monitoring and we need to
increase this effort rather substantially in the near future in light
of the number of reports we have had.
Senator Abourezk. Yes; I would agree. I think perhaps monitor-
ing hasn't been anywhere near what it should be.
When violations are discovered in the use of Johnson-O'Malley
funds what procedure is used to recover that money?
Mr. Hawkins. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, in only one case
have we requested or withheld funds in the amount of discrepancy
which we have discovered. This was in Alaska this past year. Ordi-
narily I would say that our approach would be to withhold Johnson-
O'Malley funds in the amount of the discrepancy in a subsequent
year's contract. We have not, to my knowledge, gone to a State de-
partment of education and requested a refund of the amount in ques-
tion. In every case, if there is a question, we go to the State and ask
them to comment on it, to determine whether the facts are in fact
correct, and then we have to make a determination as to our approach
toward recovery.
Senator Abourezk. How are Public Law 81-874, Impact Aid Funds,
treated in the Johnson-O'Malley contract?
Mr. Hawkins. The income is treated as basically income to the
school district in the same way that State assistance, basic assistance,
or a local tax income would be treated, and it is our desire to see in-
come of that sort provided sufficiently for the basic operation of the
school. Then we like to see the Johnson-O'Malley funds to come in as
a supplement for special programs specifically for Indian children.
This is our goal and I am hopeful that as we develop the new regu-
lations that they will reflect this.
90
Senator Abourezk. Would you identify the States where Indian
tribes or tribal organizations are contracting for Johnson-O'Malley
funds themselves.
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
and New Mexico.
Senator Abourezk. What is the authority for that contracting?
Mr. Hawkins. I believe the authority is the Buy-Indian Act. And
after we use that authority, then we use the Johnson-O'Malley funds
for funding of the contract.
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if Mr. Gerard might be able to pose a
question to you at this time.
Mr. Gerard. We have been led to understand that the Johnson-
O'Malley contracts that are currently in effect with Indian groups
have been based on a solicitor's opinion regarding the Johnson-O'Mal-
ley program. Could you clarify that either now or for the record.
Mr. Hawkins. May I clarify that for the record ?
Mr. Gerard. If they are based on a solicitor's opinion, I would like to
have that opinion for the record also.
Mr. Hawkins. All right.
[The opinion follows :]
Memorandum
U.S. Department of* the Interior,
Office of the Solicitor,
Washington, D.C., March 26, 1971.
To : Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
From : Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs.
Subject : Proposed contract with the Miccosukee Corp. for the operation of the
Miccosukee Indian Agency.
This responds to your memorandum of March 22, 1971, requesting our review
of the proposed contract with a corporation chartered by the Miccosukee Tribe.
We do not question the authority of the Miccosukee Tribe to create and charter
the Miccosukee Corporation for the purposes of entering into and carrying out the
proposed contract. The power of Indian tribes to charter business corporations for
limited purposes, derived from their inherent internal sovereignty and implied in
and incidental to the express powers granted to the governing body by the tribal
constitution, was recognized in Solicitor's Opinion M-36781 (August 25, 1969),
and we believe the reasoning of that opinion is applicable to the situation here
considered.
The Miccosukee Corporation thus created is, we believe, a legal entity which
may properly be described as a "private corporation" capable of contracting with
the United States under the Johnson-O'Malley Act of April 16, 1934, 48 Stat. 596,
as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 452, for the purposes therein described, viz : "for the edu-
cation, medical attention, agricultural assistance, and social welfare, including
relief of distress, of Indians in such State or Territory."
The purposes of the proposed contract with the Miccosukee Corporation are
couched in terms of the administration of a comprehensive educational and social
welfare program for the Miccosukee Indian people in the vicinity of Frog City,
Florida. To the extent that the performance required by the corporation, and for
which appropriated funds will be expended in payment, conforms to the stated
purposes, the contract is within the ambit of the Johnson-O'Malley Act. We believe
that the acts to be performed by the contractor may be fairly construed as author-
ized by the Johnson-O'Malley Act.
Earle D. Goss.
91
Memorandum
July 13, 1971.
To : Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
From : Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs.
Subject : Authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to enter into a contractual
agreement with two Sioux Community Colleges.
In a memorandum dated May 10, 1971, you requested our opinion as to whether
the Bureau has authority under the Johnson-O'Malley Act (Act of April 16, 1934,
48 Stat. 596, as amended, 25 U.S.C. §§ 452—154), or otherwise, to provide funds to
two Sioux Community Colleges located in South Dakota.
The two colleges involved are the Sinte Gleska College Center of the Brule
Sioux at Rosebud, South Dakota, and the Lakota Higher Education Center of the
Oglala Sioux at Pine Ridge, South Dakota. According to your memorandum and
supplementary information provided by your staff, each of the community col-
leges involved is incorporated under the laws of South Dakota, and each tribe is
organized under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act.
The Johnson-O'Malley Act authorizes contracts to be entered into with "pri-
vate corporations", and while we have not had an opportunity to review the
articles of incorporation or other corporate documents of the two colleges, based
upon information supplied to us that the colleges are incorprated under state law
and assuming that the type of educational services that the colleges propose to
furnish conform to the stated purposes of the act, it is our opinion that both
colleges would qualify as "private corporations" within the meaning of the Act.
It is to be noted that your memorandum also states that the colleges are
"tribally chartered," and it is not entirely clear whether this refers to the
chartering of a corporate entity by the tribe itself pursuant to an exercise of its
inherent internal sovereignty, or whether it simply refers to a designation by the
tribe of the college as the entity which is to meet the higher educational needs
of the tribal members. We feel that since both colleges are in fact said to be in-
corporated under state law, the problems discussed in our memorandum to you
of March 26, 1971, regarding the tribal corporation known as the Miccosukee
Corporation, can be avoided, and it is not necessary to determine whether the two
colleges would qualify as "private corporations" under the "tribal corporate
entity" approach used in the Miccosukee case.
Although contracts for educational services have in the past almost exclusively
involved primary or secondary education, it is our opinion that a literal reading
of the Johnson-O'Malley illustrates that the act itself imposes no such limitation.
The act authorizes the Secretary to enter into a contract "* * * with any State
or Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or with any State university, col-
lege, or school * * *", and it is therefore our opinion that the act does authorize
the contracting for higher educational services of the type proposed by the com-
munity colleges in the present case.
In your letter of June 21, 1971, to Senator Mundt, you indicate that you are
researching the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-648,
84 Stat. 1909) to determine if the Bureau can detail or assign employees to an
institution of higher education and thus meet some of the specific requests of the
colleges in this manner. As you state in your letter, this authority has not been
used by the Bureau or Department to date ; however, it does appear to open new
avenues of assistance to meet the higher educational needs of Indian peoples.
Title IV of the act adds a new subchapter to Chapter 33 of title 5, United States
Code, and Section 3372 thereof provides :
(a) On request from or with the concurrence of a State or local govern-
ment, and with the consent of the employee concerned, the head of an execu-
tive agency may arrange for the assignment of —
(1) an employee of his agency to a State or local government — for work
of mutual concern to his agency and the State or local government that he
determines will be beneficial to both. * * *.
92
(b) This subchapter is authority for and applies to the assignment of —
(1) an employee of an executive agency to an institution of higher educa-
tion ; * * *.
Both the Senate and House Reports in discussing Section 3372(b) have the
following to state:
Private as well as public institutions of higher learning would come under
the purview of this provision. [S. Rep. No. 489, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. 1969)
p. 17 ; H.R. Rep. No. 1733, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) p. 17].
The United States Civil Service Commission on April 5, 1971, filed for publica-
tion in the Federal Register a new Part 334 to Subchapter B of Chapter I of
Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations to prescribe regulations for the ad-
ministration of the aforementioned title IV of the act. Section 334.102(d) [36
Federal Register 6488] defines "institution of higher education" to mean "a pub-
lic or private 4-year college or university or a technical or junior college."
Although because of the relatively recent enactment of Public Law 91-648
there does not appear to be any precedent within the Department for the type of
temporary assignment of employees proposed, since both of the colleges involved
clearly appear to qualify as "institutions of higher education" as that term is
used in the act and defined by regulation, it is our opinion that the general
provisions of Section 3372 quoted above are authority for the temporary assign-
ment of Bureau employees to the colleges, assuming of course, that all require-
ments of Title IV can be met. In this regard, we call your attention to the fact
that while the requirements of Section 3372 are worded in rather general terms,
the regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission, praticularly
§§ 334.105 and 334.106, are quite specific in requiring a written agreement between
the Executive Agency and the institution of higher education recording the
responsibilities and obligations of both parties, written concurrence by the
employee, and periodic reporting as required by the Commission.
Since Section 3372 uses the phrase "State or local government" a question
arises as to whether under this section of the act a Bureau employee could be
temporarily assigned directly to a tribal governing body. In the past, we have
pointed out that an Indian tribal government might qualify as a "public agency"
for purposes of Federal grants-in-aid [see for example Solicitor's Opinion
M-36709 dated August 1, 1967], however, neither the actual definition of "local
government" set forth in Section 3371 nor the legislative history of the act as
set forth in S. Rep. No. 489, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. (1969) and H.R. Rep. No. 1733,
91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) sheds any real light on the problem of whether the
term could be validly construed to include a tribal governing body. In reviewing
the Department's legislative file on S. 11 which was enacted as Public Law
91-648, we note that on August 5, 1969, the Department sent to the Director of
the Bureau of the Budget a report on S. 11 in which it was specifically recom-
mended on page 3 thereof that S. 11 be amended to include governing bodies and
instrumentalities of American Indian tribes. Since Public Law 91-648 did not con-
tain the amendatory language suggested by the Department, we feel that Indian
tribal governing bodies would not be included in the term "local government" in
light of the clear implication in the Departmental report that the term was not,
without amendment, broad enough to include such tribal bodies.
In conclusion, we note the fact that Representative Aspinal in his letter of
April 9, 1971, to the Secretary, points out that in a letter dated April 6, 1971,
Representative Haley advised Assistant Secretary Loesch that he disagreed with
the proposed use of the Johnson-O'Malley Act as authority for the contract with
the Miccosukee Corporation referred to above, and requested that the Department
seek a proper legislative base for such programs before completing the contract.
Representative Aspinall indicates that he joins in that request. It is not entirely
clear from Representative Aspinall's letter whether his reference to the Micco-
sukee Corporation indicates an objection to the use of a tribal corporate entity
as a "private corporation" under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, or whether his ob-
jection is to contracting with any corporation for educational services, even
where the corporation is incorporated under the state law, if in fact it is created
at the instance of an Indian tribe so as to come within the ambit of the act. If
his objection relates only to the former, it is our opinion that the status of the
colleges as corporations under state law would avoid the objection ; if, on the
other hand the actual objection is the latter one suggested, we feel that while the
93
Representative's request may not be legally cognizable by this office in rendering
an opinion on the applicability of the Johnson-O'Malley Act to the present pro-
posals, the letter and the request raise policy considerations for the Bureau, and
in such policy considerations we respectfully defer to your own judgment.
Earle D. Goss.
Senator Abourezk. Would you please describe the manner in which
Johnson-O'Malley is used to support Indian students living in border-
town dormitories but attending public schools ? How are these students
counted for reimbursement to the school district ?
Mr. Hawkins. If memory serves, Mr. Chairman and I will correct
this for the record in the event that I am incorrect, the contracts with
the various school districts where bordertown dormitories exist pro-
vide for full payment by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the cost of
educating those children in that school district. I believe that in some
instances those children have also been counted for State aid but I
would have to get that information for the record. If that is the case,
then, of course, they have gotten double funding, but I will have to get
that for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you. If you would do that we would
appreciate it.
[The information follows :]
In those instances where Indian students cannot live at home and attend pub-
lic schools, a contract is signed with a public school district to permit these
students to live in a dormitory situation and attend the local public school. The
public school district is reimbursed for the educational services provided to
these students. The Bureau of Indian Affairs pays the room and board expenses.
The public school district is reimbursed for the total cost of each student
enrolled.
Senator Abourezk. Would you describe to the committee the type
of research projects that would be funded in S. 1017 if enacted ?
Mr. Hawkins. Let me just give you one example. I think that not
nearly enough research has been done as to factors that might keep
Indian children in public schools. We currently have some minimal
research going on at the moment as to the factors which make children
drop out of public schools. That might be only one example, but good-
ness, the range w T ould be very wide indeed.
Mr. Gerard. Mr. Hawkins, at the present time the Bureau is fund-
ing a number of special projects, I believe, at Penn State, Harvard,
and several other colleges and universities. As I understand your au-
thorities now they are limited to the extent that you really do not have
project money that is necessary then to finance Penn State and Har-
vard projects out of regular operating funds. Is that correct?
Mr. Hawkins. That is correct, Mr. Gerard, out of the so-called
higher education fund which we receive.
Mr. Gerard. Would the R. & D. proposal of 1017 be useful to the
Bureau in supporting such projects so you would not have to draw the
money out of the scholarship funds ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gerard. This type of thing would be helpful ?
Mr. Hawkins. I hadn't really contemplated that kind of R. & D.,
but you are right, that could be certainly funded.
98-143 O - 73 -- 7
94
Senator Abourezk. In part F of 1017, on page 24, I would like to
know if you feel the authorization is sufficient to carry out the mandate
in that part ?
Mr. Hawkins. Which section ?
Senator Abourezk. Part F on page 24.
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir ; I do.
Senator Abourezk. I have one question left and it is a matter of
digging out some information for us which shouldn't be too compli-
cated. I wonder if you would provide for the committee the total
amount of Johnson-O'Malley funding for each of the past 10 fiscal
years and the separate State allocations for that funding?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Would it be useful to include
in that the number of Indian children funded ?
Senator Abourezk. Yes.
Mr. Hawkins. All right, I will do that for you.
[The information follows:]
95
2 I
oo
ce
<
<
o
00
O
O
on
o
>-
CO
o_
Q.
O
Q£
0.
0-
<
ooo r-*
ooo CSJ
OOO cn
ooo o
fsOO •— <
«-h CVJIT) •-«
ooo
ooo
ooo
(Win o
csjcsjco
.— « csjm
ooo
OOO
ooo
jWiWo"
roroco
ooo £
ooo °°
ooo °°_
oo"o~ 55
^-«CsJ to
ooo S
ooo 2
ooo ^
csioor- *■*
ooo
ooo
ooo
fSJOOO'
oo in co
CSj*3-^-
ooo
ooo
ooo
oo'iW
Oin co
■*T«d-CO
O OOf— • OOCTJ
o oo«* oom
O OOM OOO
o o*oo"o" OtWcvJ
z« o^^ ocnjco
_« tO CSJ— I
oom o o o
O OC\J CD O O
o ocn o oo
o lo o ooo
O C\J o oo o
CO CM 0O OOO
r-TiWo ooo"
O'-"-' in r-^r
.— t O Csj «— •
ooo ooo
ONO CD O O
ocn co o o o
oo"iWo inoin
^h •— <in to oo to
OOO O O O
ooo ooo
o oo ooo
©~o in iWiWm
oo csj oo r-^coin
,— I *& COCSj
ooo
ooo
ooo
ooo
ooo
ooo
ooo
CD CD CD
ooo
©~ooco
r-. ooin
tO CM
OOO
ooo
ooo
r^^-m oo<t^
o i— * CsJO
o in csj co
Ocsi mo
Csi2 "^sO
csj ^^ r^*
cn in
r— csj
OCsl
OO
CD CD
OO
t-Tf-T f
in o
CslCD
cn in
in o
en cd
oo o
csjoo
in to
oo
oo
oo
iWo"
<O(0
oo
oo
Csj CO
oo
CD CD
OO
o*o~
ocn
o
oo
CD CD
oo
«-**-T ro
oo
2°
2°
Oo
^h •— ' csj ,—>
o csjg
,-H CSJ-^-
oo
oo
oo
2°
2°
CO*"o
^^
OOO
CD CD CD
OOO
g S °
ooo
OOO
ooo
oo
oo
oo
o'o'o"
in cn co
minim
CSJ ©
tWo'iW
O0r- tCSJ
°~2~
in *&
* OJ r
oo
og
oo
ooo
ooo
ooo
fOOO
o
CO
o
ooo ogo
ooo oo o
OOO o°°
oo~o" r-Toopo
to i — ts> c*j*f ^
ooo
ooo
ooo
o'irfcW
oo co in
ooo
ooo
ooo
o'ltTcti"
0O OOLO
o *— ' oo
oooo
oooo
oooo
o"o"o"o
m^ifi om
or) <r -h — '
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
lf> to l/T*
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
So
So
Oo
OirT
§2
2°
oo
oo
o~W
oo
o~-
oo
oo
oo
Win
inrs
o^
ooo
O CO) CD
OOO
o'o'd
ocn •—
cn^
ooo
ooo
OOCD
in in in
r-^o
encsj
ooo
CD CD CD
OOO
iWiWo
co<r *-•
co csj
CDOO
OOO
OOO
iWino
oo^r csj
r^. csj
^_T — * ~< ^f •— •
o o
-a: _*
TO TO
OO
TCI
cz
I O o
^00
TO ^<g ■- O
2^«!>o *s S S c « ™
oj — 5 -* mSS." S- c ^s
- n fl) i. "i o > 3 to — r 2
P — m Q0*= > = CO ^ ^ O
C — OJirJ
E--
o-oz-g^
S^°2°oS-^;
i o
oQ
o __
.„
a> a> —
o
J I
oo
OO
OO
CD.-H
cd in
CD Csj
oo
mo
CSICD
OO
mo
cn cd
OO
OO
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo"
ooo
co to
oo
CD CD
oo
o"o~
in cn
oo
coco
oo
mo"
r-*o
*3-cn
ooooo
ooooo
ooeooo
iWtWr-To cd
oo csi r* in .— <
^o CO
ooooo
CD CD CD CD CD
ooooo
tWiW«— «"o o
oo csi r-. in ^h
«g-o co
oo I oo
oo I m
OO P»
o""in I oo"
incsj I r^»
oo
oo
oo
TO TO
O TO
■ss«
O ra-
ti
jot*
|£iS
o 3
TO O
96
Senator Abotjrezk. I have one other question. The Congress ap-
propriated funds earmarked for construction of pubic schools on
several Indian reservations such as Bocky Boy in Montana and one
or two others in North Dakota. Why were these funds impounded ?
Mr. Hawkins. These funds were impounded as a result of the need
to provide for a cooling of the inflationary trend in this country, as
were construction funds for a number of other projects nationwide
funded by the Federal Government. I understand that all of the funds
will be released as of the 1st of July of the year and that those con-
struction projects will get underway.
Senator Abotjrezk. It was only $500,000 for Rocky Boy itself ?
Mr. Hawkins. That is correct, but they were part of a larger im-
poundment concerning both public school and BIA funding construc-
tion.
Senator Abourezk. I just have a comment to make and I don't expect
you to respond to it at all unless you want to.
We talked earlier with HEW people about the impoundments they
made in the Indian health money and, of course, now we are talking
about Indian education money being impounded to stop "fueling the
inflationary fires," I am curious to know why the Indian people them-
selves have to contribute to this great effort on the part of the Nation
to stop inflation, yet neither the military *nor the space program has
been asked to do that. I don't expect you to answer that, but I think
it is a lame excuse on the part of the administration each time wehearit,
and I expect that as soon as the national security arguments — run out,
there will be some other excuse as to why education and health needs
can't go forward and not destroy the economy.
I doubt very seriously that $500,000 is going to destroy the economy
of the country as far as Federal spending. I wanted to say that for the
record.
Senator Fannin.
Senator Fannin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am very pleased to hear from you this morning
and I know that you take a very practical look at the problems
involved, Mr. Hawkins, and all of you here. We all have the same
goal and that is to have the very best education program obtainable
for our Indian youngsters, but we have so much criticism of the edu-
cational program of our Indian children.
For the record what is the Bureau's present position regarding
Indian education ? In other words, are we making progress or standing
still?
Mr. Kyl. No ; I think Mr. Hawkins can respond to that. He is the
individual who administers the programs, the head of the Office, and
I think he could respond to that directly, sir.
Mr. Hawkins. I think the Bureau has made very substantial prog-
ress in Indian education in the past 5 to 10 years with the help of the
Congress. The funding for Indian education has increased substan-
tially — we have been able to do things which we have never been able
to before.
I cite one example — 4 years ago we had 1,500 Indian students who
were being assisted by the BIA in colleges. Today we have more than
13,000 Indian students in colleges. We hope this will increase in the
years to come. I might say that 10 years ago we had almost nothing
97
in the way of special education programs for Indian kids who had
handicaps. Today we estimate that probably one-fourth of the Indian
kids who have handicaps are being assisted in one way or another
through special education programs. This is not to say that we have
solved the problem, not to say we have gone as far as we need to go.
We need to go much, much further, but I don't think in terms of the
resources made available and the programs that are being developed
that we are completely at the bottom of the heap.
Senator Fannin. I certainly agree that there has been progress
made, but I also know of the tremendous criticism that is being made
and I feel very sincere about the obligation of the Federal Government
to assume this obligation, to assume the cost of Indian education pro-
grams where the reservation children are concerned.
What is your objective for the use of the Johnson-O'Malley fund,
basic education in lieu of the tax base on enrichment or supplemental
funding ?
Mr. Hawkins. Our basic direction is for enrichment and supple-
mental funding rather than for basic program. However, I think we
do have to recognize that in some places, without Johnson-OTVfalley
funds, there just would not be sufficient money for a basic program, and
in those instances I think consideration has to be provided.
It seems to me that the bill under consideration would go pretty far
toward resolving that particular problem.
Senator Fannin. Personally, I feel that funding the basic costs of
education is absolutely essential and that the Federal Government has
the obligation and should furnish the funds. In lieu of the nonexistent
tax base and for many other reasons, I can't agree that it should just be
for supplemental, although I think supplemental is very important, but
when we talk about the impact funds that have been available and
then not being available now, we talk about all the programs, I think
the Federal Government is relaxing rather than carrying through and
increasing the support of Indian education.
Would you agree that it does cost more in educating our youngsters ?
In many instances, I think you are familiar with it, where the pub-
lic schools have picked up the differential and have not received the
funding for the cost involved.
Mr. Hawkins. No question about that, sir.
Senator Fannin. If you were asked what factor stands out as a
major contributor to poor performance among Indian students which
would you choose?
Mr. Hawkins. I would choose the general poverty of life on Indian
reservations, the economic level at which most Indians or many Indians
live on reservations. I think that we are fooling ourselves if we feel
that education alone is going to provide the major difference for the
future of the Indian kids who are now in school. I think we are going
to have to attack the problem on a total basis, in particular providing
the economic impetus to Indian reservations for jobs, and once the
jobs and the economic base is sound and secure, I think we will find
a dramatic increase in the education levels of Indian kids.
Senator Fannin. I certainly agree with you, and we have worked in
the State of Arizona trying to get more industry on the reservations,
and develop more economic opportunities on the reservation.
98
We do have many barriers, as you know, but I am very pleased to
hear you express your conclusions in the manner in which you have,
and I think this would help considerably in solving some of these
problems.
I continue to hear there exists a high dropout rate among Indians
attending institutions of higher learning. What is the extent of the
dropout problem at the present time ?
Mr. Hawkins. At the present time the best figures that we have
for Indian young people in institutions of higher education on a na-
tionwide basis show that the dropout rate is about 12 percent. I would
hasten to say this is down from a dropout rate of 19 percent 4 years
ago, and we anticipate that as we are able to better educate those young
people going into colleges, that the dropout rate will decrease.
Mr. Ktl. May I add one factor ? In some of the special Indian edu-
cation programs, we have now turned to a discontinued education
program. If it is necessary for the Indian man or woman to drop
out of school for a time, we now make provision in many institutions
for taking them back in at a short time later so that there is no inter-
ruption, no disruption in the training. In this respect I guess these
figures might be distorted a little bit, but I think it is forward looking
policy that has been adopted. ,
Senator Fannin. Do they count those people in the dropout rate ?
Mr. Kyl. Can you answer that %
Mr. Hawkins. The policies with regard to dropouts are governed
by the policies of the institution concerned, and one college may have
a different policy than another with regard to when a young person
is counted as a dropout. We depend on satisfies from the institutions
to determine the dropout rate and some will not count, for instance,
a student who comes in and says for what reason he is going to have
to discontinue school for a period of time, but says that does plan on
coming back.
Senator Fannin. Has this same procedure been followed previous-
ly so you have a comparison ?
Mr. Hawkins. No ; it is relatively new.
Senator Fannin. Has the Bureau itself made any effort to direct
a program to meet this problem ? You have partly covered that but
do you have any definite program to meet the dropout problem other
than what you have stated ?
Mr. Kyl. The answer to that question is, "Yes." Again it would vary
among the institutions. But on those through which BIA has a most
direct control there is a well-established program now. It does not
operate without difficulty. The basic part of the program that I think
is crucial is this, whether the individual drops out or whether he
finishes the training and takes a job. We do have a much better evalua-
tion program which sees the institution following that youngster, try-
ing to get him back in school if he is temporarily out, following him
in his occupational pattern after he has finished the training. This
followup is a very, very important matter and it is being employed
with much greater emphasis today than it has in the past. The same
thing is true in public school education and non-Indian education.
Senator Fannin. Then you are communicating with the schools,
the institutions, in this regard and working with them as far as trying
to curb the dropout problem ?
99
Mr. Kyl. Yes, sir.
Senator Fannin. Has the Bureau considered establishing a program
to assist college and university counselors in dealing with the Indian
students?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, we have. In a few instances we have directed
funds to special tutoring and special counseling. The trouble is that
those funds also must come from our higher education allocation and
we have had such a demand on it that we have not felt we are able to
divert many of those funds for that purpose when so many applicants
for scholarships are coming in.
Senator Fannin. Has the Bureau ever considered making available
to the colleges and universities a team of professional counselors to
evaluate on tight Indian counseling programs?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir, we do have a very good evaluation team
that can be available. I am not aware that we have used — no, we have
not used the evaluation team to look at these particular problems. May-
be we should.
Senator Fannin. I would think it would be essential to do so. We
are trying in every way possible to curb the problem and to assist the
schools. I hope that you will.
Do you see "Indian control" as a basic policy of the Federal Govern-
ment toward Indian education, or as part of a more comprehensive
program ? In other words, what are your goals ?
Mr. Kyl. Sir, I don't believe I understand exactly.
Senator Fannin. When you talk about Indian control, do you see it
as a basic policy of Federal Government for Indian education, or as
part of a more comprehensive program, what is your goal in that
respect ?
Mr. Hawkins. The goal is to provide for whatever is desired —
where it is desired, the control of the local education program by
Indian people.
Senator Fannin. When we are talking about public schools on the
reservation, how does this tie together ?
Mr. Hawkins. That, of course, is a more complex problem than the
BIA-operated schools. In some instances Indian school board mem-
bers are in the majority and there is actually Indian control of that
public school district by Indians. In other situations where that is not
the case, we do provide or attempt to provide for an Indian voice in
relationship to the use of Johnson-O'Malley money or other funds by
having a parent committee or a committee formed of Indians who ad-
vise the school district regarding the use of those funds and their ef-
fect on their children.
Senator Fannin. If the Congress should approve legislation provid-
ing for increased control will the department provide professional
staff to assist them ?
Mr. Hawkins. That is our intent, certainly, sir.
Senator Fannin. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission for my
legislative assistant Mr. Rick Lavis to ask a few questions.
Mr. Lavis. This is such a rare occasion for the staff to ask questions,
you will have to bear with me. I have just a few now to ask.
Senator Abourezk. This is sponsored by the new democratic and
open rules of the Interior Committee.
100
Mr. Lavis. Is it your policy to deemphasize boarding school educa-
tion now ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes; it is our policy to deemphasize the boarding
school education.
Mr. Lavis. How are you implementing that ?
Mr. Hawkins. In several ways. First of all, by the construction of
more facilities on reservations where children can live at home or
close to home and go to school.
Second, by the new emphasis on the construction of highways and
roads on reservation areas so that more day schools can be built and
bus routes can provide service to the various homes. These are the two
major ways. And funding contract schools also.
Mr. Kyl. His word was "deemphasize" the boarding school.
Mr. Lavis. What has been done to provide classrooms closer to ele-
mentary children's homes ? Maybe you could provide us with informa-
tion of how many children of that young age are boarding or having
to leave home from their parents ?
Mr. Hawkins. Let me provide that for the record.
Mr. Lavis. If you could provide any other information as to how
close schools are, what progress you are making in that area.
[The information follows :]
Location
Classrooms
Number of
Students
Spaces on reservation
boarding schools from ORBS
Students
Classrooms
Fiscal year 1967:
Newhalen, Alaska.
Kodiak-Dormitory.
Akiachak, Alaska.
Tooksook, Alaska.
Kotzebue, Alaska.
Many Farms, Ariz.
Rock Pont, Ariz...
Gray Hill, Ariz....
Santa Rosa, Ariz..
Porcupine, S. Dak.
Total
Fiscal year 1968:
Atka, Alaska
Mondalton, Alaska.
Togiak, Alaska
Chevak, Alaska
Kipnuk, Alaska
Quinhagak, Alaska.
Wainwright, Alaska.
Savoonga, Alaska..
J. F. Kennedy, Ariz.
Kyle, S. Dak
Peever, S. Dak
Sisseton. S. Dak...
Total.
Fiscal year 1969:
Tetlin, Alaska
Deering, Alaska
Gambell, Alaska
Emmonak, Alaska...
Sleetmute, Alaska...
Golovin, Alaska
Noorvik, Alaska
Alakanuk, Alaska...
Venetie, Alaska
Pilot Station, Alaska.
Chocktaw, Miss
Belcourt, N. Dak
Loneman, S. Dak
26
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
3
6
35
16
26
30
60
60
60
270
150
150
780
30
90
120
60
60
60
60
60
60
180
90
180
1,050
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
480
780
120
150
1,020
1,026"
34
"34
2,190
73
Total.
56
1,680
101
Location
Classrooms
Number of
Students
Spaces on reservation
boarding schools from ORBS
Students
Classrooms
Fiscal year 1970:
Aberdeen:
Allen
Lower Brule
Cherry Creek
Standing Rock
Twin Buttes
Fort Totten
Loneman
Kyle (Little Mound)
Albuquerque:
Isleta
Jemez
Santa Clara
Laguna
Acomita
Zia
Navajo:
Lake Valley
Marianno Lake
Cottonwood
Wide Ruins
Seba DalkaL
Pine Springs. ..-
Rough Rock
Teec Nos Pos
Cove.
Lukachukai
Phoenix:
Second Mesa_.
Cibecue
Cedar Creek (J.F.K.)
Cherokee
Total
1971 kindergarten construction:
Aberdeen:
Fort Thompson
Little Eagle
Bullhead
Dunseith
Navajo:
Low Mountain, Ariz
Red Rock, Ariz
Pinon, Ariz..
Rocky Ridge, Ariz
Alamo, N. Mex
Narlini, Ariz
Pueblo Pintado, N. Mex.
Juneau:
Chevak
Mount Village
Emmonak
Phoenix:
Lehi
Moencopi
Total
1972 kindergarten construction:
Aberdeen:
Red Scaffold, S. Oak....
Fort Totten, N. Dak
White Horse, S. Dak....
Loneman, S. Dak
Albuquerque:
Taos, N. Mex
San Felipe, N. Mex
San Juan, N. Mex
Juneau:
Kipnuk, Alaska
Mapakiak, Alaska
Unalakleet, Alaska
Kiana, Alaska
Kwathluk, Alaska
Tununak, Alaska
Kotlik, Alaska
Phoenix:
Second Mesa, Ariz
Santa Rosa, Ariz
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
39
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
40
40
20
80
40
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
60
20
20
20
40
680
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
340
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
102
Location
Classrooms
Number of
Students
Spaces on reservation
boardng schools from ORBS
Students
Classrooms
Navajo:
Pinon, Ariz
Red Lake, Ariz
Crystal, N. Mex
Nehnanerad, N. Mex.
Rock Point, Ariz
Total.
1973:
Albuquerque: Santa Clara, N. Mex.
Aberdeen:
FortTotten, N. Dak
Loneman, S. Dak
Mandaree, N. Dak.
White Shield, N. Dak
Juneau:
Bethel, Alaska
Pilot Station
Gambell
Navajo:
ChiChilTah, N. Mex
Rocky Ridge, Ariz
Kinlichee, Ariz
Phoenix:
Kerwo, Ariz
Vaya Chin, Ariz
Cibecue, Ariz
Total
Grand total.
22
305
20
20
20
20
20
440
20
20
20
20
20
20
~26"
5,170
200
1
i
20
20
20 --~
10
200 - —
2,390
79
Mr. Kyl. May I respond to that in illustrating the problem we have.
Back in 1961 the Navajo Tribe indicated they wanted to have their
high school youngsters closer to home. They are sent 400 to 500
miles away from home up to Brigham City to a BIA school. To the
present time the BIA has tried to construct classrooms on the Navajo
reservation at the strategic locations based on population, need, and
so on. Therefore, the contemplation is that we will phase out that
school at Brigham City and take these people who would attend that
school back to the actual reservation area.
Well the school board that operates the Brigham City school
doesn't like that idea much, but the tribal council has asked us to
provide the schools back at the reservation. There are some impedi-
ments toward achieving that purpose, but it is our purpose there and
in other instances to abide by the desire of the Indian tribe.
Mr. Lavis. Part of our concern, Senator Fannin's concern, has been
the inability of the Public Law 815 program to deliver the necessary
construction funds to public schools serving Indian children on the
reservation.
Mr. Hawkins, you have been traveling throughout Indian reserva-
tions for a number of years. Could you assess for us the effectiveness
of that program at the present time ? Have you seen the public schools
serving Indian children ; are they adequate or inadequate ?
Mr. Hawkins. I would have to respond, Mr. Lavis, that there are
many, many inadequate public schools and that the backlog of con-
struction for public schools serving Indian kids is very large. We were
directed, as you may recall, by the House subcommittee last year to do
a study of the construction needs and we have estimates now that there
103
is a backlog of construction need somewhere in the neighborhood of
$80 and $150 million right now needed. These are public schools.
At the present level of funding, Public Law 815 is not meeting that
need.
Mr. Lavis. This study, and I have seen the preliminary report, is
citing $80 to $1 50 million backlog ?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
Mr. Lavis. The Department of HEW has provided us with their eli-
gibility list for funding under 815 in which there are 39 schools and
applications totaling some $45 million. Those are the ones that have
eligibility right now, and you are going beyond that. You are obviously
talking about other schools as well.
Mr. Hawkins. We are talking about other schools also. We are mak-
ing what I believe will be the most comprehensive facility need study
ever made of schools educating Indian kids.
Mr. Lavis. Let me ask you a couple of questions about S. 1017. If
S. 1017 should become law, how would the Department go about allo-
cating such construction funds ? Is there any point of reference that
you might want to use in doing so, have you given any thought to that
yet?
Mr. Hawkins. We have only given preliminary thought to this par-
ticular problem. Clearly there would have to be a method for appli-
cation which has not been thought through yet. There would have to be
a method of assigning priorities based on a whole series of things,
including the bonding ability of that school district and the numbers of
Indian children in it, the resources available to it, I really would hesi-
tate at this point to do more than to say that we would have to begin
developing the methodology by which we would allocate the funds. I
suspect we would want to go to our National advisory education board
to get their opinion. We would want to review it with the committees
of Congress and then finally implement it.
Mr. Lavis. What you are saying, it seems to me, is to indicate that
what you are going to have to have is some reorganization of the duties
or responsibilities of present offices in the bureau, or perhaps estab-
lishing a new office itself to handle the construction portion if this bill
should be enacted. Would you agree with that ?
Mr. Hawkins. That might be required.
Mr. Lavis. I only have one other series of questions.
You were asked a few minutes ago by the Senator with regard to
progress of Indian education — just recently a report was issued by the
U.S. Civil Rights Commission concerning the economic, health, and
education problems of the Indians in the southwest, specifically, New
Mexico and Arizona, in which they cited again a series of measure-
ments or statistics which they used to justify their concern about the
quality of Indian education as well as health and employment. At the
same time, they cited another series of figures which were used some
4 years ago in the special subcommittee on Indian education report,
Let me ask you if the following are still true. This is from that Sen-
ate Committee's special report: "Forty thousand Navajo Indians —
nearly a third of the entire tribe — are functional illiterates in English."
Is that still true today ?
Mr. Hawkins. I find it difficult to respond to that, because I don't
have any more recent statistics.
104
Mr. Lavis. More recent than 4 years?
Mr. Hawkins. More recent than 4 years ago, that I am aware of.
We may have them.
Mr. Lavis. Let me go down the list and you can respond whether you
have them or not.
Mr. Kyl. May I make a statement ? What is in this case the definition
of the term "functional illiterate" ? There are many adult Navajos, a
high percentage of adult Navajos, who are not fluent in English, don't
write English. They do speak Navajo. Are we talking about the num-
ber of adult Navajos who do not speak or write English, or under-
stand English ?
Mr. Lavis. Mr. Secretary, you are getting ahead of me. I will make
my point when I get through here and I think that will satisfy your
question.
The average educational limit of Indians is 5 school years.
Mr. Hawkins. Improved.
Mr. Lavis. Drop out rates are twice the national average ?
Mr. Hawkins. I believe that is decreased some, but still high.
Mr. Lavis. Only 18 percent of the students go to college. The
national average is 50 percent.
Mr. Hawkins. With the availability of additional funding, a num-
ber more go to college than did 4 years ago.
Mr. Lavis. Only 3 percent of the Indians enrolled in college gradu-
ate. The national average is 10 percent.
Mr. Hawkins. That has improved substantially.
Mr. Lavis. The point I am trying to raise here — and perhaps I
should pose it in the form of a question — is whether or not the statis-
tics are on point? Are they current, are they satisfactory, are they
complete, are they appropriate, are they relevant ?
Mr. Hawkins. The statistics are out of date by now, Mr. Lavis, and
we are in the process of developing a new set of statistics, and in con-
cert with HEW who now have new concerns about Indian education,
and I hope that before many more months have passed a new statistical
set will be available which will indicate where there have been improve-
ments and where, perhaps, there have not been improvements.
Mr. Lavis. Could you tell me a little bit about the Bureau's capacity
for evaluating statistics or getting the statistics, getting that kind of
data by which you make those kinds of judgments? Obviously, as legis-
lators we are continually confronted by these figures as justification
for adopting new policies or modifying existing ones. It seems to me
that it is time that we confront the truthfulness of such statistics,
or measurements, themselves. If our policies toward Indian education
is to make any sense, we must have reliable statistics by which to
measure progress or lack of it.
Mr. Kyl. This is a very difficult statistical base, and it is almost
impossible to evaluate one set of statistics over another. Let me get
very basic about this.
When we try to settle a Navajo-Hopi dispute we try to find out
where the people are living. We take census figures and even a per-
functory review of those census figures indicates that at best they
are inadequate. We take pictures. We have sets of pictures of the area,
105
aerial photographs, showing the number of hogans. We compare the
sets of pictures, one more recent with one in the past, to find out now
where the location of hogans, that were not there 4, 5, 10 years ago.
Then it is a process of going to each one of those places to find out
whether it is a second residence on a sheep area or whether it is the
sole residence. The number of people varies by month to month, and
the best you get is a trend.
We know, for instance, that the basis for the statistics today con-
tain different standards than it did 5 years ago or 10 years ago. As an
illustration, the poverty level is a constantly accelerating thing. The
tendency, the trend is about all that you can measure.
In the case of the Zuni Tribe, I believe next year they will graduate
more college people than they have graduated in all time to this date.
This is the right trend. I think it is Secretary Butz who says, if you
are 1 mile from hell and moving toward it you are worse off than if
you are 1 foot from hell and moving away from it.
Every statistic we have on dropouts, college graduates, on the num-
ber of children in school, is improved. But the results certainly are not
satisfactory yet. The ultimate goal is to see to it that all of the children
have the opportunity for advanced education. We will also try to fol-
low up those who have dropped out so we can get them back into
school.
Education is not simply a matter of classrooms and teachers. Also
involved are the economic status, distance, a whole lot of factors, which
obviously have to be improved. There is no lack of desire to improve
Indian education.
We have wasted a lot of money, we have misdirected a lot of money.
That situation is better. We think either of the bills we are considering
will be a measurable help in improving the situation further because
they do answer what we recognize as specific problems which have
genuine impact.
Mr. La vis. I can't quarrel with what you are saying. All I am asking
is, should Congress be aware of providing you with the tools and neces-
sary resources to better equip yourself to organize for statistical ca-
pacity ? That is all. Do you need additional authorization for acquiring
the technological capacity to give us better figures?
Mr. Hawkins. Not really, Mr. Lavis. We are not at this point or-
ganized in terms of a major research effort to provide these kinds of
statistical detail, and I guess we may need to do more in this direction.
Mr. Lavis. Thank you.
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Secretary and members of the staff, that
concludes the questions we have, and I want to thank you very much
for your attendance at the hearings again today. We appreciate the
information that you have given us and also for your very apparent
dedication to improving this situation.
Mr. Kyl. We do want to work with you. I reiterate, we are at your
beck and call.
Senator Abourezk. The next witness is Mr. Valentino Cordova,
chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Council, from Albuquerque,
N. Mex.
Do you have people with you, Mr. Cordova, or are you by yourself ?
106
STATEMENT OF VALENTINO CORDOVA, CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIAN
PUEBLO COUNCIL, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.; ACCOMPANIED BY
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS; JUAN B. ABEITA, VICE
CHAIRMAN AND PAST GOVERNOR OF ISLETA PUEBLO; GILBERT
LUCERO, GOVERNOR OF ZIA PUEBLO ; GOVERNOR CLYDE SANCHEZ
OF ACOMA PUEBLO; PETER CHESTNUT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE BOARD
Mr. Cordova. I have people with me.
Senator Abourezk. Have them sit at the table and please introduce
them as they are seated.
Mr. Cordova, before you introduce the members of your panel, we
have just received your written statement which is several pages long
and you have a number of amendments that you recommend in this
statement. I wonder if we might ask you rather than to read the entire
statement along with the amendments, if you might summarize your
opposition. I see you are opposed to the bill. Would you, or any mem-
bers of your staff summarize why you are opposed to it, without read-
ing all of the technical amendments ?
Mr. Cordova. This is what I intended to do. I had been in touch
with Mr. Gerard prior to this and the detailed testimony will be sub-
mitted, but I did want to summarize what we had submitted.
Senator Abourezk. Fine; your entire testimony will be inserted in
the record and printed in full.
I want to also compliment you and your group for the suggestion
which has been written in the bill on page 20, as part D, the youth
intern program, section 210. We want to thank you for your suggestion
which has been incorporated in the bill because it is a valuable, very
useful thing in this entire Indian education program. This is some-
thing recommended by your group last year.
Mr. Cordova. Thank you.
Senator Abourezk. Please proceed, and I would like you to start by
introducing your panel.
Mr. Cordova. The gentleman at my far left is Governor Clyde
Sanchez of Acoma Pueblo, the gentleman next to him is Mr. Gilbert
Lucero, the governor of Zia Pueblo and the gentleman next to me on
my left is our executive director for the Johnson-O'Malley program.
Mr. Peter Chestnut, The gentleman on my right is the former gov-
ernor of Isleta Pueblo, Juan B. Abeita. These are all members of out
New Mexico Board of Regents for the Johnson-O'Malley program.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the testimony submitted
by our delegation on behalf of the All Indian Pueblo Council and the
New Mexico Indian Education Board of Regents can be summarized
as follows.
We oppose passage of this bill as it is written. In its present form it
proposes no new idea in Indian education, but pulls into one act pro-
visions currently found in the Johnson-O'Malley Act, Public Law
815, the act- authorizing the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and educa-
tion bills which give money to colleges and universities. To accomplish
the ends of the bill as written, all that is required is adequate funding
for these existing programs.
In certain areas, such as requiring funds to be used for basic sup-
port instead of supplemental programs to meet the special needs of
107
Indian students, the bill seems to retreat from progress already
achieved.
We, however, believe that the Senate wishes to continue on the path
of greater Indian involvement in education. For this reason we sug-
gest the following amendment :
One, change the definition of "Indian" and "tribal Governing body"
to fit the historical method of selection of tribal officials used by most
Pueblo Tribes.
Senator Abourezk. I wonder if we might try to discuss each one of
these as }^ou go through them. How would you change that definition ?
Mr. Cordova. Historically the Pueblo Indians have not had an elec-
tive scheme where the majority votes for the tribal leader.
Senator Abourezk. And you don't have one now ?
Mr. Cordova. Sixteen of our Pueblos do not elect our Governors.
There are three that do elect our Governors. However. 16 of them are
appointed by the religious head of the Pueblo.
Senator Abourezk. I think we can incorporate language that will
take care of that, because a lot of tribes do have elected bodies, but I
think we can make it inclusive to Indian groups who do not elect them
according to the most recent process.
Mr. Cordova. We just didn't want to be left out.
Senator Abourezk. Go ahead.
Mr. Cordova. Two, all Federal employees to be detailed to Indian
tribes for periods mutually agreed upon, rather than only for a specified
time period.
Senator Abourezk. Which section does that refer to?
Mr. Cordova. Page 7, line 9, where it specified that Government em-
ployees can be detailed for 3 to 6 months, and 3 more months, if
necessary.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you. That is a good suggestion. We will
take that into consideration on the markup of this bill.
Mr. Cordova. Three, require the Secretary of Interior or Health,
Education, and Welfare to contract with Indian tribal groups to pro-
vide services if they so desire.
Senator Abourezk. Where are you specifically referring to there?
Mr. Cordova. Page 5, lines 18 and 19, section 102.
In other words, we are opposed to the word "discretion".
Senator Abourezk. We thank you for your suggestion. Let's proceed.
Mr. Cordova. Four, delete sections 203(a) (4) and (5) which require
the funds to go for basic support and which spell out the kinds of
supplemental programs which can be funded.
Senator Abourezk. Would you give your reasoning behind that.
Mr. Cordova. Apparently what we interpret in the law is that the
Johnson-O'Malley funds would be channeled to go to basic support.
In New Mexico none of the Johnson-O'Malley funds are used for basic
support. A 100 percent of those fimds go to supplemental programs.
Senator Abourezk. This is Mary Gereau. I would like her to be up
here to assist.
Mrs. Gereau. The situation varies from State to State and we didn't
write the bill just to fit New Mexico. In some States they would have
to have operating money. It is not required that you to have it, but it
makes it permissible. In some States they wouldn't be able to have
school without these funds.
108
Mr. Cordova. I realize this happens in Minnesota and probably
Oklahoma.
Mrs. Gereau. The point is you would not have to get it in your
State, but in some States they could, so your suggestion that it be
deleted would prohibit the States that need it from getting it. We can
clarify it to take care of the situation.
Mr. Cordova. I hope so because I don't trust the State department
of education in New Mexico and they will interpret that they would
have the leeway to do that.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Cordova. Five. Delete section 203(a) (9) which permits Federal
fimds to be given to a school district for bordertown programs.
Senator Abourezk. Your reason for that?
Mr. Chestnut. The feeling here is that these students are eligible
for Public Law 874 funds already and the testimony that we heard
earlier indicates that Johnson-O'Malley funds are being used to pay
for the total amount of the education of that student.
Again, in New Mexico, if a bordertown student comes from New
Mexico he is eligible for State aid, and this takes care of all the sources
of funds which a school district normally receives for any child which
attends. <,
In the case of a student coming from out of State there are provi-
sions for out-of-State tuition. This is very common in districts which
are on the borderline, for example, the Gallup School District which
includes portions of the Navajo Keservation. Students — they receive
out-of-State tuition. Our suggestion here is to use the out-of-State tui-
tion device rather than Johnson-O'Malley funds, and we feel this
could be used as encouraging the district from which the child comes
to avoid having to pay out-of-State tuition to the district where he
chooses to go, and this would be an incentive to improve its programs
so he would want to stay home.
Mrs. Gereau. The law as written provides that if the student is in a
bordertown school and is a resident of the State in which the school
is located, he would receive the State aid as you suggest, however, if
you take a student from another State, as sometimes happens — specif-
ically in special schools where you move a student from Utah down to
Arizona for special education — it is unrealistic that the State of Utah
would transfer the funds. In that case the child would be paid for with
these funds from this program. But if he is a resident of the State, the
State aid must be paid for that child in the school.
Mr. Chestnut. The bordertown programs that we are familiar with,
the ones in Albuquerque, are students who come to attend high school,
not for any special program.
Mrs. Gereau. And the State aid would be paid for those kids.
Mr. Cordova. No, they come from out of State. They come from
Arizona or Utah.
Mrs. Gereau. This is the point. There is no way to recover that
money from Arizona or Utah.
Mr. Chestnut. And we are suggesting that there be a way to re-
cover it.
Mrs. Gereau. I think you would have tremendously expensive
litigation that would drag on for years. They would probably have
to amend their laws to make it permissible for them to transfer money
out of one State to another.
109
Mr. Chestnut. They do already.
Mrs. Gereau. Some do and some don't.
Mr. Cordova. The chief of public school funding in New Mexico
is in agreement with us in going this route rather than using Johnson-
O'Malley to pay for the kids.
Mrs. Gereau. We will consider it further.
Senator Abourezk. Please proceed.
Mr. Cordova. Six, require Indian community education committees
in all school districts, and give the committees authority on program
decisions even when the school board has an Indian majority.
The bill says wherever there is an Indian majority on the board,
committees are not necessary, and we feel, particularly in one school
district where we have a majority school board, we find that some of
these people are more or less approaching the education of Indian
students in a WASP type of education, and we feel after our experi-
ence of 1 year with education committees, that they are in a better po-
sition to promote Indian education rather than the board itself.
Mrs. Gereatt. How is that school board selected ?
Mr. Cordova. It is voted upon.
Mrs. Gereau. If the people don't like it, can't they elect a new
school board?
Mr. Cordova. Yes; they can do that.
Mr. Chestnut. I think it is not a question of not liking it so much.
That in the Dulcey situation with the Johnson-O'Malley funds, this
gave all funds to the school district, and for this coming year we were
asked by our representative from Dulcey for the tribe who is also on
the Board of Education, he said, could he set up a committee.
Mrs. Gereau. You can.
Mr. Chestnut. The thing is that he felt it would be the board that
could use this device, having another arm here, and the reason that
our suggestion is made is to recognize that a school board meets once
a month and has many responsibilities, and that to promote the local
involvement that there be no need to make an exception. After all,
there aren't that many school districts that have Indian majorities,
but that a local committee would be a useful way of increasing parental
involvement in any case, even where there was a majority.
Mrs. Gereau. I think we can meet the situation by a very simple
amendment to change it to "may." Some other Indian groups had
testified they didn't want an advisory committee if they already had
an all-Indian school board. I think we can correct it by changing it
to permissive.
Mr. Cordova. We are trying to get an all-Indian school board in all
our districts.
No. 7, have the State advisory council be responsible for advising
on all Indian education policies, and have it be composed of delegates
selected by each local committee.
At present I think we have nine educational committees and what
we are suggesting here is that a representative from each of the com-
mittees be placed on the State aid advisory level in order to give the
Indian input.
Mrs. Gereau. I think that could easily be worked out in the contract.
If you say every Indian group has to be recommended, you would
wind up with several hundred people on your advisory committee in
98-143 O - 73
110
Alaska where each individual village is considered as a separate tribe,
so I think that detail could be worked out in the contract.
Mr. Cordova. We can buy that if you would leave it out of the bill.
Mrs. Gereau. We will see.
Mr. Cordova. No. 8, delete section 203(c). There is no need for a con-
tract with the State if program administration will be handled directly
by Indians.
Mrs. Gereau. The purpose of that was in the bill there is a great
deal of statistical work that would have to be done in a State that has
a number of different tribes, for example, Montana, where you have
several different tribes.
The purpose of this particular authorization is to provide somebody
in the State Department who would not supervise or control, but would
be there to do the statistical significance, figure out the tax levies, all
that which has to be put together to base an amount for the contract
if it goes to the Indian tribes or the State Department or wherever,
you need some kind of assistance on the staff of the State Department
and they would not have that kind of assistance to provide advisory
and technical assistance, but not control.
Mr. Cordova. I think the feeling we have is that since New Mexico
could perhaps become a true cultural State, I think they have a com-
mitment to provide this person out-of-State funds rather than John-
son-O'Malley funds.
Mrs. Gereau. I would say they have a moral obligation, and I would
be very practical and say most States don't do it unless they get the
Federal assistance, so the alternative is going to be they won't have it
in most States. We can change the word to "may" instead of "shall."
Mr. Cordova. Point No. 9, amend parts B and E to have the inservice
and research money go directly to tribal groups.
Senator Abourezk. To which page are you referring ?
Mr. Chestnut. Part B is page 18 of the bill, and part E is found
on page 23.
Mrs. Gereau. This particular part B is a proposal to provide assist-
ance for the training of Indians to be not only teachers but principals,
administrators, guidance counselors, the librarians, the whole scope of
personnel for education. If the money went to the tribes it would take
a tremendous appropriation for the tribes to set up a college program
for training these people.
Mr. Cordova. I don't think this is what we are suggesting. What
we are suggesting here is have the money go to the tribes so they can
subcontract with the universities because our experiences with the
universities, especially in New Mexico, has been such that they charge
a tremendous overhead and very little of the money does go for this
actual type of training for Indian people, and we notice this through
OEO, OEO contracts, contracts under HEW, and we can't really see
any benefit unless the entire tribal groups themselves can control that
money and subcontract to the universities. I think we would have more
control and appreciate this better if this was the way it went.
Senator Abourezk. We can't answer it here, but I think we will bring
it up to the committee, because it is a matter worth debating and
considering.
Mr. Chestnut. If I might make a comment here. When you bring
it to the committee, we mentioned briefly in our testimony that we have
done this on a small scale already in terms of approaching the universi-
Ill
ties in New Mexico with our ideas for certain courses that Ave wanted
t;iui<-h' ;uid we found by doing this we were able to get courses that
could more focus on the needs of the Indian students and educating
Indian students in a way that the general education courses already
provided didn't quite meet.
What we are suggesting here is that by having it come through
the tribal group
Mrs. Gereatt. That they would have more impact on the institute of
higher education to do what you want them to do rather than putting
Indians in routine programs.
Mr. Chestnut. Exactly. The needs can be more specifically met
because there is this requirement right at the inception of the program
to see that it is met.
Senator Abotjrezk. I can't speak for the full committee, but I, per-
sonally, think you have a good idea there. Please proceed.
Mr. Cordova. Point 10, amend part C to require a local district to be
bonded to capacity and to have used some money for reservation
schools before releasing additional funds for construction.
Senator Abotjrezk. Thank you, that is another good suggestion.
Mr. Cordova. We have several schools in our area that have not been
bonded to capacity and are telling our committees or tribal groups to go
to BIA or the Federal Government for more construction money, and
we refuse to do that unless they bond themselves.
Senator Abotjrezk. Please proceed.
Mr. Cordova. Point 11, the supervisor of the youth Indian program
should be required to be a local Indian.
Senator Abotjrezk. No argument there.
Mr. Cordova. Point 12, regulations for implementing this act should
be prepared with representatives of Indian tribes — selected by them —
being involved prior to their publication in the Federal Register.
Senator Abotjrezk. I have no argument with that. I think we can
offer an amendment to that effect as well. I think what you are really
talking about is what is known as Indian self-determination. I don't
have any argument with that concept or implementing that concept.
Mr. Cordova. The reason why, I would reiterate that is because we
have had a very sad experience in the past 2 weeks where HEW for
title IV has selected Indian people. And we have a representative from
some Pueblo that we never heard about, and I don't know who did the
selection.
Senator Abotjrezk. Is there difficulty in finding Republican
Indians ?
Mr. Cordova. Yes ; there is. If you can find them registered.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling that the bill as written
is unsatisfactory. Our experience with tribal control of Johnson-O'Mal-
ley funds has taught us the value of having flexibility in the kinds
of programs which can be funded. The present Johnson-O'Malley law
gives us this flexibility to meet the special educational needs of the
Indian students in each school district. We have proposed several
changes in the draft bill which would make its range closer to the
present Johnson-O'Malley Act.
Unless Indian tribes have some room to select the kinds of programs
that will best meet the needs of Indian students in that area, there will
be little reason for them to contract to administer these funds.
112
Finally, there has been some question regarding the role of John-
son -O'Malley fluids now that title IV has been enacted. We feel that
the two acts are not identical in scope: title IV is primarily intended
to aid school districts in developing special programs for Indian stu-
dents in the public schools.
Johnson-O'Malley then becomes available to provide funds to local
Indian communities so that they can work to solve educational prob-
lems themselves on the reservation. We feel that this two-pronged ap-
proach has much to recommend it. For the coming year, approximately
30 percent of our Johnson-O'Malley funds will be going directly to
Indian communitievS. With the release of the title IV funds, we hope
to see this percentage increase in future years.
Senators, on. behalf of the tribes represented here today, I wish
to thank you for allowing us to testify regarding the impact of this
bill on our Indian people. Any criticism or changes we suggest are
merely there to underline our commitment to seeing that our tribes
are truly able to have a significant role in making their futures. It ii
in that spirit that we came here, and we will be glad to answer anj
questions that you may have regarding our ideas.
Senator Abotjrezk. I have no further questions on this. I think wt
did it pretty well going through with each one and asking about each
one.
I want to just comment on your testimony. I sincerely appreciate
your coming up here with these ideas and changes and I guess you
know what the legislative process is like, it is all give and take, and
you don't ever get 100 percent of what you want, I wish we could, at
least I wish I could, but I personally support the great majority of
your suggested changes. And I will do what I can to convince the rest
of the committee that we ought to really undertake Indian self-
determination because that is what we are supposedly after, I would
just like to ask you one question. I assume you would change your
position on the bill then, and withdraw your opposition to it, if we
can get a substantial number of these through ?
Mr. Cordova. Yes; I think with these changes we would go for it,
but as it stands now we can't.
Senator Abotjrezk. I really commend you for coming up with these
ideas and the criticism. We appreciate it very much. They are well
thought out and very well done.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cordova follows :]
Prepared Statement of Valentino Cordova, Chairman, All Indian Pueblo
Council
Thank you. My name is Valentino Cordova, and I am here representing the 19
Pueblos of New Mexico as Chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Council. Together
with the Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache Tribes, we have a contract with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer Johnson O'Malley funds for the 12 public
school districts where our children attend classes. The tribes created the New
Mexico Indian Education Board of Regents to oversee the use of the Johnson
O'Malley funds.
With me here today are several members of the Board of Regents : Juan B.
Abeita, Vice-Chairman and past Governor of Isleta Pueblo, Gilbert Lucero, Gov-
ernor of Zia Pueblo and member of the Board, Governor Clyde Sanchez of Acoma
Pueblo, board member, Peter Chestnut, Executive Director of the Board.
The proposed bill S. 1017 has been discussed both by the Board and the Tribal
leaders. All felt that the Board should come to this hearing to inform the com-
mittee of our experiences in administering Johnson O'Malley founds this current
year, and to tell you how this proposed language would strengthen or weaken our
113
united effort to improve the education of Indian children in our public school
districts.
Going through the proposed bill, S. 1017, we find several items that deserve
comment.
On p. 4, line 5: 4(h) : This definition of an Indian for purposes of the Act makes
no provision for those tribes who were terminated by the Federal government. We
feel that if the bill is intended to assist all Indian students in public schools that
the definition should be expanded to include members of terminated tribes. We
suggest adding, after the semi-colon on line 17, the words "and any tribes whose
trust relationship was terminated since 1940."
On p. 4, line 18-19: (Sec. 4(c)): Sixteen of the 19 Pueblos still select tribal
officials in traditional ways that have endured for centuries. Rather than speci-
fying "elected governing body" we suggest the words "duly constituted author-
ity" of any tribe be used instead.
On p. 5, line 18-19: (Sec. 102): This language permits the Secretary of In-
terior, in his discretion, to enter into a contract with an Indian tribal organiza-
tion to provide the services described in the Act. We feel that permitting this
discretion is probably unwise. In order for the 21 tribes represented on the
Board of Regents to attain control of the Johnson O'Malley funds for their
school district, we had to travel to Washington, D.C. several times, and over-
come a very strong effort by the New Mexico State Department of Education
to keep control of these funds. We know of tribes in other areas who want to
control their Johnson O'Malley funds, but lack of political muscle to do so.
Giving the Bureau of Indian Affairs discretion in this crucial matter of
whether or not to contract with Indian groups does not further the goal of
Indian self-determination, but instead puts the B.I.A. Area Office in the posi-
tion of power-broker. We feel that deleting the words "in his discretion," on
line 19 and replacing them with "and directed" would put the initiative and
direction as mentioned in the Findings and Policy sections of the bill with the
Indian people, rather than keeping ultimate discretion with the bureaucracy
where it has been all these years.
On p. 6, line 7: (Sec. 103): The same suggestion changes are recommended
here as for Section 102, While we feel there may be certain administrative
reasons for limiting the minimum number of students to be permitted in an
individual contract with a tribal organization (to keep administrative overhead
from swamping a program), these matters can best be dealt with in the prep-
aration of regulations. For this reason, we request that representatives of tribal
organizations, particularly those who have contracted to administer funds ap-
propriated under the Johnson O'Malley Act, be involved in the preparation of
regulations. Specific language to achieve this end is included in the comments
on Sec. 221.
On p. 7, line 9-10: (Sec. 105(a)): Delete the words "not to exceed ninety
days" and replace with "mutually agreeable to both parties." Many times a
task is not completed in a neat time period ; this proposed amendment would
explicitly recognize this fact and permit the job to be well done, even if it
takes longer than expected.
On p. 7, lines 22 — p. 8, line 4 (Sec. 8): We recommend the deletion of this
proviso altogether. Again, if the purpose of making a grant or detailing a
Federal employee to a tribal group is to get a job done, there is no need for
devices like this "set-off." It seems like an attempt to weaken the effort being
made to carry out the contract provisions. The money ultimately comes from
the same Federal source; this appears to be a bookkeeping device which could
be used to the detriment of Indian people.
On p. 11, lines 2-15: (Sec. 202): In keeping with the idea of Indian control
discussed in the purpose of the bill, this section should be modified to require
that tribes be involved in the contract process, and no contract should be made
between the U.S. Government and the State without the consent of the Indian
tribes affected.
PART A
On p. 11, line 24: (Sec. 203(a) (1)): "Comparable school districts." We do not
understand what this phrase means. Comparable to what? Comparable in size?
Isolation of students? Number of Indians in the district? % of Indians in the
District? Amount of total assessed valuation? Assessed valuation per pupil?
Tax rate? Our confusion is perhaps more understandable if you consider the
variation among the 12 districts we serve :
114
Number of Indian students in the district range from 14 in Penasco to 1428
in Bernalillo.
Number of pupils in district ranges from 607 in Dulce to 85,000 in Albuquerque.
Total assessed valuation of district ranges from $643 million in Albuquerque to
$1.1 million in Penasco.
Assessed valuation per pupil range from $1,296 in Espanola to $20,810 in Jemez
Springs, with the state average being $9,152.
Percentage of Indian students ranges from less than 1% in Albuquerque to
81% in Dulce.
Local tax rates range from $4.45 per $1,000 of assessed valuation in Dulce to
$12.90 in Penasco and Albuquerque.
This confusion already exists with the present Johnson O'Malley regulations.
We have never been asked to make any comparisions in order to receive funds,
and we would not know on what basis such a comparison could be made. Why
bother to include a provision that cannot be enforced?
p. 12, line 9: (Sec. 203 (a) (3) : The same questions arise.
p. 12, lines 11-18: (Sec. 203 (a) (4) ) •" This section should in our opinion, be
deleted. We interpret this language as requiring that funds first go to the
general operational fund of the school district.
There are several reasons for our objections.
(1) Public Law 874 provides money for the school districts' operation fund
already. A look at the public school finance situation in New Mexico indicates
that districts already are more than compensated for the presence of non-taxable
land by P.L. 874. The State this year feels that approximately $630 per pupil
is required to provide a basic education for every student in the state. To achieve
this, they appropriate approximately $470 per pupil as a basic state distribution.
Then local and county taxes, together with P.L. 874 funds, are calculated. If
they do not surpass the $630 total, the state makes up the difference from the
"equalization" fund. Of 88 school districts in the state, only 16 do not receive
some equalization money. Many of the 16 districts have high concentrations
of Indian students, and therefore receive a great sum of P.L. 874 funds. Thus,
we feel between P.L. 874 and the state equalization formula that there is no
need in New Mexico for additional legislation to provide money for basic support.
(2) In fact, such language would detrimental to an effort which we have main-
tained for the past several years to keep funds intended to meet the special
ducation needs of Indian children separate from operation and district ledgers
are kept for these supplemental funds. This language would be a large step
backwards. If the purpose of this legislation is to increase the role of Indian
communities and parents, this language is contradictory since it removes discre-
tion, and orders it turned over to the district to help provide the basic educational
program that the New Mexico Constitution guarantees to every child, including
Indians.
p. 12 lines 23-24 arul p. 13 lines 1-24, o,nd p. 14 lines 1-10: (Sec. 203 (a)(5))
We feel that the contents of this section should best be left to the discretion of
each contractor. The main purpose of the bill is to meet the special educational
needs of Indian children. These vary depending on locality ; the law should be
flexible enough to meet those needs. Our own experience has shown that the list
given in subsection A through F do not cover several areas, such as parental costs
or special transportation, which local parents and students feel are necessary in
their districts.
The specific areas mentioned do require some comments :
(a) Counseling is one of the great needs in our area. The problem we have is
finding qualified Indian people to fill the positions. A certified counselor, the only
kind permitted in the public schools must have a master's degree in guidance.
Only four (4) Indian people in New Mexico are certified counselors, and none
are presently working in that capacity since their skills command much higher
salaries than a counselor would be paid. The past year we funded 10 counselor
positions, and all were filled by non-Indians. With one exception, these individuals
had little success in meeting Indian needs and almost half resigned before the
school year was completed. Requiring more Counselor positions does not neces-
sarily meet the need for relevant counseling. Our experience with the limited
supplemental (over and above those services already provided by the districts)
counseling programs indicate that more positions will not necessarily meet the
need. Another drawback to this section is that counselors are expensive, and a
rough calculation indicates that this provision alone in certain disrticts would
exceed the total allocation for all supplemental programs made this year. This
will be discussed later in Section 204 (a ) .
115
( B ) The idea of curriculum development projects is also a good one. Neverthe-
less, the local Indian people must themselves feel a need for such a program and
want to pursue it, otherwise it could easily disintegrate into another example of
outsiders developing a curriculum they think is good for Indian students. We are
currently funding a program in Bernalillo where the local education committee
oversees the project. This is run outside the school system. While the district is
eager to use the materials, the committee is working hard to develop an approach
which the Indian people see as meeting their needs. Again, the purpose is to fur-
ther Indian participation and control of the education of their ehildven.
(C) Teacher aides are worthwhile too, but the bill does not take into account
the other aides which could already be working in the school and funded by
another source, such as Title I, Title VII, Title IV, or operational funds.
(D) School lunches are an entitlement to all Indian students. We have worked
to get as many Indian students as possible to qualify under the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture National Hot Lunch Program. The rest we pay for with
Johnson-O'Malley funds. The proposed language is not clear as to the entitlement
portion, however. Why not specify that these funds are to be used to pay for
those students who cannot qualify under the U.S.D.A. Hot Lunch Program? This
would prevent supplanting in this area.
(E) Nursing Services are part of the operational expenses of a school district.
This was a major area of supplanting just a few years ago, and the loophole
should not be reopened by this legislation.
(F) Summer Programs are worthwhile, and we fund several, but again, only
where the local Indian people request them.
(G) This language is broad enough to include A-F above: why not just delete
them and leave this portion, but adding a proviso : that all funds shall go for sup-
plemental programs to meet the special needs of Indian children, and in no event
shall these funds be used to meet the minimum state standards which a school dis-
trict must meet anyway?
p. 14, line 11, (6) : As a practical matter, it is very difficult to comply with this
provision. All school districts have salary schedules for professional certified em-
ployees, based in education and experience. Neither the State, nor the local admin-
istration will tolerate any deviations from these schedules.
p. lJf, line 16, (7) : A limit of 3% on administrative costs is very low. Currently,
our contract runs about 4.3% for administration, and we feel it is not sufficient.
Excessive limitations here can only serve to encourage waste and misuse of funds
at the district level, since the contractor cannot adequately monitor the programs.
This has been our experience, especially in the areas of program monitoring and
evaluation. This despite a very good fiscal reporting system enforced by the
State Budget Director. Another factor to consider is that a small contract would
be especially vulnerable to this limitation.
p. l'f, line 21, (8): We suggest that community education committees not be
limited only to those school districts which are controlled by non-Indians. The
Dulce School Board has a majority of Indians and thi,s year the district controlled
all Johnson O'Malley funds intended for the benefit of Indian children. For the
coming year, however, the tribe has requested that a committee of parents be
established to handle the parental cost portion of the allocation. This wish indi-
cates that committees can provide a vehicle for a broader range of parental
involvement in educational matters. Also, since the school boards is to be con-
cerned with education of all children in the district, not just Indians, it is some-
times difficult for them to concentrate on special programs for one portion of the
school district. In many cases, school boards must rely on the ideas and initia-
tive of the school superintendent for specific program possibilities. Superintend-
ents are very experienced in the WASP educational system, but are not familiar
with developing programs to harmonize with an Indian approach to public
school education.
p. IT), line 10, (9): This section authorizes expenditures for a "bordertown"
program, where Indian students are brought to a BIA dormitory and then attend
local public schools. Giving present funding levels for Johnson O'Malley (about
$30 million nationwide) this is not a wise use of these funds. Each student is
eligible to bring P.L. 874 funds into the new district, according to the State Direc-
tor of P.L. 874. This amount always is greater than per capita revenue from local
and county taxes. Normally when a child goes to school in a district other than
which his family resides, the district in which the family resides pays money to
the district where he actually attends classes. For districts within a state, the
assessed valuation of the geographical area is transferred for tax purposes to the
116
new district. If a student crosses state lines, then the first state pays out of
state tuition to the district in which the student receives instruction. If this
approach were used, it would provide an incentive for school districts to improve
the quality of their programs in order to retain local students, and thereby, reduce
the amounts the district must pay to other districts. We favor this approach and
recommend the deletion of this section.
p. 15, lines 23-25 and p. 16, lines 1-17: (Sec. 208(6) ) : The means of selecting
members for the Indian Advisory Council on Education, described in this section,
should be spelled out : One representative for each community education commit-
tee. This would insure that all areas are represented and would leave the selection
of delegates in local Indian hands, thereby keeping the Council from being too
political and becoming a rubberstamp for the State. The Council should have a
specific role in approving the State program (not just an "opportunity to advise")
and should be involved in all policy decisions concerning Indian Education pro-
grams funded through the state, including Title I, Title IV, Title VII,, etc.
p. 16, lines 18-25: (Sec. 208(c) ): This requires the Secretary to contract with
the State whether or not the State administers any funds provided under this Act.
This is a duplication of services, since the State must, by law, provide "essential
professional and support staff necessary to assist local school districts". This
giveaway would only encourage disruptive activities by the state if the contract
were awarded to tribal groups.
p. 17; (Sec. 204(a) ) : The vague language of the appropriation ("such sums as
may be necessary") contrasts sharply with the specific dollar amounts given in
all other sections of the bill. We fear that this means that this section, in our
opinion the heart of the bill, will receive token funding at best. While it is felt
by some that appropriations made under the "recently passed Title IV bill make
programs like Johnson O'Malley or Part A of this bill unnecessary, we do not
agree. We have just begun to take a truly active role in the education of our
children. Closing off the source of funds that have allowed this to happen, with
the hope that some new law will do a better job is unwise in our view. Let us
continue on this path until we feel that it is not working. Therefore, we ask that
a sum of $50,000,000 be appropriated for each of the first three years of this Act.
This would be a 60% increase over present Johnson O'Malley funding levels,
and would permit us to provide additional programs requested by local people
which we are not able to fund presently due to budget restrictions.
p. 17, line 17 ; (Section 205) : Deleting education from the activities funded by
Johnson O'Malley is all right if comparable authority is placed somewhere else.
We fear however that this Act, while well intentioned, does not accomplish this.
The present Johnson O'Malley Act is sufficient in scope to accomplish everything
set out in Part A. We have already done many of them. This Act would not
confer any new power on a board in our position, but instead would place con-
trol back in the hands of the bureaucracy. This is to be avoided. Therefore, the
discretion for contracting must be shifted to the Indian people, and adequate
funds made available to make contracting a worthwhile activity. It appears that
an assumption is being made that the funds presently appropriated for the con-
duct of programs, projects, and services by the Department of Interior are ade-
quate to allow for implementation of the concepts contained in this Bill.
It must be made clear that while the Congress passes legislation authorizing
the appropriate secretaries to carry out the intent of this Act, that the Executive
Branch of Government through its budget process sets the national budget.
Inherent in this Federal budget process are the limitations set by the Office of
Management and Budget for the various Departments within the Executive
Branch. As a result of "set limitations" insofar as the Bureau of Indian Affairs
is concerned, the annual dollar requests identified by various tribes throughout
the Nation far exceeds the limits set and imposed by OMB. Through such a
procedure, there exists presently a great discrepancy between the Indians' needs
and priorities and the funds appropriated.
Unless meaningful changes occur in the budget process, and Congressional
Appropriations increase, the real intent will be unattainable and hence will con-
tinue to frustrate and hamper Indians in carrying out self-determined goals and
objectives.
PART B
p. 18, line 9 ; (Section 206(a) ) : Insert after the word "agencies" the phrase "or
Indian tribal organizations". The purpose of this amendment is similar to the
one requiring Indian consultation before any contract is signed with a State.
The additional language would permit Indian groups to "shop" for educational
117
services for development of professionals in Indian education. The funds could
be used for scholarships for Indian people to attend existing programs sponsored
by universities. Perhaps a lump sum subcontract to provide services beyond those
ordinarily available could be negotiated between the tribal group and a university
or other institution of higher learning. We feel at this point in time, Indian people
are sufficiently aware of their in-service educational needs that such an approach
is feasible. Currently, the Board of Regents has done this very thing, and the
University of New Mexico, College of Education, is providing teachers and college
credits for two courses in reading and psychology this summer. The courses and
the content were developed independently by the Indian teacher aides working
in public schools and UNM was selected by them as the institution who was most
able to fill their needs. This approach, we feel, should be encouraged.
PART C
p. 19, lime 15; (Section 208(a)): After the end of subsection (a), add the
following language : "provided that the school district is bonded to capacity and
has made a reasonable effort to meet construction needs for Indian students
residing on Indian lands or reservations from these local funds". This amendment,
we feel, is necessary in order to force school districts to meet their obligations
to Indian students. Right now the Grants district has bonding capacity of $2.4
million dollars, and bonded indebtedness of $25,000. There are two high schools in
the district : one in the city of Grants and one on Indian land. The one on Indian
land, Laguna-Acoma High School, is badly overcrowded, and can remain open
only by using Federal funds to rent portable classrooms under lease-purchase
agreements. Yet the district has not spent any local funds at all for construction
to relieve the situation. They say, go to Congress and get your own money if you
want the school improved. This attitude, we feel, violates the constitutional
rights to equal educational opportunity guaranteed by the New Mexico State
Constitution and various court decisions.
Without this provision, the language as written does not significantly differ
from P.L. 815. Why not fund P.L. 815 adequately? If that were done, no new
legislation for construction would be needed.
p. 20, line 8; (Subsection (c) We suggest making the consultation between
the Secretary and the local tribes affected mandatory, with the tribes' opinion
being binding on the Secretary. This would strengthen the Indians' hand in
negotiating with a school district, and could greatly increase the communication
between the local districts and Indian people.
PART D
p. 22, lines 6 and 15; (Section 212 (2) and (4) These provisions appear to
be subsidies to private industry (welfare for the rich) rather than to be of any
benefit to Indian interns.
p. 22, line 25 p. 23 lines 1-1 (section 212(1) The language here should give
preference in filling the supervisor position to an Indian person residing on
the reservation where the interns are based. Otherwise, the benefits of this
position and its high salary could easily go to a non-Indian.
PART E
We feel here, as in Part B, that the money should go to Indian tribal groups,
to allow them to choose the areas, methods, and types of research and develop-
ment to be carried out. Too often funds like this have been given to universities,
graduate students have been subsidized, degrees have been earned, and reserva-
tion problems remain. Let the Indians make their own mistakes, why not try a
new approach, rather than continuing to fund one which has proved itself in-
capable of meeting reservation level needs.
p. 24, lines 3-4; (Section 214 (b)) Delete the words "who are not employees
of the Federal Government". Many highly skilled, qualified, and dedicated In-
dian people are employees of the Federal Government. They are knowledgeable
in the ways that funding and appropriations work, and could provide valuable
assistance to tribes interested in getting research projects funded under this
PART F
p. 24, lines 18-19; (Section 216) Here again, the words "who are not employees
of the Federal Government" should be deleted.
118
PART G
p. 26, lines 11-15; (Section 220) Since programs funded under this Act are
intended to benefit Indian children exclusively, there is no need for non-Indian
parents to be involved in whether or not their children can enroll in classes
funded by the Act. This should be an Indian policy decision ; if a class is opened
to non-Indians, they either enroll in it or not, as they see fit. That is choice
enough. We feel, too, that the decision should rest with the community educa-
tion committee, rather than with the school board, even if a majority of the
members are Indians, for reasons stated above in comments to Section 203(a)
(8) : the board members have responsibilities to all students in the district, and
the political liabilities of being responsible for such a decision could be severe.
Instead, we recommend that Indian parents and students, operating free from
outside political pressures, be allowed to make decisions concerning the type
of education best suited for their students.
p. 26, line 17; (Section 221 (a) ) Amend to read : "The Secretary, with the par-
ticipation of Indian tribal groups, shall promulgate regulations "
We feel this is necessary to prevent the bureaucracy from unduly restricting the
scope of the Bill for self-serving reasons. Regulations should be drawn with an
eye to facilitating Indian involvement and control, and the best way to do this
is to have Indians involved in laying the ground rules.
In conclusion, it is our feeling that the bill as written is unsatisfactory. Our
experience with tribal control of Johnson O'Malley funds has taught us the value
of having flexibility in the kinds of programs which can be funded. The present
Johnson O'Malley law gives us this flexibility to meet the special educational
needs of the Indian students in each school district. We have proposed several
changes in the draft bill which would make its range closer to the present JOM
Act.
Unless Indian tribes have some room to select the kinds of programs that will
best meet the needs of Indian students in that area, there will be little reason
for them to contract to administer these funds.
Finally, there has been some question regarding the role of JOM funds now
that Title IV has been enacted. We feel that the two acts has not identical in
scope : Title IV is primarily intended to aid school districts in developing special
programs for Indian students in the public schools.
Johnson O'Malley then becomes available to provide funds to local Indian
communities so that they can work to solve educational problems themselves on
the reservation. We feel that this two pronged approach has much to recommend
it. For the coming year, approximately 30% of our JOM funds will be going
directly to Indian communities. With the release of the Title IV funds, we hope
to see this percentage increase in future years.
Senators, on behalf of the tribes represented here today, I wish to thank you
for allowing us to testify regarding the impact of this bill on our Indian people.
Any criticism or changes we suggest are merely there to underline our commit-
ment to seeing that our tribes are truly able to have a significant role in making
their futures. It is in that spirit that we came here, and we will be glad to
answer any questions you may have regarding our ideas.
Senator Abourezk. It is 5 minutes until 12. I am going to adjourn
this hearing until 2 o'clock this afternoon, and the next witness is Mr.
Birgil Kills Straight and the members of the Coalition of Indian
Controlled School Boards, and they will start the testimony at 2
o'clock.
So the hearings are now adjourned until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned until 2 p.m.,
the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Abourezk. We will resume hearing testimony from wit-
nesses in this subcommittee. The next group of witnesses, is headed by
Mr. Birgil Kails Straight, executive president of the Coalition of
Indian Controlled School Boards. Mr. Kills Straight happens to be
one of my constituents from Pine Ridge, S. Dak., and Birgil, I am
very happy to see you here today and to receive your testimony.
119
We have talked at length, probably you have talked more with my
staff than you have with me, on Indian education, but I know of your
great interest and the great amount of time and effort and work that
you put into this particular question and I look forward to hearing
your testimony. Before you start I would like you to introduce the
members of your panel, the witnesses that you have with you.
STATEMENT OF BIRGIL KILLS STRAIGHT, EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT,
COALITION OF INDIAN CONTROLLED SCHOOL BOARDS, DENVER,
COLO.; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK LaPOINTE, ROSEBUD, S. DAK.;
ALFRED REDMAN, WYOMING INDIAN HIGH SCHOOL, ETHETE,
WYO. ; BILL ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALI-
TION OF INDIAN CONTROLLED SCHOOL BOARDS; AND LARRY
MANUELITO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, RAMAH NAVAJO SCHOOL
BOARD, INC., RAMAH, N. MEX.
Mr. Kills Straight. I would like to have these people introduce
themselves.
Mr. LaPointe. I am Frank La Pointe from Rosebud, S. Dak.
Mr. Redman. I am Alfred Redman, from Wyoming Indian High
School.
Mr. LaPointe. I am Frank LaPointe from Rosebud, S. Dak.
Mr. Roberts. Bill Roberts, presently associate executive director,
formerly from Fort Belknap Reservation in Montana.
Mr. Manuelito. Larry Manuelito, associate director, Ramah, N.
Mex.
Senator Abourezk. Please proceed.
Mr. Kills Straight. I would like to thank the committee for invit-
ing us and allowing us time to give testimony. My name is Birgil Kills
Straight. I am an Oglala Sioux from Pine Ridge Reservation, S. Dak.,
and I am the president of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School
Boards, Inc. The coalition is comprised of 87 Indian school boards,
education committees, and parent groups. The Coalition of Indian
Controlled School Boards is the first national, grassroots, Indian or-
ganization devoted to educational reform. We started in October 1971
with four member boards and have grown to our present size in a little
over a year and a half.
We are here today to submit our views regarding Senate bill 1017
entitled The Indian Self-Determination and Educational Reform Act
of 1973, which, we understand, will amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act
of 1934 and amendments of 1936.
The coalition welcomes and approves of the interest of the sponsors
of this bill in reforming Indian education, which despite efforts at
reform in the last few years, remains "a national tragedy" as de-
scribed in the 1969 report of the Special Senate Subcommittee on
Indian Education. We are particularly pleased that Congress appears
ready to pass legislation giving Indians greater control of their chil-
dren's educations. For it is lack of Indian control of Indian education
which we feel is the root cause of the tragedy.
We are, therefore, prepared to support passage of Senate bill 1017
as an effort to expand the contracting and grant-making powers of the
Departments of Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare in
120
Indian education, in particular, the extension of these powers to in-
clude, specifically, contracts and grants to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations.
However, with all due respect to the efforts of the sponsors of this
bill in seeking passage of legislation to reform the sorry state of edu-
cation for our children, we wish to point out limitations in the bill
which to us prevent it, in its present form, from living up to the high
hopes expressed in its sections relating to congressional findings and
declaration of policy. Until revisions are made to remove these limi-
tations, we believe the day of full-scale improvement in Indian educa-
tion will continue to elude us.
Although it can be hoped that under the expended contracting and
grant-making powers lodged in the Departments of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and Interior in this bill, more money will flow to
schools or school projects controlled by Indians, there is no guar-
antee that such will be done.
The basic limitation in the bill is that discretion is to remain in the
Federal agencies in Washington to decide which Indians get moneys
to educate Indian children. We would strongly urge revising the bill
to eliminate as much of this discretion- as possible.
Senator Abotjrezk: Do you have any specific language that you
would recommend to accomplish that purpose ?
Mr. Kills Straight. I believe it is in here.
Senator Abourezk. What I would like to do is periodically inter-
rupt if I have a question, and then you can tell me if you are going
to cover it later.
Mr. Kills Straight. Until Indians, not the Federal Government,
can dictate the pace and scope for implementing Indian self-determi-
nation, we believe that Indian self-government in education will re-
main a distant goal.
We believe there are strong grounds for suspecting that the bureauc-
racies entrusted under the bill for carrying our Indian educational
self-determination would, if given the broad discretion now made part
of the bill, be less than enthusiastic in doing so. We have had 3 long
years of experience with the Federal Government's educational agen-
cies with powers over Indian education since the President's historic
message of July 8, 1970, to see that high hopes for reform can and
are often dashed by unresponsive agencies. In the message the Presi-
dent said :
Consistent with our policy that the Indian community should have the right to
take over the control and operation of federally funded programs, we believe every
Indian community wishing to do so should be able to control its own Indian
schools.
Yet, now there are still less than a dozen Indian controlled schools
recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The reason, Mr. Chairman, for this tardiness does not rest, I assure
you, in any lack of interest or desire among Indians to take over the
control of their own schools. The rapid growth in membership of our
organization attests to the enthusiasm with which Indian people re-
spond to the idea of self-determination in education.
No ; the reason for the delay has to do with the very same bureauc-
racies to whom you, in this bill, are considering placing even more dis-
cretion to implement Indian education reform than they have now. We
can cite examples to support our contentions :
121
The BIA, with principal Federal authority and responsibility over
Indian education, has thwarted educational self-determination almost
every step of the way since 1970. Of course, not every BIA employee
has been an opponent. There are many fine, sympathetic and com-
mitted individuals in the Bureau to whom these comments do not
apply, but the general behavior of the agency as an institution is far
from supportive of Indian self-government, especially in education.
One, after a long internal struggle, the BIA's infra-structure in the
area and agency offices have won a preeminent position of power. Area
Directors, supported by agency superintendents, have effectively se-
cured the power to veto actions to the central office, including the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The new policy regarding Bureau
action is decentralization, which places decisionmaking, including edu-
cational contracting for Indian self-determination, in the hands of
area offices. It is well known that area offices, more than any other
single element in the Bureau, oppose self-determination. And for very
good reason. In its ultimate form, Indian self-government must logi-
cally result in displacement of the BIA's overblown bureaucracy. The
area offices, Mr. Chairman, are fighting for their survival. Yes; S. 1017
would give these offices, with their built-in conflict of interest with
Indian groups and tribes struggling for the power to control their
own lives, the discretion to decide under titles I and II of the bill
which Indian groups are to receive contracts or grants.
Two, how these area offices deal with Indians seeking education con-
tracts has been revealed in several locations.
A. In the Albuquerque area, the pace-setting Ramah Navajo High
School has still not been able to negotiate a satisfactory contract for
operation of its community school for next year. The area office has
simply refused to enter negotiations with the Ramah Navajo School
Board in a spirit of true bargaining. Instead it has attempted to dic-
tate most of the essential terms of the contract, including price, before
negotiations even began.
B. In the Billings area, another Indian-contract school on the Wind
River Reservation has had repeated problems trying to receive pay-
ments of its invoices from the area office. Advance payments to the
school have been suspended, and during the past year the Indian
school board has had to resort on several occasions to issuing checks
without sufficient funds in the banks — with bank approval. This is
certainly no way to do business.
C. In the Aberdeen area, the misuses of area director's powers in
relation to Indian self-determination on the Pine Ridge Reservation
have now been presented to a court. The issue concerns the failure of
the BIA at the insistence of the area director there, to renew a con-
tract for bilingual education with a private, Indian educational or-
ganization which had successfully completed the first year of a 5-year
program. This area director, without notice or hearing to the private
group, decided that the tribal government was opposed to the contract
renewal and unilaterally vetoed explicit directives of the Deputy
Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Commissioner of Indian Affairs
to negotiate the renewal with the private Indian group.
D. Again, in the Albuquerque area, a parents group organized itself
around educational interests in one of the Rio Grande pueblos. The
group was exploring ways to take over control of a small BIA ele-
mentary day school. Upon hearing of the group's activities, the local
122
BIA agency education director ordered the day school principal to
attend every meeting of the Indian parents group— as verified by the
principal's own admission— and removed a BIA employee, who, it
appears, had been to insipiring in terms of promoting self-deter-
mination from participating as an adviser to the group.
E. On the Navajo Reservation, the Rock Point Boarding School
has long had an advisory school board aspiring to take over full con-
trol of the school. The BIA has promised the contract for a long time,
but just within the past few weks, in a final showdown, the Navajo
area office refused to issue the contract claiming that since Federal
civil servants were involved in the project, the Navajo School Board
could not take over control of the school. When it was pointed out
that other civil servants have been successfully transferred to Indian-
controlled school boards under contracts, the response from area
officials is said to have been, "We don't care what happens in other
areas; no Navajos are going to control civil servants on this reser-
vation."
When it was further pointed out that 20 BIAM 6 authorizes such
transfer of supervisory powers to Indians over civil servants, the
response from the local BIA officials was that 20 BIAM 6 was not
in effect— since it had never been published in the Federal Register-
not a requirement for in-house regulations such as BIAM.
F. The BIA has just named a new Acting Director of Education
Programs to replace a man who has generally won the support of
Indians seeking to control their own schools. The new Director has a
reputation for opposition to Indian control of BIA schools.
Senator Abourezk. Who are the two parties involved here, do you
care to name them ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Mr. Jim Hawkins was formerly Director of
that branch and he has been replaced by Acting Director Bill Bren-
nan from the Albuquerque area.
Senator Abourezk. And Mr. Hawkins had won general approval
from the Indian people ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Yes ; he had good rapport with them.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you.
Mr. Kills Straight. What makes this recent appointment so espe-
cially bothersome, however, is that it took place without any con-
sultation with Indian groups.
Three, the bias in the BIA's infrastructure against Indian control
is highlighted by yet another example. A recent study of Albuquerque
area educational finances by an accountant under contract to us
revealed that huge variations exist between per pupil costs within
BIA schools; that contract schools are held to a stricter standard of
financial accountability than BIA schools; and that BIA schools
receive moneys from various line items besides education, which are
not included in making per pupil comparisons between the cost of
contract schools and BIA schools. Our accountant has not yet had a
chance to write a full report on his findings, but as soon as he does,
we will furnish this committee with a copy. Based on his preliminary
findings, we would urge this committee at the very least to request a
GAO audit of the BIA's area offices. We understand that no such
audit has ever been carried out.
Senator Abourezk. There is an audit being conducted or has al-
ready concluded of the Pine Ridge Reservation Agency books. We
123
have not yet conducted one of the area offices, and I think it is a good
suggestion.
Mr. Kills Straight. Although our experience with HEW is not
as extensive as it is with BIA, we believe that many of the same con-
flicts of interest between it and Indians exist.
1. In one Indian community in the upper Midwest, HEW is con-
ducting a civil rights compliance study under 42 U.S.C. 2,000 of the
local, white controlled school district with educational responsibility
over the Indian children. The Indian community has long recognized
that the fundamental failure of the district in educating Indians
relates to the lack of Indian involvement in control of their children's
educations. Yet, HEW has refused to support the Indian community's
attempt to achieve basic structural reform by changing school district
lines, and instead has attempted to make the school district more
responsive to Indian educational needs through such measures as
introducing minicourses for white school teachers on Indian culture
and history. HEW has even gone so far as to explicitly exclude In-
dians from participating as consultants in the early stages of the
civil rights study of the district, ostensibly because they could not be
objective enough.
2. Title II of the bill, which focuses on public school education for
Indian children, places inordinate discretion and power in State edu-
cational agencies. While there are several State education agencies
which understand the unique educational needs of Indians — Wyo-
ming, for example — many others do not. Ramah Navajo High School,
as an illustration, had a great deal of opposition from the New Mexico
Department of Education when it first got started.
Indian self-determination is simply at odds with Federal or State
control of Indian education. And S. 1017 fails to take this circumstance
into account.
In addition to this deficiency, we have noted the following other
points which should be corrected.
1. Section 4(a) definition of Indian leaves out terminated tribes
and members thereof, a serious gap in any bill seeking to deal compre-
hensively with Indian education.
2. Section 4(c) definition of tribal organization does not clearly
state that Indian-controlled, private organizations are eligible for
funds imder the bill. This, too, is a serious gap since many if not most
of the present Indian-controlled schools — Rough Rock, Ramah, and
Wind River, for example — are run by private Indian school boards.
Only if private Indian institutions are made explicitly eligible can
adequate provisions be made for essential emphasis on the rights of
parents and communities to control their children's educations.
3. There is no provision in the bill for handling the thorny ques-
tion of civil service regulations and Indian takeover. A major obstacle
to Indian control of federally funded schools has been the inability of
the Federal Government to come up with a meaningful formula to pro-
tect the rights of Federal civil servants and Indians seeking to control
their own schools. New legislation could provide a formula, for ex-
ample, by suspending civil service regulations in these projects and
providing for compensation for any displaced civil servants.
4. Section 106(a) reinforces a most debilitating aspect of current
contracting, the heavy-handed imposition of Federal procurement pro-
cedures. These procedures are suitable to purchase of paper clips and
124
pencils but not to educational services from Indians. They should be
suspended for all contracts under the bill.
5. Section 202 repeals the Johnson-O'Malley law, without adequate
justification. In our view, Johnson-O'Malley provides ample authority
for an enlightened Federal Indian education policy and program-
provided procurement procedures are suspended for it — but it has not
been fully implemented.
6. Section 203(b) providing for an Indian advisory council on edu-
cation is basically ceremonial. What possible meaningful role could
it play ? It is more likely to be a rubber stamp for the State education
agency than a sounding board for Indian views on education.
7. The bill will presumably, given its wording, provide as much
assistance to non-Indian controlled educational institutions as for
Indians :
A. Section 203(c) mandating contracts— the only mandatory con-
tracts in the whole bill— with State education agencies affected by con-
tracts under section 202 ;
B. Section 206(a) provides grants to institutions of higher educa-
tion which have often secured money for the benefit of Indians with-
out providing real service to Indians ; .
C. Section 214(a) authorizes grants or contracts with universities
and institutions, and to individuals for research.
8. Section 203(a) (4) and (5) provide for supplanting of operat-
ing moneys by funds appropriated under title II of the bill, which is
especially difficult to justify given the existence of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1972, the Indian Impact Aid Act, which
already gives districts with Indian students operational moneys.
9. Under sections 102, 103, and 104 contracts and grants can only
be given to Indian tribes and tribal organizations upon request of
any Indian tribe. This requirement poses a severe limitation on the
range of Indian entities which can potentially qualify, since several
Indian communities with legitimate grounds for seeking control of
their own educational programs are not in a position to have tribal
governments intercede for them with the Federal Government.
10. Section 202(a)(5) provides only 3 percent for administrative
costs under contracts authorized under title II, a woefully inadequate
amount, especially when compared with our findings that area offices
charge 10 and 20 percent for administrative expenses in programs
administered through them.
Here are some specific recommendations for strengthening the bill :
1. Preamble, congressional findings: Should include recognition of
crucial educational importance of parental and community control;
2. Preamble, declaration of policy: Should include a statement
underlying and supporting the right of Indian parents and commu-
nities to control the upbringing of their children ;
3. Definitions: Should expand the definition of Indian to include
members of terminated tribes ; and
4. Section 102 should be made mandatory.
Suggested wording:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed, upon the request
of any Indian tribe or organization supported by a majority of the Indian
community affected, to enter into a contract or contracts.
5. Section 103 should be strengthened in the same way.
6. Section 105, add additional section :
125
(d) The Secretary is authorized, where appropriate, to suspend the regula-
tions of (civil service law) to implement the policy of this Act, provided any
civil servant displaced by a contract or contracts hereunder be adequately com-
pensated by the Federal Government. For the purpose of such compensation,
the amount of $ is authorized to be appropriated for the first fiscal year
after enactment of this Act, and $ for each of the next two succeeding
fiscal years.
7. Section 106(a) should be entirely reworded to exempt contracts
under the act from constrictive Federal procurement laws and pro-
cedures in addition to the negotiation aspect.
8. Title II, section 202, should be rewritten to prevent bilateral
relationships between States and the Federal Government in Indian
education. All Federal funds for Indian education in public schools
should be funneled through Indian tribes or organizations which
may then contract with States if they wish. If they do not, they should
be permitted to use the funds in their own schools. Suggested wording :
Sec. 202. For the purpose of providing education to Indians enrolled in the
public schools of any state, the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts
with any Indian tribe or tribal organization residing in any state which in turn
may contract with the state or political subdivision thereof upon such terms
and conditions as are mutually agreed upon. If a tribe or Indian organization
does not wish to contract in this manner with any state agency or subdivision, it
may use the funds in its own schools under the provisions of Sec. 102.
9. In addition, title II should be strengthened by including a dis-
cretionary power in the Secretary to order the redistricting of State
school district boundaries to provide for increased Indian control
where all other efforts for reform have proven fruitless and he considers
conditions of discrimination and unequal educational opportunities for
Indians to be endemic or inherent. This remedy is justified upon the
same basis that withholding of Federal funds under 42 U.S.C. 2000d,
et. seq. and 45 CFK part 80 is.
10. Section 206(a) contracts should go only to Indian tribes, or-
ganizations, or other institutions approved in writing by them. The
same applies to section 214 (a) .
11. Section 203 (c) contracts should be made discretionary.
12. The entire relationship between titles I and II should be clarified.
As they now stand, it is difficult to see the distinction between a con-
tract with an Indian tribe or tribal organization under title I and one
under title II. What would prevent using title I to write contracts with
these groups or entities for use in public schools, thus avoiding the
explicit application requirements under title II ?
13. Appropriations for contract schools should be increased. At
present only $4.5 million is earmarked for these schools out of a total
BIA education budget of $180 million. And per pupil funding formu-
las should be reconciled with those used for the BIA's own schools.
Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed that local control is best for In-
dian people. The Ramah Navajo community now has 10 students in
colleges in various States; they are the product of their own com-
munity controlled high school. Prior to assuming this control, the
community was able to send only one or two students to college, and
only one of them graduated.
Testing conducted in the Minneapolis Survival School and the
Red School House of St. Paul indicate phenomenal growth rates in
a short period of time for the students attending these institutions.
The directors of these schools feel that the results are indicative of
■143 O - 73 -- 9
126
attitudinal changes on the part of students who had previously been
pushed out of the schools entirely alien to their educational and so-
cial needs. We have witnessed the successes of schools controlled by
Indian parents and strongly advocate that this process be extended
to include every community in the Indian world who choose to do so.
We are pleased with this opportunity to make these detailed recom-
mendations as to S. bill 1017. We hope that you will understand that
we appreciate your interest and concern in our children's educations
and make our criticisms in hope that the bill can be strengthened to
make it even more fulfilling of its own stated hopes and goals.
Above all we would like to impress you with our belief that it is
we who must ultimately reform Indian education. You can only pro-
vide the money. It is for Indian people to put the funds to work in
the way they think best.
We thank you for your attention and for giving us this time.
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Kills Straight, I just want to say that I
agree with you on that last statement. Since we didn't have this state-
ment, I don't have any prepared questions to ask of you. I will ask
the staff members, both minority and majority staff's sitting here, if
they have any questions prepared that they would like to ask you,
but I do want to ask a favor of you. Would you be willing to sit down
with our staff and work out some of your recommended changes with
them. I want to say that as far as I am concerned, the hallmark of this
subcommittee, so long as I am chairman of it, will be that we intend
to let the Indian people run their own affairs and that includes how
the legislation should be done — at least to that extent — that the Indian
people decide what is best for them, whether it be in education or any
other matter, I want to thank you very much, all of you, for offering
your views, and I know that we will be able to work very well with you
in incorporating the changes that you want.
I would like to turn to the staff members now and see if they have
any questions, I guess we are all set. Do you have anything further.
Mr. Kills Straight. I would like to have Larry Manuelito, Bill
Roberts, and Allan Frank would also like to say a few words.
Senator Abourezk. Go ahead.
Mr. Manuelito. Mr. Chairman, my name is Larry Manuelito. I am
the associate director of Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. I would
like to enter this statement for the record by Mr. Abe Plummer, who
is the director of Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
As Mr. Kills Straight has stated, we are a member school of the coali-
tion of Indian controlled school boards, and I am not going to read
the statement. I would just like to add a few things from the state-
ment in support.
Senator Abourezk. The statement will be inserted in the hearing
record and printed in full.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Plummer follows :]
Prepared Statement of Abe Plummer, Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
At this writing, the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. has not recontracted
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for school operation monies. This is not to say
that the School Board will not seek new negotiations, however.
The present "new Bureau policy" of vesting "authority" in Area Offices has
developed many concerns among Indian communities who, heretofore, were in
direct contact with the real authority, the Central Office in Washington, D.C. It is
alleged that decentralization will bring Bureau programs closer to the people.
127
Bringing Bureau programs closer to the people is probably a valid undertaking.
However, Indian contracting for the education of their children is not a Bureau
program. The Raman Navajo High School program is a Ramah Navajo commu-
nity program. The Central Office in Washington, D.C. establishes policies and
they are the final authority to effect these policies. Area Offices merely manage.
This newly imposed contracting relationship of Indian communities and Area
Offices really amounts to the Indian communities being forced to deal with the
powerless. Indian communities contracting programs must not be deemed sub-
ordinate and a part of the system.
Recent meetings with the Albuquerque Area Office has done much to influence
this position that our School Board is having to deal now with powerlessness.
When asked for an automatic renewal clause in the new contract, the Area Office
replied ". . . it can probably be done . . ." when in fact the Solicitor General's
opinion was that it wasn't possible. When asked for negotiating for a higher dol-
lar amount than already determined, the Area Office deemed they had no authority
to do so. They went further to say that they would be insubordinate if they rec-
ommended a higher dollar amount to Central Office even if the need was justified.
There are many examples of this powerlessness that could be cited.
The real Bureau thrust is to keep the Indian community revolving in this cycle
of powerlessness so there is no new thing but history repeating itself.
The Bureau at the Area level aims at frustrating developing communities
through this powerlessness and indecision. The ulterior motive is to get the
Bureau back in the saddle. The Albuquerque Area Office, in fact, said so clearly
on April 3, 1973, when they said, ". . . the Ramah School Board may not wish to
operate the new school plant and they might want to return the job to the
BIA. . . ." The exact opposite is true. The Ramah Navajo School Board members
have set goals at accomplishing and setting new records by running their own
school over the next 100 years.
The Bureau requires and effects annual evaluations of the contract schools.
The Bureau does not evaluate its own schools. The latter was attested to by the
Bureau Director of Education on May 9, 1973, at a meeting with him in the
Assistant Interior Secretary's office. We suspect the Bureau takes care of their
own schools' operations involving administration, maintenance services, trans-
portation and other "hidden costs" with padded budgets. The contract schools are
required to operate on small pre-determined budgets without the "extra" that
Bureau schools have. There is much inequity. This will be proven. The Bureau
requires audits of fiscal management for contract schools when they don't inspect
their own "backyard".
Gentlemen — we, the Indian communities, do not only want self-determination —
we want equitable rights and recognition that we are not, repeat not, subordinate
to the Bureau system. We are not a Bureau program. We don't need the Secre-
tary's discretion. Let there be made provisions that will have us negotiating
and dealing with those in full authority not the powerless go betweens.
Through our very recent experiences, we feel that self-determination is being
intentionally blown further away from us and out of our reach.
The preamble in Senate bill 1017 is disconcerting because it lacks of certainty.
It should not say . . . certain programs . . . but should say programs for Indians.
It should not say . . . encourage . . . but it should say develop human resources by
supporting the right to Indian parents to control their own education. ... A
strong preamble must set the tone of the bill that will allow Indians discretion to
contract. Take school contracting out of the Federal Procurement realm because
education is not a commodity like toilet paper or pencil.
Senator Abourezk. You may proceed with your remarks, Mr.
Manuelito.
Mr. Manuelito. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Plummer says is in full
support of what Mr. Kills Straight read in his testimony. I think that
the Bureau — I think something has to be done right now, and that we
cannot continue to just talk about it, and a good example is at this
writing. Mr. Kills Straight has said, Ramah Navajo School board has
not renegotiated a contract for next fiscal year, but this does not mean
that the school board will not seek new negotiations. It is because the
area officers have failed to recognize the needs of the community and
have failed to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith.
128
I would just like to say that I feel that the Bureau at the area level
aims at frustrating the developing communities, of developing com-
munities through this parlance and indecision. The ulterior motive is
to get the Bureau back in the saddle.
The Albuquerque office said so clearly on April 3, 1973, "The Ramah
Navajo School board may not wish to operate the new school plant and
they may want to return the job to the BIA." I quote this directly from
the acting director, Mr. Frank Pins, from the Albuquerque area. In
fact, the opposite is true, the Ramah Navajo School members have set
goals accomplishing in having them run their own school for the next
hundred years.
I think that the school contracting should be taken out of the Fed-
eral procurement ground because education is not a commodity like
toiiet paper or pencil or anything like that.
Thank you.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts. In support of what Mr. Kills Straight has stated, I feel
also that mechanisms which really assure — we feel that measures of
accountability must really be strengthened in the bill. This could be
done by establishing a national advisory board or umbrella to coincide
with the title IV board. To clearly define what the board will do would
also be a measure which can develop accountability.
Senator Abourezk. Do you disagree with Mr. Kills Straight that
an advisory board is j ust window dressing ?
Mr. Roberts. The way it is stated in the bill, I feel, that it is window
dressing.
Senator Abourezk. You would like to see it have some power?
Mr. Roberts. Yes ; if these are Indian people that sit on this board
and can make determinations with respect to the national picture of
Indian education, this I feel needs to be done.
Senator Abourezk. The difference is in the bill, which provides for
a State board. There was a charge leveled during the testimony this
morning that the National Advisory Board of HEW has not been
representative. How would you overcome that ? How would you make
it representative?
Mr. Roberts. By establishing a process for selection of this board
which the Indian people would actually have a say. The non-Indian
procedure which we set forth was followed and one of the weaknesses
that I feel on this procedure was that they didn't state when these
nominations could be received or made and they didn't state when the
selection process would be. I feel that this should also be included in
any type of selection process.
Mr. Kills Straight. The selection of that committee was really
discriminating.
Senator Abourezk. You are talking about HEW's advisory com-
mittee ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Right, we recommended 15 people. The 15
Indian educators who have been involved in developing of the insti-
tutions as well as teaching from elementary grade to post-secondary
and out of the 15, because of the fact that we won this lawsuit, which
was close to $18 million, it appears to us we were reprimanded for that
by not putting anyone of the educators we selected on the national
scene on this board. In fact, Frank LaPoint was the only one that was
in the running until the last final tally was taken, and when he found
129
out, when they found out he was part of the coalition board he was
dropped.
Senator Aboukezk. There is a comment floating around up here at
the table that that is the price of success. Either that or it is the
problem we talked about this morning of finding a Republican Indian
somewhere.
Mr. Kills Straight. That is probably what it is.
Senator Aboueezk. Who makes up that advisory board at this
time, do you have any idea? They were selected just by arbitrary
appointment by the Secretary, is that right ?
Mr. Kills Straight. We felt the whole thing was political.
Mrs. Gereau. The pont they are talking about is title IV of the
Education Amendments of 1972, passed last year. That law provides
for a national advisory board to be appointed by the President of the
United States from names submitted by the Indian people, and the
Indian people complied very well. They had hundreds of names of
prominent, competent and able Indians on the desk of the Secretary
by November of last year, and the board wasn't appointed until the
1st of May. It took them that long. The board is supposed to nominate
the person to become the deputy commissioner of education for Indian
Affairs in the Office of Education, and it was, which comes first, the
chicken or the egg, because the administration was saying we can't
implement and distribute the $18 million because we don't have a
deputy commissioner. We don't have a deputy commissioner because we
don't have the advisory board and we don't have the advisory board
because we haven't appointed it.
I am very concerned that as far as I know, nobody has asked for any
funding for that bill beyond June 30 of this year. There is no money
in the budget, the $18 million was released but there is no money in
the budget for the fiscal year which begins July 1, 1973, which is
fiscal year 1974.
As far as I know there is no request before the Appropriations Com-
mittee for funding for that bill. It bothers me because the Indian
people are relying on that bill far more, I think, than they should
because I gather that it is not the intention of the Office of Education
to fund it except this $18 million. One shot and forget it.
Do you know anything about that? Have you appeared before Ap-
propriations and asked for future funding?
Mr. Roberts. Not for future funding on title IV ?
Mrs. Gereau. Nobody has. I am suggesting to you maybe you ought
to write a letter to Senator Magnuson.
Mr. Roberts. Gerald Clifford, the executive director of the coalition
has appeared before Miss Julia Hansen and recommended full funding
for title IV.
Mrs. Gereau. It is not the Secretary of HEW's budget and that is
where it is authorized.
Senator Abourezk. Did you say somebody else had comments to
make ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Mr. Redman, the director of the Wyoming In-
dian High School and Frank LaPoint.
Mr. Redman. The board of the high school just wants to support Mr.
Kills Straight and I can tell you one example that we had in the area
office of our last negotiation for next year.
130
They called us and they wanted 2 days to negotiate but they told us
how much we were going to get and there was hardly any sense in
negotiating. When they came down to our school to negotiate they told
us how much we were going to get and that was it. Then they also
stated, get another budget, a larger amount and list your priorities,
which we did, but they won't listen to our priorities. They just kept
telling us we were going to get the same amount of money we received
this year. Actually that is a cut in our budget since the costs are higher
than last year and the teachers get their annual increase. Actually it
was a cut in our budget for next year.
Senator Abourezk. That is known as administration self-determina-
tion, not Indian self-determination.
Mr. Redman. That is all I have.
Mr. LaPoint. I would like to reinforce the idea that we need more
money for education for our children. For instance, last year we got a
$50,000 educational contract from the BIA and because of budget limi-
tations somewhere along the line we are stuck with another $40,000.
What that means is that we really, as far as our school is concerned,
we do not have a permanent sort of steady basic program fund, and
that is what we are concerned abQut, and maybe in this law, if you
could put something in there that would assure each Indian child of
getting maybe a basic entitlement of some sort, that they would not be
faced with this situation.
Thank you.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you, Frank.
I have no more questions or comments. Just a minute, one of the
staff members has.
Mr. Gerard. Would it be possible for the coalition to provide the
committee with some kind of breakdown of what you consider to be
the average per pupil or the desirable average per pupil expenditure
in those contract schools? You have how many years of experience
now in operating ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Eleven. If you include those nine colleges who
are members, 20. That was an outgrowth of this coalition and out of
the 11,9 are still members.
Mr. Gerard. I would think any experience you could share with the
committee would be useful in trying to follow up on the recommenda-
tions. Just for the elementary and secondary level.
Mr. Kills Straight. We will be happy to work with you on that.
In this report, this testimony I mentioned briefly our accountant who
was down at the Albuquerque area office. His name is, Esacpa, an In-
dian. He made some evaluations of what you are saying. The per
pupil cost and he did it for one area office, and that area office is pretty
shook up and as a result of that he is going to have to do it at all other
area offices. What we wanted to do is after this is done then we can come
in with facts and figures and at that time we can lay out some sort
of a formula, a realistic one.
Mrs. Gereau. Do I understand, and I hope I don't understand, you
are not suggesting that this bill, title II F. which primarily speaks of
public school educating some Indians where there are some Indians
and non-Indians in the same school, I hope you are not suggesting
this be held up pending a very needed and thorough investigation
into the funding of the BIA schools, especially as it relates to the
131
funding of contract schools? I realize you want something done on
that, but are you suggesting this be held up until that is done?
Mr. Kills Straight. No, I think with that finding we can know
for a fact the average that is being spent, and if you want it this after-
noon or Monday, it could be available.
Mrs. Gereatj. Your testimony speaks very eloquently to the need
for a much more sound basis for funding BIA schools and particu-
larly those that are contract, where you point out that the BIA schools
get funds other than those just earmarked for education, but when they
make a contract they only give you the part that comes out of the edu-
cation budget, so you are not getting, I would guess, as much money
per pupil as is available in the schools which the BIA continues to
operate itself which is a problem and should be approached by the
Senate committee. What I am saying is I hope you are not saying
hold this bill up until we get that problem settled.
Mr. Kills Straight. No, I am not saying that. We can really
work at your disposal. We can have this stuff ready by Monday.
Mrs. Gereatj. The funding thing really goes to the Appropriations
Committee and this goes to an authorization committee. Well, you
answered my question.
Mr. Kills Straight. Also, in relationship to what you were saying
about the contract schools, we have approximately 87 and if some of
these schools, after a while, and if we can't get funds for these schools,
some of these boards may get discouraged and may want to quit, and
when this happens somebody is going to have to worry about it and it
is going to be BIA. I think we were strengthening the concept.
Mrs. Gereau. How many contract schools are there, elementary and
secondary ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Eleven in operation right now, and there are
more that are on the drawing board.
Mrs. Gereatj. But there are also members of the Coalition of Indian
Control School Boards that are public schools like the Rocky Point
and others?
Mr. Kills Straight. Yes.
Mrs. Gereatj. But of contract schools, specifically where you con-
tract with the BIA to run what was once a BIA school and is now your
school, there are eleven?
Mr. Kills Straight. In a school such as Ramah and Wind River,
which are entirely new. Busby is a takeover project and there are sev-
eral others. There are others such as St. Ann, Red Cloud, St. Francis,
which are parochial schools now, and we are assuming control over
those, too.
Senator Abotjrezk. Isn't St. Francis now controlled by the Indian
School Board altogether ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Yes.
Senator Abotjrezk. How about Red Cloud ?
Mr. Kills Straight. In fact, we were the first ones to really have
something coming. We were promised something like $750,000 2 years
ago.
Senator Abotjrezk. Is that Red Cloud ?
Mr. Kills Straight. Right.
Senator Abotjrezk. Who were you promised that by?
132
Mr. Kills Straight. Hawkins in BIA. Except for politicians at
home. And we were given a bank draft of $40,000 and it was cut down
to $12,000 and the money was sent out, it was stopped at the area office
because by that time there was a new Chairman. This is his last year at
Pine Ridge, and he stopped it entirely.
Senator Abottrezk. You are saying the new Chairman at Pine Ridge
is antieducation ?
Mr. Kills Straight. He is anti a lot of things. As a result of that
for the past year we weren't able to get anything from BIA.
Mr. La vis. Mr. Kills Straight, on behalf of Senator Fannin we are
interested in knowing what your views are on the school construction
section ?
Mr. Roberts. I will make a comment on that. We feel that construc-
tion is needed. However, it shouldn't be placed on such a high priority
where it will impede upon education of Indian children. We have
seen several of the States that are supposedly responsible for educat-
ing Indian children but they count the children, make a head count,
and that is the basis for Indian education. In other words, the child
does not really — he is not really the prime concern. It is using the
child to get Federal funds.
Mr. Laves. For school construction ?
Mr. Roberts. For schools ; yes.
Mr. Manuelito. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one more
thing. In getting back to the audit of area offices, Ramah was directly
involved in a paper that we were able to obtain and Ramah was the
only contract school in the Albuquerque area and they listed per pupil
costs for all of the schools in the Albuquerque area including Ramah
and they listed our total budget and as a result our per pupil cost was
much higher than those of Bureau schools, but one thing they failed to
point out is that Ramah has to absorb the cost of plant management, the
cost of buses, administration, food services, everything else in our total
budget whereas the Bureau's schools were getting these from other
areas and they were not including this in the per pupil cost allocations,
and they kept telling us we had no reason to cry because we had a
higher per pupil cost expense and as a result of this we began to look
further into this and as a result the audit began to take place and I
think we were unable to convince the Bureau at this point that we
should get those services which everybody is getting also because we
have the same right to them.
Mrs. Gereau. I have one last question, Mr. Kills Straight. I believe
the Bureau received annually something in the neighborhood of $12 to
$13 million as their share of money under the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act. These funds are to go to the children in the Fed-
eral schools.
When an Indian community contracts to take over a Bureau school,
do you know whether or not any of that title I money goes to the Indian
contractor or are you just operating on the regular appropriations of
the Bureau's budget ?
Mr. LaPointe. I can talk to our situation. We do receive title I
money because we are a contract school. However, this took a big
battle to get that done, and instead of making it an across-the-board
policy then, each school I think had to fight on their own in their own
area to get these funds.
133
The other thing about it is it still comes back to, no matter how
much title I funds you get you still have the basic program before these
funds can be more effectively used.
Senator Abourezk. I want to thank you very much for your testi-
mony and your remarks.
The next witness is scheduled as Mr. William Youpee, executive
director of the National Tribal Chairman's Association, Washington,
D.C. I understand someone else, other than Mr. Youpee is here, Mr.
Upicksoun. Are you here, sir?
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Upicksoun, we are happy to have you here
today and we would be pleased to hear your testimony. I understand
you are one of the members of the HEW National Advisory Com-
mission on Education, is that correct?
STATEMENT OF JOE UPICKSOUN, CHAIRMAN OF THE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIA-
TION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Upicksoun. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement here written.
My name is Joe Upicksoun and I am chairman of the National Tribal
Chairmen's Association's Education Committee.
The National Tribal Chairmen's Association is very interested in
the disposition of S. 1017. Therefore, we appreciate the opportunity
to present our views on S. 1017.
The National Tribal Chairmen's Association would like to take this
opportunity to commend you in your efforts to provide for the im-
provements of educational services for federally connected Indian chil-
dren. It is evident that you have attempted to respond to the testimony
presented in hearings by Indians on various Indian education bills
introduced during the last few years. You have grasped many con-
cerns expressed in previous testimony and have incorporated those
elements into your proposed legislation. We support many of those
elements.
S. 1017 contains two titles. The first seeks to add a more realistic
dimension to the present promises of "self-determination" for the
Indian people. The second is primarily designed to correct abuses of the
Johnson-O'Malley Act, to involve Indian parents in the planning and
implementation of education programs, and to permit federally recog-
nized Indian tribes and tribal organizations or State education agen-
cies to be contractors for Indian education.
I will comment on title I first. Title I of S. 1017 is essentially the
same as S. 3157, the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1972. S. 3157
and several other related bills were introduced during the 92d Con-
gress. Hearings on these bills were heard on May 8, 1972. The National
Tribal Chairmen's Association testified on S. 3157 at that time. I
would like to refer the committee to the National Tribal Chairmen's
Association's testimony on S. 3157. I will, however, briefly reiterate
our position on title I of S. 1017.
The National Tribal Chairmen's Association supports title I, the
Indian Self-Determination Act, and recommends that this title be
enacted.
As was mentioned in our testimony on S. 3157, the National Tribal
Chairmen's Association has strong feelings about the trust responsi-
134
bility for Indian lands which is the link that holds Indians and the
Federal Government in a special and unique relationship. In addition,
the integrity of tribal sovereignty is of special concern to the National
Tribal Chairmen's Association. We feel that Federal actions which
affect Indians should recognize and support tribal self-government to
the fullest extent.
The proposed title, as we understand it, will neither surrender nor
absolve the U.S. Government of its responsibilities to the Indian peo-
ple. It seems to provide the statutory authority that is required to assist
Indians in the implementation of a more realistic Indian self-deter-
mination policy. For these reasons, we support the enactment of title I.
The National Tribal Chairmen's Association supports the provisions
contained in title II. It is in line with the President's Indian message
of July 8, 1970, in which he discussed the need to make certain that
Johnson-O'Malley funds come under the influence of Indians as to the
ways that the money is spent. The President proposed that the Con-
gress amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act to authorize the Department of
the Interior to channel Johnson-O'Malley funds directly to Indian
tribes and communities. Title II would give the Secretary of the In-
terior explicit authority to contract directly with federally recognized
Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
The National Tribal Chairmen's Association supports the concept
of providing the Secretary of the Interior with explicit authority to
contract directly with not only States and local institutions but with
tribes and tribal organizations. We believe that this can be accom-
plished by amending the present Johnson-O'Malley Act to include such
language. We do not feel that it is necessary to substitute part A of the
proposed Indian Education Reform Act for the education portion of
the Johnson-O'Malley Act. In addition, we have serious reservations
about section 203 (a) .
While this section attempts to provide a formula which can be the
basis for distribution of part A funds, we believe that the formula
will be too cumbersome to be useful or to be effective. Some pros-
pective contractors may simply choose not to deal with such a formula
and not contract for part A funds. Some prospective contractors may
not be able to meet the property tax rates of five non-Indian districts
of comparable sized enrolledment and, therefore, lost part A funds.
We recommend that part A not be enacted and that the Johnson-
O'Malley Act be amended to include language that would explicitly
authorize contracts with Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
Title II contains additional parts. Part B provides the Secretary
with definite authority to make grants to or contract with universities,
colleges, and other public or private nonprofit organizations to prepare
better qualified personnel to serve Indian children in public, private
and Federal schools and to increase the qualifications of existing per-
sonnel. Part C authorizes Federal aid to public school construction
and renovation for public schools on or near Indian reservations if such
schools are serving Indians. Parts D and E establishes an Indian youth
intern program for summer employment and provides funds for edu-
cational research and development. Part F requires the Secretary to
submit to the 94th Congress a proposed program on adult and con-
tinuing education, on vocational and technical careers, on early child-
hood development, and on higher education programs. The National
135
Tribal Chairmen's Association ascribes to the concept embodied in
these parts.
We would like, however, to make additional comments on parts B
and C. We recommend that section 206 contain a provision for Indian
participation as to the type or kind of training program that is needed
in schools that serve Indian children. We also note that the pros-
pective training programs center around the educational field. We
would like to point out the need for training in other areas in addition
to the educational field, for example, business management, health, and
other service fields. The need for schoool construction is great in both
the public and Federal schools. While we recognize that part C is de-
signed to give the BIA the necessary contracting authority to meet the
great public school construction needs of public schools serving Indian
students, we feel that some attention should also be given to Federal
school construction. Many BIA schools are in need of renovation or in
need of new buildings. We ask that the Congress also add additional
construction funds to the Bureau's appropriations.
It is generally well known that the backlog for public school con-
struction is so great that $30 million per year will not meet current
construction needs. We recommend that this amount be doubled or
even tripled.
Mr. Chairman, thus far I have commented on various provisions of
S. 1017. There are other areas that need attention which S. 1017 does
not address itself to. Attempts are being made to meet the educational
and other needs of Indian children in public schools, but little is being
done for Indian children in our BIA schools. We would like to recom-
mend that you consider adding a new title to S. 1017 that addressed
the growing concern of many of our people.
1. We recommend that a basic foundation program for Federal
schools, under the BIA be established.
A. This basic foundation program should provide each Indian stu-
dent in BIA schools with an entitlement equal to not less than the
average per-pupil expenditure of the State where the BIA school or
reservation is located.
B. This program should provide direct funding to Federal schools
based, at minimum, on an entitlement equal to the average State per-
pupil expenditure of the State in which the BIA school is located.
C. This program should provide for all Indian children from kinder-
garten through grade 12.
D. This program should provide local Indian schoolboards with the
authority to operate those schools.
2. We recommend that three approached be used for providing direct
funding under such a program, namely.
A. Direct funding to the Federal schools based on the formula men-
tioned earlier — number of Indian children enrolled times the average
State per-pupil expenditure of the State in which the school is located.
B. Contracting to tribes for the operation and control of a BIA
school, again, based at minimum on the aforementioned formula.
D. Providing for demonstration sites under a tuition voucher sys-
tem with enough flexibility to provide parents of Indian children with
the opportunity to establish alternative approaches to Indian educa-
tion.
136
3. We recommend that a basic foundation entitlement for boarding
school facilities be established. These funds should be separate and
above educational moneys provided under recommendation No. 1.
A. This program should provide each student with a minimum
level of funding equal to the cost of providing such services for chil-
dren in the surrounding area.
B. Boarding programs should be designed to strengthen cultural
identities where boarding schools are still necessary.
4. We also recommend that a program be established to fully meet
post-secondary educational needs of young Indian adults in three
areas.
A. Under graduate programs for bachelor or associate degrees.
B. Graduate programs for masters and doctorate degrees.
C. Technical, vocational, and paraprofessional programs.
5. In addition, we recommend that Title IV of Public Law 92-318 be
fully funded to meet the needs of all Indian children in public schools.
6. Finally we recommend that a process be legislated to enable In-
dian communities and leaders with the opportunity to help select the
BIA's Director of Indian Education, who would have the prime re-
sponsibility for implementing this additional title.
Mr. Chairamn, this concludes my statement.
Senator Abourezk. Do you have anything further you wish to add
to that on your own ?
Mr. Upicksoun. This was the position of the National Tribal Chair-
men's .Association. We had a committee that worked with me in get-
ting this document so that it would be here this afternoon.
Senator Abourezk. I want to thank you for it. By the way, I want
to comment upon some parts of this statement. I think your idea of a
basic foundation program for schools is an excellent idea. I don't know,
I don't think we can put it in this bill. I think it would require some
field hearings and additional hearings and staff work on such a con-
cept. I think it is an excellent idea and a good concept, and I want to
express the gratitude of the committee for your bringing it up today.
We appreciate it very much and I think it is something we are going
to have to do in the very near future, as a matter of fact.
I also notice the attention that you paid to advanced educational
programs such as undergraduate and graduate programs and I thought
I might ask you what your thinking is on the community college con-
cept that has recently sprung up both in South Dakota and Arizona.
Do you like the idea, or what do you think of it ?
Mr. Upicksoun. Mr. Chairman, I am from Alaska and we do not
have any higher education beyond the ninth grade. However, the ad-
visory school board which I have been active with for 3 years, put
together a program for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to follow through
on which would not only bring in the 12 grades in the Barrow, Alaska
area, but it would also include 2 more years where they would have 2
years of community college. I thought that the teachers and the par-
ents and the school board worked together to come up with a very good
policy planning statement in the areas of education and I have a belief
that community colleges are very healthy because those facilities are
available for the community college students to take advantage of.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you. Some of the staff members have a
question or two they would like to pose now.
137
Mr. Lavis. I was interested in the comment that you had in your
testimony about the use of a voucher system. I wonder if you couldn't
expand on that, your reason for suggesting that ?
Mr. Upicksoun. The condition behind the voucher system ? I don't
know whether anyone has ever spoken on that subject, What it means
is that the parent would have a chance to send a child to any school
and just simply submit a voucher.
Mr. Lavin. You may know about that. OEO is, I believe, funding a
demonstration of that particular approach, I believe, in Oakland,
Calif., one of the school systems there. I was curious as to what
prompted you to suggest this approach. That is all I have.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
The next witness is Mr. Lester Gemmill from the Indian desk of
the Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, Mich. As I under-
stand it, Mr. Gemmill wishes to submit his statement for the record
and stand to answer any questions that the committee might have. Is
that correct, Mr. Gemmill ?
STATEMENT OF LESTER GEMMILL, INDIAN DESK OF THE MICHIGAN
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, LANSING, MICH
Mr. Gemmill. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abourezk. Your statement will be inserted in the record
and printed in full as though it were read by you and if any of the
staff members present have questions — I don't have any myself be-
cause I have not seen your statement, and it has not been given to me
before this minute, so I have no prepared questions, but I will ask the
staff members if they have any.
We do want to study your statement, perhaps we might submit
questions to you in writing at a later time.
Mr. Gemmill. I would like to mention we also added by request a
second statement which pertains just to the amount of funds allocated
on a State level and Federal level, combined, in the State of Michigan
for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. We gave a breakdown and
joined them together.
Senator Abourezk. That is in your statement ?
Mr. Gemmill. It is a separate sheet.
Senator Abourezk. We would like to have that for the record. It
would be valuable for the committee. We thank you very much, Mr.
Gemmill for your appearance here today, and the statements sub-
mitted.
Mrs. Gereau. I hurriedly read your statement just before I came up
here and I noticed that you urged the establishment of an Indian desk
in the departments of education in the States that have Indian chil-
dren. It was one of your recommendations. The bill does speak to that
point. It doesn't call it an Indian desk but it authorizes funds for State
department of education whether or not they are the contractor and I
gather you would approve that. Even though they may not be the con-
tractor, that they should have funds so that they can assist in dist ricts
that will be dealing with the Indians who may be the contractors.
Mr. Gemmill. That is right. Michigan has been the recipient of
Johnson-O'Malley funds, this is the second year, and this was one of
138
the reasons why our State department felt it would be wise to establish
a position in the State department to administer programs.
Mrs. Gereatj. Until you had the money from Johnson-O'Malley you
didn't have an Indian office in the State department of education ?
Mr. Gemmill. That's right.
Mrs. Gereau. When the Federal money became available then the
State did begin to take recognition of this and provided a staff person ?
Mr. Gemmill. Yes.
Mrs. Gereau. You approve of that ?
Mr. Gemmill. Yes ; I believe there is a great need to coordinate not
only with the Johnson-O'Malley schools but with the State at large.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much, Mr. Gemmill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gemmill follows:]
139
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITFD STATES
JUNE 1, 1973
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
Testimony presented to
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman
In Re
S. 1017, Indian Se lf-Det ermination a nd Educational Peform Act of 1973
Testimony Dresented by
Mr. Lester Gemmill, Indian Desk
Dr. Frank Hartman, Federal Liaison
of
Michigan State Board of Education
Michigan National Tower
Lansing, Michigan 48302
140
Chairman Abourezk and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
We come to this table expressing gratitude for the opportunity to submit
testimony on Senate Bill 1017, which, if enacted, would become the
"Indian Self-Determination and Educational Reform Act of 1973." As
representatives of the Michigan State Department of Education, we savor
the realization that we are amono those oriviliged to participate in
the development of Federal legislation for Indian governance and educ-
ation. We appear as authorized representatives of Dr. John W. Porter,
Superintendent of Public Instruction in the State of Michigan, who
endorses the testimony presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Indian
Affairs.
GENERAL COMMENTARY
I. We have in Michigan in 1973 an "official" Indian student (ages 5-18)
population of 5,778 in grades K-12. Official is embraced in quotes
because we allege it is heavy on the low side, attributable to our means
of compiling Indian student head count — teacher reporting weighted
heavily on observation. We contend there are in the United States
h bi n i rfrodo > & f thousands of Indian students not on our Indian student
population rolls. There are several reasons for this and perhaps the
3 most significant are:
1) Infirm methods employed by local school districts in
obtaining Indian student population count.
2) Urban Indians pose a peculiar problem in accountability
because they are lost in the big city maelstrom of bewildering
numbers, constant mobility, and absenteeism which is the
forerunner of drop out (Indians have a radical drop out rate).
141
3) The "silent titlist" syndrome of young Indians who would
rather be assumed as being white than admitted as being red.
It has not been popular in this country since 1492 to be
Indian, is an understated rationale for the silent titlist
vogue. This may be the most provocative deterrent for valid
accountability.
II. We encourage the continuity of the Johnson-O'Malley Act (P.L. 74-638,
as amended) trusting that until Indian affairs are adequately funded
through comprehensive legislation at the Federal level, the enrichment
resources of Johnson-O'Malley will continue to flow. Michigan received
from this source $50,000 in 1972 and $181,256 in 1973, most of the sizable
increase for 1973, compared with 1972, is because of the summer school
program being introduced for the first time in Michigan.
III. We commend for your consideration that education programs for
Indian people, children and adults, be administered by the Office of
Education through a Bureau of Indian Education under the supervision
of a deputy commissioner or assistant commissioner, but that the admini-
stration of the Johnson-O'Malley Act not be reassigned to this Bureau
at the present, but perhaps in the future, particularly if Indian constituents
should rally to the support of such transfer.
IV. We further commend for enactment that an Indian Desk be authorized
in each State Department of Education to coordinate, evaluate, and oronogate
Indian education in all states, and to interpret the resultant accommodation
of each state in its effort to comply with Federal and State legislation
pertaining to the objectives promulgated by said legislation.
98-143 O - 73 -- ic
142
SPECIFIC COMMENTARY
I. Title II, Part A, p. 14, lines 11-15
Proposed rewrite: (6) educational personnel serving Indians,
including those in State Education Agencies, shall receive salaries,
including fringe benefits, at least equal to the average salary
rates of professional educators in the affected State, State Education
Agency, or affected school district, whichever is apnlicable.
II. Sec. 204 (b), p. 17, lines 5-16.
We hope this means forward funding for the lifetime of the Act, not
only for its first year of implementation. We could write pages of
sad commentary on recent aDpropriations delays because of impoundments.
Most notorious in Indian education is the $18,000,000 impounded by
0MB for the Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act
(Part A of Title IV of the Education Amendments of 1972). This money
was released only a few weeks ago and now hundreds of school districts ere
feverishly attempting to meet the June 8 deadline. Education, whether Indian
or general, deserves more thoughtful and sympathetic regard.
III. Sec. 203 (7), p. 14, lines 16-20.
Liberalize the per centum to a maximum of 8 per centum for administrative and
consultative costs for a contractor, i.e., State Education Agency,
because SEAs could be found guilty of assigning impossible tasks to
a select few. The per centum should be on a sliding scale in accordance
with population served, technical assistance required, and geographical
exnanse of area administered.
143
IV. Sec 207 (a), p. 19, lines 6-15.
Provide for the construction of schools, especially elementary schools,
for Indian children in close proximity to the children served . It
is not sufficient to state "in close proximity to any Indian
reservation or other lands held in trust by the United States for
Indians " Your attention is directed to The Report of the Select
Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity , United States Senate
(Dec. 31, 1972), pps. VII-VIII:
I have seen the lives of disadvantaged children all over this
country on reservations, in ghettos, in migrant camps and
pockets of rural poverty. Statistics can never tell the full
story. . . . :
Of the cold, military-like environment
of a Federal bearding school for Navajo
elementary children -- children who must
spend months away from their families,
often beginning at age 5.
Lurid testimony depicting the abominable results of boarding schools!
There should be no boarding schools for Indian elementary children. They
should be nestled in an open, warm atmosphere of a school building
within daily commuting distance of their homes. Flint, Michigan, has
long employed the practice of building primary units "where the kids are."
These are attractive, inexpensive, durable school units designed to
house grades one, two, and three. This model could be expanded to care
for grades four, five and six. There is a definite trend in many
school districts to return to the open classroom concept of yesteryear.
144
This is only an illustration of immaginative procedure which could be
utilized to break the desolate boarding school custom which was perpetrated for
the wrong reasons. There is unquestionably a need for school construction
for Indians ir, the Federal sector, and some critical thinking must go
into the specifications.
V. Insert in an appropriate place a means to improve the method of determining
the Indian population of a school district. It is recommended that an
Indian parent, or parents, from a recognized Indian Education Committee
be employed to assist whenever an Indian census is needed. When the time
comes that all Indians may be comfortable in the realization that they
are Indians, the census problem will be reduced to little more than statistical
calculations.
VI. ,: Indian" should be defined better than it is in Sec. 4 (a), p. 4. Perhaps
there should be a blood quantum included in the definition. And what
about step-children of Indians, children who are 100 per centum white or
black? Or adopted whites and blacks? An Indian definition might state
simply that one or more ancestors, a specified number of generations ago,
must have been full -blooded Indian,
Concluding Commentary
We have researched pages of testimony which you have received, or shall
receive, and do not choose to revisit upon you commentary which has perhaps
been registered in more attractive style than we could muster. We concur
with most of it and do not contend enviously with you for the challenge of
ferreting the usable out of the unusable. We do urge that a fundamental
precept be welded into the legislation: freedom of choice for Indians.
145
In any value system, freedom of choice is coveted. Values are elements
of human experience which are invested with great emotional meaning for
people. Values are the main source of energy for a society.
Thank you, for the privilege of aopearing before you. We stand ready to
serve should you favor us with a request for additional contributions.
146
COMPOSITE REPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIP,
TUITION GRANTS, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
AND JOHNSON O'MALLEY GRANTS EXPENDED FOR INDIAN
PUPILS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN FROM 1970 - 1973
Year
State
scholarship
and tuition
Federal
scholarship
Total
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
7,441.00
9,882.00
20,284.00
$ 66,750.00
175,000.00
175.000.00
$ 74,191.00
184,882.00
195.284.00
TOTAL
$ 37,607.00
$ 416,750.00
$ 454,357.00
Vocational Education Expenditures
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
Total
21,258.00
127,484.00
73,019.00
$ 221,761.00
Johnson-O'Malley Funds
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
50,000.00
181,256.00
TOTAL
$ 231,256.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR 70-71, 71-72, 72-73 $ 907.374.00
Total Expenditures By Year
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
TOTAL
$95,449.00
362,366.00
449,559.00
$ 907,374.00
Appropriation by State of Michigan for Indian Education Position
(Coordinator of Indian Education) 1972-73
$20,000.00
147
Senator Aboukezk. We have a couple of distinguished gentlemen
in the audience here today that I would like to call upon to recognize.
Mr. Kobert B. Jim, chairman of the Yakima Indian Nations. Do you
have anybody else with you, you would like to introduce today ?
Mr. Jim. Mr. Louis Cloud, chairman, and Mr. Johnson Meninick,
a member of the Washington delegation.
Senator Abourezk. Very happy to have you here during these hear-
ings today. Thank you very much, Mr. Jim.
Also, Allen P. Slickpoo, who is from the HEW subcommittee of
the Nez Perce tribal executive committee from Lapwai, Idaho. Mr.
Slickpoo, would you like to stand up and be recognized. Do you have
anybody else you would like to introduce who is here with you.
Mr. Slickpoo. No ; I am the only one present.
Senator Abourezk. If you have a comment you would like to make
to the committee we would be pleased to hear you.
Mr. Slickpoo. Yes.
Senator Abourezk. Would you want to come up to the table ?
STATEMENT OF ALLEN P. SLICKPOO, HEW SUBCOMMITTEE, NEZ
PERCE TRIBAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, LAPWAI, IDAHO
Mr. Slickpoo. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for giving me the time to appear before you.
Although I do not have a prepared statement, and after just listen-
ing to the testimony and the statements that were made by other mem-
bers or other tribal representatives and organizations I might state
that I am Allen P. Slickpoo, a member of the health, education, and
welfare subcommittee for my tribal council. I have also been involved
with, actively involved as chairman and presently a member of the
Johnson-O'Malley advisory committee of my local school district which
is located in Idaho on the Nez Perce Reservation.
Although not specifically relating to the bill, S. 1017, I would like
to bring out some specific things that I feel from my, what I call
grassroots information, grassroots knowledge of the problems relating
to Indian children in my particular school district, and I am sure that
this also could apply to many Indian schools or public schools which
are well integrated with Indian and non-Indian children students.
For a number of years I have been active in regard to Indian educa-
tion of children, because my interest lies deep inasmuch as I have four
children presently enrolled in public schools, therefore, I feel I am
qualified in knowing what the problems are directly related to Indian
children.
As I stated, we are pretty well integrated. We are not consolidated
reservation like many other Indian tribes or Indian reservations. My
reservation is pretty well checker boarded. There are school districts,
public school districts located within the reservation. However, I feel
that the basic problem relating to the education of the Indian child lies
with the fact that the Indian children are measured with the non-
Indian children as students, lacking the needs of consideration of cul-
tural differences existing. Consequently, this causes the learning hard-
ships or academic difficulties.
The parent advisory committee to the Johnson-O'Malley programs
in my school district have made a number of recommendations relating
to programs and budget in consultation with school superintendents.
148
However, there does exist in these consultations differences of opinion
with school administrators and the Johnson-O'Malley parent advisory
committees.
Consequently, the superintendent's recommendations and comments
carried priority over that of the parent advisory committee to the local
school boards/ For instance, when we feel that there should be em-
ployment of Indian people who can better communicate with the In-
dian child, it should come under this program, but we are overruled
by the fact that perhaps the non-Indian teacher's aid is more qualified
than that of the Indian. We do have Indian teacher's aides in our
school program. We have also noted that the programs designed under
Johnson-O'Malley have somehow reached to a point of a coverup pro-
gram to assist school districts for indirect maintenance and operation
purposes of the school district.
I feel, and I am sure I speak for my area of Johnson-O'Malley
parent advisory committees, that greater recognition should be made
to local Johnson-O'Malley parent advisory committees because we feel
that we know the needs and the problems from the grassroots.
The way the programs have been designed or implemented in some
of the local school districts, the programs to some extent have not
necessarily given adequate assurance in meeting the essential needs of
the Indian child in his endeavor for a good education. Because of such
administrative attitudes of the local schools toward Johnson-O'Malley
parent advisory committees, and I would like to have the committee to
consider very strongly the comment here, we need strengthening of
local parent involvement, the strengthening of local parent involve-
ment. And the recognition of authority of Johnson-O'Malley commit-
tees as a direct route toward the assurance of the implementation of
programs designed under the objectives of the Johnson-O'Malley Act.
I cannot help but say that there are in existence today in the lesser
Indian populated schools a feeling of discrimination, although it is
not revealed publicly, but the feeling is there, and we in our case have
experienced that, and I am sure that there are other schools, other
school districts involved with Indian students who have undergone the
same thing.
With that, Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I do not have a prepared state-
ment. I am here under the authority of the tribal council and also as
an individual speaking from the experience of being a member of the
Johnson-O'Malley advisory board. I am relating this information or
these comments to you, which I would respectfully ask that you take
under consideration. Unless something is done to recognize Johnson-
O'Malley parent advisory committees, we are nothing but a bobcat
committee, or anyway, with our tails cut off.
Senator Abourezk. We use to have a saying in the law practice, it is
something like a presumption in law. It is like a bat flying into the
twilight. He soon disappears once he leaves your immediate eyesight.
We certainly thank you for that unprepared statement. I thought it
Avas well put together for not having a long time of preparation and
the ideas in it are excellent. We will certainly have them in the record
and take them into consideration.
The hearings are adjourned until 9 o'clock Monday morning,
June 4.
[Whereupon, at 3 :30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to resume at
9 a.m., Monday, June 4, 1973.]
INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION
PROGRAM
MONDAY, JUNE 4, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs,
of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room
3110, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. James Abourezk, chairman,
presiding.
Present: Senators Abourezk [presiding], Fannin, and Bartlett.
Also present : Jerry T. Verkler, staff director ; Forest Gerard, pro-
fessional staff members ; Mary Gereau, consultant ; Rick La vis, legisla-
tive assistant to Senator Fannin, and Harrison Loesch, minority
counsel.
Senator Abourezk. The hearings of the Indian Affairs Subcommit-
tee are continuing this morning. The first witness is Mrs. Catharine
Barrett, president of the National Education Association, Washing-
ton, D.C., and you are accompanied, Mrs. Barrett, by Mrs. Jean
Flanagan, is that correct ?
STATEMENT OF CATHARINE BARRETT, PRESIDENT OF THE NA-
TIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JEAN
FLANAGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
Mrs. Barrett. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Abourezk. Very happy to see you this morning. Sorry I
didn't step out and shake hands on the way in.
We are very happy to have you and we are pleased to have your
testimony this morning, Mrs. Barrett.
Mrs. Barrett. Thank you very much, Senator.
As you have indicated, I am Catharine Barrett, president of the Na-
tional Education Association. We are always proud to be recognized
as the largest professional association in the Nation.
Jean Flanagan, who is with me, is our assistant director of research
and in her own right is an expert in school finance. I am pleased to
submit this testimony in support of S. 1017.
The NEA as you know is an independent voluntary organization of
educators. It presently has over 1,200,000 members employed in public
schools and colleges and is the largest organization of public em-
ployees in the Nation.
With its 50 State affiliates and over 9,000 local affiliates, the NEA
speaks for a combined membership of approximately 2 million public
employees.
(149)
150
Attached to this statement is a copy of NEA Resolution 72-11, en-
titled American Indian Education. It is too lengthy to read, but we
ask that it be made part of the record of this hearing.
Senator Abotjrezk. Without objection that will be the order.
[NEA Resolution 72-11 follows:]
Excebpt, National Education Association Resolutions, Adopted at Annual
Convention, June 30, 1972
72-11 american indian education
The National Educational Association recognizes that the complexity and
diversity of needs of American Indian children require the direct involvement
of Indian parents, Indian teachers, tribal leaders, and other Indian groups in
developing adequate and equal educational programs which preserve the rich
heritage of Indian culture.
The Association insists that federal funding for Indian education be expanded
to effect necessary improvements. The Association supports the movement toward
self-determination by Indians and insists that such programs be voluntary. The
Association opposes termination of federal support for Indians either as a direct
or indirect result of efforts to extend Indian self-determination.
The Association directs that programs be developed which provide for :
a. Involvement of Indian parents and communities with the public schools in
developing programs for the improvement of education of Indian children.
b. Indian control of schools attended by Indian children and participation in
the governance of schools attended by Indian students.
c. Ethnic studies in colleges of teacher education.
d. In-service education dealing with cultural pluralism, the teaching of Amer-
ican Indian heritage and culture.
e. Assistance to local and state associations in meeting the educational needs
of Indian students.
f. Substanital participation by Indians in NEA conferences and leadership
training programs.
g. Coordination with existing Indian organizations and concerned agencies,
h. Promotion of teaching as a career among Indian youth.
i. Higher education opportunities for all Indian students.
The Association recommends subsidization or free tuition for Indian students
in state colleges and universities, extension of scholarships in graduate as well
as undergraduate education, and Indian involvement in developing multi-cul-
tural learning centers at higher education institutions.
Mrs. Barrett. We have measured S. 1017 against the resolution
and find no conflict in any respect. Thus, we wholeheartedly support
S. 1017 and urge its enactment, as long as the majority of the Indian
people have no opposition to it.
We note that S. 1017 permits the Secretary of the Interior to con-
tract with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and State or local school
agencies for programs under title II.
While NEA policy traditionally supports channeling all education
programs through the U.S. Office of Education to education agencies
and local public school districts, we recognize that in the instance of
Indian education the Indian people desire otherwise. We believe that
their wishes in the matter should take precedence.
We also are impressed with the design in the bill to provide maxi-
mum Indian input and control, as far as permitted by State law, of
programs authorized by this bill.
While it is not reasonable to expect that all problems will be solved
by this practice, it is reasonablet o expectt hatt he Indian people can
assist in designing programs to meet their needs better than have
non-Indians in the past. It certainly is worth a try.
151
We do have some comments on part A of title II of S. 1017 which
we hope will be useful to this committee. Part A is based on the
premise that Indian children are entitled, by right of citizenship, to
all of the services and support provided by State and other Federal
law to non-Indian children. We believe that this is not only proper,
but legally required as reiterated by the Citizenship Act of 1924.
Part A of title II establishes a formula under which Federal assist-
ance would be provided to school districts on or near reservations or
other tax-exempt Indian land. It requires the Secretary of Interior
to be assured that local school districts which educate Indians levy
taxes at the rate equal to the average levied by five size comparable
school districts within the State.
In size as used here refers to numbers of pupils. This is not unreason-
able. This effort will, of course, vary State by State because of the
divergence in school financing policies and capabilities among the
States. However, it is in keeping with the principle of noninterven-
tion by the Federal Government in the fiscal policies of the States.
The formula also requires that school districts receive, for each
Indian child, an amount of State aid equal to the average received by
the five comparable districts.
Moreover, it directs that money received under title I of Public
Law 81-874 — and we urge that the language be clarified to show that
it refers only to title I of that act* — be counted, for purposes of this
formula, as local tax revenue.
This, too, is reasonable. Ultimately, the difference between funds
produced through these State and local revenues and the average per
pupil cost in the five comparable districts will be made up by Federal
funds provided by this bill.
At the request of the committee staff, our school finance specialists
have tried to estimate what the overall cost of this portion of part A
will be. Accuracy is impossible, as we do not have access to the neces-
sary data from each affected school district regarding revenues gener-
ated by local property tax levies. However, these data could be com-
piled by the States without undue effort.
Incidentally, we note with appreciation that this bill does provide
for funds to State departments of education, regardless of who the
contractor may be, which will enable the State agencies to assist in
implementing the act. This is very important, since there will be need
for substantial statistical assistance from the States to implement this
formula.
In order to provide some kind of guideline for the committee's con-
sideration, we estimated that at an average expenditure of $450 per
child — about half the national average — part A would require about
$42 million for the first year.
This sum would provide funding for the formula in part A as well
as the supplemental optional programs outlined in part A. It must be
stressed that the $450 figure does not mean that each district or State
would receive $450 for each child.
Depending on the State's system of finance, and the scope of optional
programs requested, the amount per child will vary. However, we
thought it would be helpful to the committee to propose a specific
authorization figure, and we urge the committee to so inform the Ap-
propriations Committee.
152
We suggest that language be inserted in the bill authorizing the
Secretary to fund part A programs for Alaska at a rate 25 percent in
excess of the average amount available to the other States. School costs
in Alaska are on the average about 25 percent higher than the average
for the other States.
We note that the definition of Indian in S. 1017 is more restrictive
than that contained in title IV of Public Law 92-318, the Indian
Education Act passed last year, after approval by the Interior Com-
mittee as well as the Labor and Public Welfare Committee.
We prefer the broader definition, but recognize the problem of com-
mittee jurisdiction which we understand limits this committee to pro-
grams for federally recognized Indians.
We are pleased that this bill does not repeal or negate title IV of
Public Law 92-318. Thus, Indian school systems will be able to choose
the program which is more suited to their specific needs.
One further point, while S. 1017 does not speak to the subject of
federally operated Indian schools, we are concerned for the 62,000
children who attend such schools, including some 2,200 schools operated
by local tribal school boards under contract with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. We support this practice and urge that it be broadened as
circumstances permit.
However, we must point out that this trend will have a substantial
effect on the teachers currently employed in BIA schools. As control of
the schools moves to the tribes, we must anticipate that the tribes
should and will have a more active voice in choosing teachers — without
which they really don't have control.
Clearly, this will leave teachers, some with many years of experience
and investment in civil service retirement programs, in a tenuous posi-
tion. Therefore, we urge the committee to take an in-depth look at
the Federal schools, the trend toward tribal control, and the effect
this has on professional employees.
In summary, therefore, we support S. 1017, commend the sponsors
of the bill and urge its speedy enactment.
Thank you very much.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much for an excellent state-
ment, Mi's. Barrett. The committee staff member, Mr. Girard does
have a question he would like to pose concerning one part of your
testimony.
Mrs. Barrett. Yes.
Mr. Gerard. Mrs. Barrett, in reference to the final paragraph on
page 3 in which you suggest the 25-percent differential for Alaska,
can you tell the committee if the same kind of differential is in oper-
ation for 874 funds that Alaska might receive, or for some of the
funds they receive under the various titles of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act?
Mrs. Barrett. I will ask Mrs. Flanagan.
Mrs. Flanagan. I do not believe it is.
Mr. Gerard. But you would recommend it in this instance?
Mrs. Flanagan. Yes.
Senator Abotjrezk. Obviously you are stating — that if there were
no differential the result would be a shortage in that particular school
district in Alaska.
Mrs. Barrett. That is correct, unless they had the increased amount
in which to operate. I had a rather interesting experience in costs in
153
Alaska when I was in Anchorage about 8 or 10 months ago and I
went into the dining room for breakfast one morning. I noticed if you
ordered separately on the menu one eg^ was $1.50 and that was a
little bit different than in Washington and certainly different from
that rural village of Syracuse in New York that I come from. So, I
think I had a rather good lesson in increased costs in Alaska.
Senator Abourezk. There is only one perhaps benefit that might
come from our inflation here, we might catch up with Alaska.
Mrs. Barrett. We could use it.
Mr. Gerard. I have just two additional questions. First of all, do
you feel that the formula we have proposed for part A title II of the
bill would represent an equitable manner in which to distribute the
funds if this legislation is enacted into law ?
Mrs. Barrett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gerard. I note that you fail to make reference to some of the
other authorizations proposed in title II. Do you wish to make any
general comment as to their worthiness on Indian education?
Mrs. Barrett. We really haven't gotten into that section and chose
to address ourselves simply to the title I section, but we will by
supplementary statement now otherwise address ourselves to that if
you wish us to.
Mr. Gerard. If you would be willing to provide that for the record
I believe it would be useful to the committee in its deliberation of the
bill.
Mrs. Barrett. 1 would be glad to do that.
[The information to be furnished follows :]
National, Education Association,
Office of the President,
June 12, 1913.
Hon. James G. Abourezk,
New Senate Ojftit Building,
Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Aboures.lv: I war.t to express NEA's appreciation for the
opportunity we were given to formally register our support for S. 1017, "The
Indian Self-Determination and Educational Inform Act." It was a pleasure to
see you ngain and to testify before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs on June 4.
As you may recall, I expressed NEA's support for the entire bill so long as
it meets with the approval of the majority of the Indian people. In my testi-
mony, I spoke mainly to Part A of Title li of the bin., indicating in general that
NEA also favors the balance of the proposed legislation. During the bearing, I
was asked to submit NEA's reactions to Parts B, C, D, E, F, and G, as well.
This lerter is intended to transmit NEA's commems for the record.
PART B, DEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSIONALS IN INDIAN EDUCATION
We feel that this authority, which specifically autborizes the Secretary of
the Interior to make grants and contracts for the purpose of preparing persons
to serve in public schools at all levels, is necessary. We suggest that the bill
be amended to insure involvement of the Indian people in determining the con-
tent of programs funded under this Part. The suggestion made by other wit-
nesses thai the grants or contracts be with Indian tribes or tribal organizations,
for subcontracting with institutions, is worth serious consideration.
PART C SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
We strongly support this provision and urge its enactment. PL 81-815 clearly
does not even begin to meet the need. Since PL 81-815 gives preference— and
properly so— to schools affected by disasters, the construction of schools on
Indian reservations is further set back each year. The current backlog is esti-
mated to be well over $1000 million. The need is great.
154
PART D. YOUTH INTERN PROGRAM
This is a particularly attractive feature of S. 1017. It will give young Indian
students an opportunity not only to earn money for their education, but also
to explore the various kinds of career opportunities that they too often believe
are unattainable.
PART E. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
We believe this is a necessary part of an Indian education package. We sug-
gest that language be included designating preference to Indian institutions or
organizations for contracts or grants.
PART F. ADULT, VOCATIONAL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
This Part directs the Secretary of the Interior to bring to the &4th Congress
recommendations for programs in adult, vocational, early childhood, special and
higher education. Although the Department of the Interior may presently be
authorized to make such recommendations, none have been made to date. Con-
gressional mandate and special funding as proposed herein hopefully would
lead to development of such recommendations.
PART G. GENERAL PROVISIONS
While all of these provisions are good, we are especially pleased with Sec.
220, which provides the opportunity for non-Indian children to participate in
programs if parents of the affected children acquiesce. Properly, it precludes
counting such non-Indian children under the funding section.
Personally, I am concerned about some other federal programs which are
actually promoting racial and economic segregation within classrooms because
of strict federal guidelines. We believe that providing non-Indian children the
opportunity to learn more of the culture and customs of their Indian peers will
be a major step towards solving the prejudices that exist in some communities.
In my testimony on Part A of S. 1017, I neglected to commend the sponsors
for the provision in Sec. 204(b) which provides for advance funding. This is a
most desirable feature which, if enacted, will give stability to the program as
well as make possible efficient and economical use of the funds. We strongly
urge that this feature be retained in the final draft of the bill.
I trust these comments will be useful to the Committee. If we can be of further
assistance, please call on us.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Catherine Barrett, President.
Senator Abourezk. Senator Fannin has arrived and perhaps would
like to make a comment.
Senator Fannin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed
your testimony.
Mrs. Barrett. We understand you are a very busy person as are all
the Senators.
Senator Fannin. I woud like to have you, for the record, to evaluate
the Public Law 815 program — as it affects public schools on or near
Indian reservations.
Mrs. Barrett. This is Mr. Flanagan who is with me.
Senator Fannin. As it affects the schools of the Indian reservation ?
Mrs. Flanagan. I think the problem there is that the amounts
have not been spent that were appropriated and the amounts of the
requests for appropriations have not reflected the need for construction
on the reservations. I don't believe it is a title that has been used.
Senator Fannin. That is correct.
Mrs. Flanagan. To improve Indian education.
Senator Fannin. That has been our observation, but I wanted to
have your opinion. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Barrett. Thank you.
155
Senator Abourezk. Mrs. Barrett, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mrs. Barrett. Our pleasure.
Senator Abourezk. The next panel of witnesses are the Northwest
Affiliated Tribes, Mrs. Lorraine Misiaszek, acting director, Advo-
cates for Indian Education of the Northwest Tribes; Mrs. Lucy
Covington, Northwest Affiliated Tribes of the Colville Tribes. Are both
of those witnesses here ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Mrs. Covington is not here yet.
Senator Abourezk. Would you like to proceed with your testimony ?
I assume you are Mrs. Misiaszek.
STATEMENT OF LORRAINE F. MISIASZEK, ACTING DIRECTOR, AD-
VOCATES FOR INDIAN EDUCATION, THE NORTHWEST TRIBES,
SPOKANE, WASH.
Mrs. Misiaszek. Yes ; first of all I would like to give you a little back-
ground on myself. I am a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes
and I am acting director for the new educational corporation that was
established by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians.
We call ourselves Advocates for Indian Education of the Northwest
Tribes and our offices and our headquarters are located in Spokane.
Wash.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to express my
deep appreciation at having this opportunity to present comments and
recommendations upon such a significant piece of legislation as the
Indian Self-Determination and Educational Reform Act of 1973.
Senator Jackson, Senator Abourezk, and the committee are to be
highly commended upon the thoughtful preparation and introduc-
tion of S. 1017. For many years Indian tribes have not had a clear-cut
option to assume parts or portions of programs directly affecting them
that is provided in this bill.
Authorizations of this nature offered in legislation proposed in
the past have always been interpreted to mean that tribes must assume
total responsibility for major programs that have held connotations
of termination for them.
Subsequently, many tribal councils have not taken advantage of
opportunities to undertake important activities that would allow a
greater degree of self-determination.
In order to make this point clearly understood at the outset, sec-
tion 109, title I of this bill which states : "Nothing in this title shall
be construed as authorizing or requiring the termination of any exist-
ing trust responsibility of the United States with respect to the Indian
people," should be placed at the beginning of the title.
Of equal importance, the section authorizing planning grants does
allow tribes the flexibility and choice to determine if, in the best,
interests of their tribal members, they want to undertake part of, all
of, or none of the authority spelled out in sections 102 and 103 after
the planning is completed. Inherent in the planning phase is an educa-
tive and transitional experience that will be of value regardless of the
tribe's decision.
Part A, title II of the act concerns the Indian educational reform
component. It is intended to replace the education section of what is
156
generally referred to as the Johnson-O'Mally Act and quite specifically
outlines the authority and functions of the contractors.
Under section 203, however, the requirement that the contractors
must have an approved education plan strongly implies that an Indian
tribe as a contractor has a good working relationship with the school
district and the State in order to comply easily with the requirement.
This is apt to pose difficulties for tribes desiring to contract with
the Secretary for education funds because good relationships often do
not exist between non-Indian educators, school administrators and
Indians.
States having a significant population of Indians in their school
systems have yet to acknowledge the fact that a high percentage of
Indian students continue to experience serious academic difficulties
which could be alleviated more rapidly if Indian tribes and Indian
parents were allowed to participate actively in program decisions.
I would like to recommend that States, whether or not they were the
major contractors, be required to demonstrate a satisfactory degree of
cooperativeness with Indian tribes and parents within a specified pe-
riod of time or lose the privilege of undertaking major contracts un-
der this legislation in the future.
Under item No. 5, subsection G which reads,
Such other educational programs as may be mutually agreed to by the
Secretary and the Contractor,
The definition of educational programs should be broadened to in-
clude student fees, equipment, supplies, and other materials when
necessary to enhance the student's learning experiences and the stu-
dents cannot afford to pay these costs themselves.
School officials frequently do not regard such items as falling within
their definition of educational materials and resist Indian requests to
include them in the school budgets. Travel and other minor expenses
for Indian parents serving on school committees have been another
matter of controversy with school officials. Such expenses should be
included in the broadened definition under this subsection.
Subsection 6 relating to the salary rates of educational personnel
serving Indians is a very positive measure. It would be much clearer
if paraprofessionals were to be included in the definition of educa-
tional personnel.
At the present time, Indian paraprofessionals who serve educational
programs in such vital capacities as resource people in Indian history,
culture, and language projects, and so forth, receive pay at a fraction
of the amount paid certificated staff.
Subsection 9, part b, concerns State educational agencies as con-
tractors and requires that they form an advisory council including
Indians representative of all tribes in that State.
It is very strongly recommended that rather than following the
usual procedure of having an Indian person appointed by the State
education officer, that the tribes each select their representative to the
council.
Immediately following this section, the Secretary is authorized to
contract with State education agencies regardless of who the contrac-
tor is, and to provide professional and support staff and administrative
services to assist local school districts affected by the contracts.
157
It is the legal responsibility of State education departments to
serve all citizens of the State equally, and to provide such stated
professional services to all school districts.
There should therefore be no need to provide special funds for
State offices to perform services that they should already have been
providing to local education agencies.
In part C, school construction authorization meets one of the most
critical needs experienced in Indian education today. It is important
that State and local school districts be authorized construction funds
and related land acquisition privileges.
Another very important area of concern should also be included
under this section. Tribes who are becoming or have already estab-
lished education agencies and schools should be given equal authoriza-
tion to contract for construction funds and acquire land for educa-
tional sites whether the land be State, Government, or privately
owned.
Such acquisitions by tribes should be allowed to be placed in the
trust status category of the tribal lands.
Although this legislation addresses itself to the educational needs
of Indian children in the public school systems, there is no other
specific source of funds designated for construction of school facilities.
Public Law 815 has never been adequately funded, and as a result,
schools with a small bonding capacity such as those on or near In-
dian reservations have been unable to secure finances to construct
badly needed facilities.
Unless a separate piece of legislation were to be enacted to provide
construction funds, tribal education agencies can only turn to this
authorization for such funds.
Before I complete this statement, I would like to impress upon the
committee how strongly Indian parents feel about any changes con-
cerning Johnson-O'Malley programs. They have stated their belief
that these programs requiring JOM parent committee signoff ap-
proval are the only ones they can remotely call their own in the sense
that these programs reflect their wishes and concerns.
The sections of S. 1017 that I have not made any comments on are
all very important and essential to the improvement of educational op-
portunities that this reform measure will facilitate for Indian tribes
having a trust relationship with the Federal Government.
This concludes my statement in behalf of "Advocates for Indian
Education : The Northwest Tribes."
Senator Fannin. Thank you very much. I certainly agree with you
that we have a very serious problem of providing Public Law 815
funds for school construction.
What percentage of your Indian students attend public schools?
Mrs. Misiaszek. In the State of Washington, almost 100 percent.
There are numerous Indian children that attend the Federal boarding
schools from our State and I don't have those figures with me, but
it is really quite a sizeable number — but it is in the upper grades and
primarily at the secondary level.
There is one boarding school in the State of Washington that has
100 percent Indian enrollment, but that has up until 6 months or so
been a private school.
98-143 O - 73 -- 11
158
Senator Finnin. What grades are involved in that?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Grades 1 through 8. And another school that has
almost 100 percent Indian enrollment which is a public school dis-
trict, is on the Quinault Indian Reservation and that is Tahola and
that is an elementary school, grades 1 through 8.
Senator Fannin. Do the other students attend boarding schools in
States near the State of Washington or are they quite some distance?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Quite some distance, there are a number attending
Treamah which is located more closely to the State of Washington.
And many attend schools in New Mexico and the other places where
they have Indian boarding schools.
Senator Fannin. Do you have any idea of the percentage of the
students that go through the eighth grade into high school ? What per-
cent of those have finished the eighth grade and continue on with their
educational activities ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. I couldn't give you an exact percentage, it fluctuates,
but I would say that the rate quite honestly is much higher among
Indian students than among any other students.
Senator Fannin. Do you feel that this is increasing?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Yes, and on the other hand we have a greater num-
ber of Indian children enrolling in kindergarten and the first grade
than we have had before, too.
Senator Fannin. Do you have a preschool program now ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. We have not at every school district, however — you
mean in kindergarten ?
Senator Fannin. Kindergarten or preschool program.
Mrs. Misiaszek. Not in every case because there are many districts
that cannot afford to undertake kindergarten and one of the major
districts in the State of Washington does not have a kindergarten pro-
gram; that is the city of Spokane school district.
Senator Fannin. Aren't the Federal funds available for the pre-
school programs ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Not kindergarten as such. The only kindergarten
programs are that about 2 years ago when I directed Indian education
in the State of Washington we began — we established the kinder-
gartens in those schools on or near reservations for Indian children
through Johnson O'Malley funds.
And after the school and the facilities were established and operating
then the State could come in with State funds in those school districts
and support a small percentage of the costs of operating these kinder-
garten programs. But up until that time there were no kindergartens
in those districts because they could not afford them.
Senator Fannin. In evaluating Public Law 815 funds to the school
construction, how many schools have you built in the last say 5 years
utilizing Public Law 815 funds, do you have any idea ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. I think in the State of Washington there has been
none.
Senator Fannin. No additions to schools under Public Law 815
funds?
Mrs. Misiaszek. No ; there may have been some portable classroom
space acquired but I am not too certain if that was under Public Law
815 or under other special funds. And I am thinking now in terms of
Cooley Dam with the building of a third powerhouse and the antici-
159
pated increased pupil enrollment. I am not certain, however, if their
funds came from Public Law 815.
Senator Fannin. Has the change in funding of Public Law 874 had
an effect in Washington on funding the education of Indian students ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. I do know that there are a number of school dis-
tricts that rely heavily upon Public Law 874 funds in the State of
Washington to operate. And I would say that any cut in funds would
drastically hurt these districts because these districts really have a very
low bonding capacity and any time that a school district relies so
heavily on impact aid funds they are going to be hurt. And, I don't
know the amount of the percentage that the 874 funds have been cut
back, I have not been with the State office for almost 2 years now so I
really don't know. But, reality does dictate that any cut in Federal
funds in these situations are going to hurt the program.
Senator Fannin. Are your Indian students in category B?
Mrs. Misiaszek. The Indian students are in category A primarily
and there are a number of Indian students in category B, however,
we are not fortunate enough to have all category A Indian students.
Senator Fannin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Girard. Senator Fannin, Mrs. Misiaszek raised a very important
point concerning the bill that I really believe should be brought on the
record. It has to do with part A of title II.
She informs me that many of the tribal leaders in the Northwest
have expressed concern to her that if the bill were enacted into law and
we substituted a new statute for Johnson-O'Malley, their fear was that
we might not be able to secure appropriations for the new statute and
be able to expend it.
This morning I talked to Assistant Secretary John Kyle from the
Department of the Interior on this matter and it was his position that
since the administration had endorsed part A of title II, they would
probably seek appropriations and whatever was made in the way of
appropriations would expend them for purposes outlined in the bill.
If you have anything further to add to this I think it might help
to allay any concerns that the Indian people have in this regard.
Senator Fannin. Thank you very much. I am very hopeful that
the administration will follow through in this regard.
Mrs. Gereau. Mrs. Misiaszek, in your statement you said that since
it was the responsibility of the State departments for education to
serve all the citizens of the State equally, that you did not believe it
was necessary to provide funds as the bill does.
Would you state through the department of education whether or
not they are the contractors ? Philosophically, I think we agree with
you, it is a practical matter of thinking that some States don't do it and
at the present time under the Johnson-O'Malley contracts the per-
sonnel in State departments of education that work with Indians are
funded with Federal funds.
It was the purpose of the bill not to interpret that. If you were here
when Mrs. Barrett testified, she pointed out there would be a great deal
of statistical work which I don't think would be proper for the Indian
tribes to try to do in a comparable district. And I think that was the
purpose of putting such staff in the Department of Education to assist
the school districts who have rather a complicated formula here.
160
It was not to be a supervisor to go out and set up the programs, it
was just to provide the necessary professional staff assistance.
Mrs. Misiaszek. But this was the point that I felt that must be made
because I think far too often, I feel very strongly that our Indian
children, whether it is in social welfare programs, educational pro-
grams, foster home care, these sorts of situations are, far too often our
Indian children must pay their own way first. And the State will then
come in.
I feel that this is unfair because they do not do this with other
children in the same circumstances and I have long pressed for our
Indian children to receive equal treatment in all services that Indians
are. as taxpayers and citizens of a State, entitled to.
Mrs. Gereau. I think the bill does speak to that point, in fact in
two or three places and somebody pointed out it was a little repetitious.
But it stresses the point over and over that before these programs
that are anticipated in this bill can be in effect there must be an ab-
solute guarantee that the Indian children are receiving equal treatment
in all respects with all the other children. But this comes in on top of it.
But the point that I wanted to clarify for you was that we were not
setting up an Indian supervisor by the term in the Departments of
Education but rather guaranteeing that there would be the kind of
staff available.
As you know, the administration has recommended the discon-
tinuing of title V of ESEA which will wipe out about two-thirds of
the staffs in some smaller States where the Indians live. Therefore, we
were trying to guarantee that there would be that kind of technical
professional assistance, not supervisory, but available for the school
finance type thing that has to be done.
Mrs. Misiaszek. I think that in this case then the language of the
legislation should clearly state this because my understanding of it
immediately was that here we are paying States to do something that
they should have been doing always.
Mrs. Gereau. That will be clarified I am sure, in the legislative his-
tory if the bill gets through the floor. That is the place for that to be
clarified.
On page 3 of your testimony you made the suggestion that under
item 5 of subsection G, "such other educational programs that may
be mutually agreed upon or agreed to by the Secretary of the contrac-
tor," should be broadened. Now, are you suggesting that this is an
amendment at that point?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Yes ; an addition to broaden the definition of edu-
cation programs.
Mrs. Gereau. So that it is clear, it would be the intent of the bill,
for example, to pay for Indian children's gym suits and gym shoes
or if there is a field trip on which these students are going, the Indian
children's way would be paid here rather than depriving them of the
trip because their parents didn't have the money ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. Yes.
Senator Fannin. Thank you. Just one further statement. It is my
opinion that the Federal Government has full responsibility for
financing the education of those Indian children whose parents reside
on reservation land. I think it goes beyond supplemental funds in my
161
opinion the Federal Government should take full responsibility. How
do you feel on that ?
Mrs. Misiaszek. I believe they should also, and this should not
preclude — however, say for the situation in our State where the State
has full responsibility for education of all children in the State,
regardless of whether they reside on or off reservations, I feel that this
legislation enhances the opportunity to improve educational programs
for those children that are directly with tribes — you know, with the
trust relationship with the Federal Government. And I do believe that
the Federal Government ought to recognize and ought to do every-
thing in its power to continue to carry out their responsibility to the
Indian tribes.
Senator Fannin. Earlier you spoke of the taxes on the reservation
lands, the property that is not taxable. That is why I feel that the
Federal Government does have that extra responsibility toward the
parents that reside on reservation land, would you agree with that?
The problem here is that we have a county that normally would pick
up the cost of the youngster's education and one or sometimes maybe
two-thirds of the young people would be from Indian reservations
and the one-third in that case that would be taxable would be forced to
pick up the total cost. And I think it would be very unfair.
Mrs. Misiaszek. They couldn't afford to.
Senator Fannin. That is right. Thank you very much. Thank you
kindly.
Unfortunately we have a witness that is delayed unavoidably who
could not get here — in fact we have two witnesses that will not be able
to attend. Mrs. Lucy Covington will be here later and Mr. Charles
Trimble will be here around 11, so we will hear from them at that
time.
The other witnesses that were supposed to appear — of course they
were under the impression that they would follow these witnesses so
they are not here now. So, we will stand in recess until 11 o'clock at
which time we will hear the other witnesses.
[Recess.]
Senator Fannin. The hearing will come to order. The next witness
will be Mr. Charles Trimble, executive director of the National Con-
gress of American Indians. Mr. Trimble?
STATEMENT OF CHARLES TRIMBLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Trimble. Good morning, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Charles E. Trimble, executive director of the National Congress of
American Indians.
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, I express
appreciation for this opportunity to appear before you regarding this
important legislation for Indian self-determination and educational
reform.
Both Indian self-determination and educational opportunity and
improvement for our children have been at the top of the list of
priorities of Indian people for quite some time now.
162
Many of the aspects of S. 1017 we recognize as direct responses to
Indian concerns expressed by Indian people over the years, particu-
larly in education reform. We express our appreciation to this sub-
committee for such responsiveness.
In its title I, S. 1017 seeks to promote the heretofore hollow promise
of "Indian self-determination" through extensive provisions for con-
tracting, by Indian tribes and tribal organizations, services provided
by the Federal Government.
In addition, title I provides for grants to adequately plan the prepa-
ration to enter into such contracts; it provides for the detailing, at
tribal request, of civil service personnel to assist tribes in the initial
stages of the contracting; and, it seeks to, perhaps, loosen unwieldy
contractual restrictions to enhance the transfer of the management
to Indian people.
It is our understanding that title I of S. 1017 is essentially the same
as S. 3157, the "Indian Self-Determination Act of 1972," passed by
the Senate but not by the House of Representatives in the 92d
Congress.
In testimony before this subcommittee last year, Mr. Franklin
Ducheneaux, testifying on behalf of NCAI, supported the enactment
of S. 3157.
In his testimony, however, Mr. Ducheneaux cautioned that in a
1971 case dealing with the Indian Bill of Rights provision of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, the District Court of New Mexico stated
that the tribe, the defendant in the case, waived its sovereign immu-
nity when it had contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
operation of the law and order services on the reservation.
This consideration, Mr. Ducheneaux warned, may cause some tribes
to refuse to avail themselves of the opportunities to contract services
under the provisions of this legislation until this matter is cleared up.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend Mr. Ducheneaux's statement of last
year for consideration by this subcommittee in its deliberations on
S. 1017.
Aside from that consideration the National Congress of American
Indians offers nq amendment to title I and reiterates its support for
this provision.
Title II embodies comprehensive changes which would result in
greater tribal control over moneys and management of programs, pre-
viously disbursed and managed through Johnson-O'Malley Act au-
thority in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, through direct contracting by
the Secretary of the Interior to federally recognized tribes and tribal
organizations. The NCAI supports such a concept.
However, NCAI joins the National Tribal Chairmen's Association
and the all-Indian Pueblo Council in expressing serious apprehension
to the requirements spelled out in section 203(a) of part A of title II.
^ Section 203(a) seeks to provide a formula which will assure that
States meet their full financial support obligations to school districts
eligible for contractual support from title II of this proposed act, thus
resulting in equitable distribution of available funds provided herein.
However, many Indian people feel that such requirements as spelled
out in the formula may prevent or discourage some school districts
from participating in part A due to their inability, or unwillingness, to
meet additional tax revenue requirements to bring them up to the five
most comparable districts with non-Indian enrollment.
163
The National Congress of American Indians does share the feelings
of serious apprehension over this aspect of the bill and respectfully
requests further consultation on that matter. We offer our resources to
put together such a consultation within the coming week if desired by
this subcommittee.
You have heard in testimony by other witnesses support for the re-
tention of Johnson-O'Malley provisions with amendments in lan-
guage to provide for direct tribal and tribal organizational contract-
ing.
This apparent loyalty to Johnson-O'Malley is somewhat tingled by
caution and weariness. We have just gotten the feel of the Johnson-
O'Malley Act to where we can somewhat control it despite its inade-
quacies. Appropriations for Johnson-O'Malley expenditures in the
BIA budget are traditionally approved and we have come to plan on
them year to year.
We are not adverse to change but you can understand our caution,
for we have seen the appropriations for the widely praised Indian
Education Act of 1972, enacted and appropriated last year, impounded
for the greater part of the year and released just in time to be spent
within the fiscal year.
We are concerned that this may be administration policy for all new
programs and hence we feel that the recision of the education pro-
grams of the act of April 16, 1934, may prove to be premature as it
is now scheduled in this bill.
Part A, section 203(a) (8) stipulated that in a district directly af-
fected by any such contract described in the bill, where the local school
board is not composed of a majority of Indians, an Indian community
education committee shall be established "Which shall be so structured
and carry out such duties as the secretary shall by regulation pro-
vide, subject to the laws of the affected State * * *
We feel that, in the spirit of Indian self-determination promoted
by this proposed legislation, the powers of such a community educa-
tion committee be considerable and these powers should be spelled out
to provide for optimum voice for the Indian community. Among
those powers should be the authority to approve or reject all pro-
posed programs for contract under these provisions for that district.
The Indian Advisory Council on Education, which will be estab-
lished for the purpose of instituting and approving programs on a
statewide basis, should be specifically bolstered by additional funding
to meet periodically to evaluate the programs of the State and to pro-
sent such evaluations to a high level of administration.
The input of the Indian Advisory Council on education is par-
ticularly important in the provision of part B ; the development of
professionals in Indian education ; and in part E, education research
and development programs.
Too often Indians have been subjected to the programs devised
through findings of professionals who are not fully aware of the needs
and desires of Indian people.
As to part C, the National Congress of American Indians supports
the contention of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association that
increased consideration be given Federal schools operated by the BIA.
We support their proposal for a new title to this bill and support
categorically their recommendations for such a new title.
164
NCAI commends the subcommittee for the considerations spelled
out in parts D and F, but particularly for the youth intern program.
The impending demise of the neighborhood youth corps causes great
concern on the part of the Indian people and this can help fill that
breach. And finally, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that a provision
be added for funding to communicate the purposes and opportunities
offered by this legislation, when enacted and appropriated, to the
people for whom it was designed.
The American Indian Press Association, in its studies of commu-
nications among Indian people, has determined that Indian people
do not have access to any media for information as the national non-
Indian community does.
This lack of channels of communications results in misunderstand-
ing and misinterpretation and Indian people often are not able to
fully benefit from legislation and all legislation affecting Indian peo-
ple on a large scale. We recommend provisions be made, along with
adequate funding for the contracting of such provisions, for the nec-
essary communications to the Indian people.
Mr. Chairman, much thought has gone into this bill. For the Na-
tional Congress of American Indians, I commend this committee and
the staff of this committee for its sensitivity and concern for Indian
people.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the statement of NCAI. But I would
like to make one addition here.
Senator Fannin. Please do so.
Mr. Trimble. Mr. Chairman, we do notice language in the bill
which specifically mentions preference being given to Indians. As a
matter of fact, the entire bill is an Indian preference bill.
Beyond that the whole structure of Indian treaties and laws or
Indian preference, I feel I must mention that this decision of the
Federal Court in our book originally ruling Indian preference laws
unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights laws. This de-
cision strikes directly at Indian employment preference laws which
threatens the whole structure of Federal Indian relationships under
the commerce clause of the Constitution.
This decision must be appealed and reversed. I note it for the
committee's information as a matter of great Indian concerns.
Thank you very much.
Senator Fannin. Thank you, Mr. Trimble.
Senator Fannin. Do you feel, Mr. Trimble, that in this legislation
the Federal Government may be moving away from the obligation
that we have accepted over the years to fund Indian education? In
other words, the State assuming this obligation ?
It is my personal feeling that the Federal Government has a finan-
cial obligation, to the students and the families living on reservations,
is that your feeling?
Mr. Trimble. I think Indian people and Indian tribes need to be
constantly cautious of such moves. We do believe that there could
easily be a move toward administrative termination as well as legisla-
tive termination. And administrative termination could come about
through such things as this.
But in this bill I believe that we haven't seen direct threats.
Senator Fannin. Mr. Trimble, I am always concerned about the
cost of a good educational program for Indian students. We have
165
public schools on the reservations; we have public schools adjacent
to the reservations ; and it is my feeling that the Federal Government
has an obligation to support the students that attend those schools.
Mr. Trimble. Mr. Chairman, I believe you are referring to section
203(a) which calls for that formula and calls for additional State
funding to bring the schools up.
Senator Fannin. Yes.
Mr. Trimble. I believe that the National Congress of American
Indians stands in line with the National Tribal Chairmen's Associ-
ation and the All Indian Pueblo Council in being somewhat confused
by that formula and the provisions made therein. That is the reason
I asked for further consultation on the matter, if possible, with staff
members.
Senator Fannin. I trust that you will go into that matter very
thoroughly because we could be in a position where the Indian stu-
dents would not have adequate funds.
As you know, in some of the counties where they have a very large
Indian population — where up to a third of the residents of the county
are Indian citizens, then we place that burden on the properties that
are taxable. That represented a very small part of the total.
It does create a problem and I think it could be a very serious one.
We are all interested in having our Indian students haye the very best
educational program possible. But, I feel that the Federal Govern-
ment should not be stepping out from under the obligation; they
should be assuming a greater obligation. Is that your feeling ?
Mr. Trimble. We have a strong feeling that those schools the In-
dian students attend should be well up to par with all States and
should in all cases have a per student cost equal to other schools in
the State.
Now, how this is arrived at or should be arrived at, I think it can-
not be by existing authority of the Johnson- O'Malley Act.
But we do feel strongly that provisions should be made to bring
those schools up to par as well.
Senator Fannin. Have you been concerned about the construction
program as far as the Indian schools are concerned, I am referring,
of course to the Public Law 815 program.
Mr. Trimble. Yes, that would be part of bringing those schools up
to par including facilities and curriculum matters.
Senator Fannin. Thank you very much, Mr. Trimble. We appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Trimble. Thank you.
Senator Fannin. The next witness is Mr. Emmett Oliver, super-
visor of Indian education, department of public instruction, Olym-
pia, Wash. Mr. Oliver ? Mr. Oliver, it is a pleasure to welcome you here
this morning.
STATEMENT OF EMMETT S. OLIVER, SUPERVISOR OF INDIAN EDU-
CATION, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, OLYMPIA, WASH.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you kindly, sir. I wonder if I may, with your
permission, use my own tape recorder for recording my own comments.
Is there any objection ?
166
Senator Fannin. No objections, you may go ahead and use your tape
recorder. Do you have it available ?
Mr. Oliver. I do, sir, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Dr. Frank B. Brouilette, State superin-
tendent of public instruction for the State of Washington, and the In-
dian children in all the schools of our State, I wish to express grati-
tude to our own Senator, the Honorable Henry M. Jackson, and the
Honorable James Abourezk, chairman of this great committee and the
rest of the subcommittee members for the privilege of appearing be-
fore this body and presenting testimony at this time on S. 1017 as they
affect the education of Indian children in the State of Washington.
The purpose of my presentation today is to try my best to explain
the operation of the Johnson-O'Malley program in the State of Wash-
ington, its effect on Indian children, and the need for expanding edu-
cational services and facilities for these children.
In the State of Washington, 42 public schools presently receive
Johnson-O'Malley funds. The total Indian enrollment in the 42
schools is 5,900 out of a total student population in these schools of
44,260.
The location of these schools are shown on the third page of my
written testimony, which I believe should be in the hands of members
of the committee.
I am calling attention to the 42 Johnson-O'Malley schools in the
State of Washington which are organized into 6 regional consortia.
If you would please turn to page 4 of the diagram, you will notice
this structure. This map and diagram shows the name of the school dis-
trict and the name of the Johnson-O'Malley Parent Advisory Commit-
tee chairman.
Each committee must have at least five committee members. This
represents over 200 involved Indian parents, speaking for 6,000 Indian
children.
In reference again to the chart, you will note that a statewide John-
son-O'Malley board is made up of two representatives from each of
the six regional consortia.
The idea of the regional consortia of the Johnson-O'Malley commit-
tee arose from the needs expressed by Indian people themselves.
On August 25, 1971, small tribes and organizations of western
Washington recommended to the State supervisor of Indian educa-
tion that a State education advisory committee of Indian people
should be formed. This had been repeated numerous times from vari-
ous Indian groups and individuals.
In response to this recommendation a tentative organization plan
was presented to local Johnson-O'Malley committees in six regions
throughout the State.
These Johnson-O'Malley committees represent Indian communities
at a grassroots level. It is appropriate that these organized groups
selected by parents of Indian children should be involved in any
statewide representation of Indian interests and education.
Again I call your attention to the accompanying chart illustrating
the organization. The chart is arranged geographically with western
Washington committees shown on the left side and eastern Washing-
ton committees shown on the right side.
167
I would call attention at this time to the map and chart if you are
following, that region 4 embraces the Yakima Nation and seven pub-
lic school districts in the Yakima Valley.
Subsequent to the adoption of this plan of regional consortia of
committees, region 4
Senator Bartlett. Mr. Oliver, would you say where you are in your
report ?
Mr. Oliver. I am diverting from the written report and giving some
oral here which I have notes on and trying to describe for the com-
mittee. And in a moment I will explain what I feel is the significance
of dwelling on Johnson-O'Malley programs as implement in the
State of Washington.
Senator Bartlett. Mr. Oliver, that will be fine. When you use the
report, if you would refer to the page you use when you are doing it,
we could follow you.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir ; thank you.
I am referring again to the diagram illustrating the composition of
the consortia which is on page 4 of the written testimony. I am refer-
ring to region 4 in the Yakima Nation.
Senator BARTLErr. Mr. Oliver, when you turn pages, since they don't
seem to be numbered, tell me which pages you count — do you count the
first page ?
Mr. Oliver. Count the first page as one, the map is the third page.
The formation of consortia of Johnson-O'Malley committees is page
4, page 5 is the chart.
Senator Bartlett. Fine.
Mr. Oliver. May I proceed, sir ?
Senator Bartlett. Yes, sir ; please do.
Mr. Oliver. What I am trying to do is just to refer to a part of the
organization here in the region for the Yakima Valley which has seen
fit to incorporate that region consortia.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is significant at this time to point this
out because these are Indian parents who have seen fit in implementing
the Johnson-O'Malley program at the local level and working with the
public schools, to work together for their own self-interests in pro-
viding self-determination and input.
As far as their relationship and advisement to the local public schools
serving those children, there are 1,700 Indian children represented by
region 4, the Toppenish down to Goldendale.
This group is incorporated and is capable of receiving funds di-
rectly. I have through the State office in Olympia advanced some
funds to this consortium for their own use. This group, also in a
joint effort, proposed an application and has received funding in the
amount of $38,000 to conduct research and write the culture and history
of the Yakima Nation.
I move down to region 6 at the bottom of the page, Inchelium down
to Curlew, reprsenting three communities on the Spokane Reservation,
one on the Colville and another one on the Calaspell Cusick.
This group is also working together and have combined their efforts
to conduct a rather extensive summer program for Indian children in
that area.
Mr. Chairman, I am taking a great deal of time to explain the opera-
tion of the Johnson-O'Malley program in the State of Washington. In
168
addition to the written testimony which I have presented and which
will be written into the record I should like to offer for public display at
this time an advanced copy which is to be the parent "advisory com-
mittee operational manual."
It should be noted that much of the manual has been written by
Indian people whose names appear in the title page.
Senator Abourezk. Are you offering that to the committee ?
Mr. Oliver. I am offering this to the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Abourezk. It will be accepted and inserted in the file of
the hearings.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, sir. I am sorry that I do not have addi-
tional copies. I will, however, speak to Mr. Girard and make available
other copies as they become available and send them by mail.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much.
Mr. Oliver. I think it is significant that I will explain this because
what I am trying to describe is that we feel in the State of Washington
that the Johnson-O'Malley committee — the Johnson-O'Malley pro-
gram is just beginning to work.
Indian people have found a mechanism by which they can express
their needs and goals and wishes and desires, as they perceive of
what the public school should be doing for their children.
Recently in Yakima, Wash. I called together a body which we call
the State Johnson-O'Malley Advisory Board. It consisted of 12 mem-
bers, two elected from each of the regional consortia.
It was the purpose of this body to review, discuss and express
opinion on the proposed legislation. Some of the comments and views
I would like to pass on to the committee. In offering some general
statements for the committee to consider and modifications of any
Federal legislation or Federal programs that affect Indian children
in the State of Washington we must accept the premise that there are
no such people as the American Indian, rather there are Indians of
America made up of numerous individual tribes and nations and
bands among which there is a cultural variance as diverse with as
many differences that exist between some groups of Indians and non-
Indians.
The significance of what I am saying is directly related to the
national legislation that may attempt to adopt blanket policy of edu-
cational measures programs that will suit all Indians.
A Navajo is an American Indian, but an American Indian is not a
Navajo. Education for Navajos must be determined by Navajos for
Navajos, and there is no assurance that such practices are suitable or
applicable to the Indians of Washington State. In fact, we have dif-
ferent culture groups east of the mountains in Washington, the
plateau people and the coastal tribes in the West.
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Oliver, I wonder if you are referring to
this particular bill, S. 1017. I hope you understand that the bill is not
presumed to have one standard of education for any one Indian or any
group of Indian tribes or bands or different cultures. What it does is
allow each Indian community so to speak to run their own educa-
tional needs and certainly they would do that as they saw the necessity
for it. I hope you understand that.
Mr. Oliver. I hope so, sir, and this is the reason that I am taking
so much time making an emphatic point. The convention here is that
169
the Johnson-O'Malley program in the State of Washington is working.
We are trying to improve it and we see needs to improve it, but we
see in the State of Washington a program which we are comfortable
with. There are some objections to it but I am pointing out here that
I would take the position that we must be careful in national legisla-
tion that we don't destroy or restrict or prohibit the operation at the
local grass roots level.
Senator Abourezk. I would tend to agree with you. I just want to
assure you that it is not the intention of this committee or this Con-
gress to disrupt or destroy with this legislation the Johnson-O'Malley
program as it is working in the State of Washington because we
understand that Washington is one of the very few places where you
have tried to do something and tried to make this program work.
And I think that we ought to commend you for it at this time and
just say that we are not going to affect that Johnson-O'Malley program
at all with S. 1017.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, sir. I would like to proceed with more of
my oral testimony.
Senator Abourezk. Please proceed. It is different than your written
statement you have submitted.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Senator Abourezk. We will accept your written statement, by the
way, into the record, and if you have a statement of how Johnson-
O'Malley is working in your State and if you have then comments to
make on S. 1017 itself orally, we would be pleased to hear that.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir, thank you.
I would like to comment on section 202 which provides for Indian
tribes and tribal organizations to contract with the Secretary of the
Interior for educational programs for Indians enrolled in the public
schools.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that such contracting must
involve all tribes on a statewide basis. Is this true ?
Senator Abourezk. Say that again now.
Mr. Oliver. It is my understanding that such contracting between
the Secretary and the Indian tribes must be done so on a statewide
basis.
Senator Abourezk. No, the law does not require that. As it is
written now — it gives the Secretary authority to contract, it is not
mandatory that he contract with anybody but it gives him authority
to contract with any State or political subdivision or with any Indian
tribe or tribal organization on either a small basis or a wide basis
depending on what they believe is best.
Mrs. Gereau. I think I can clarify that. The point to which you were
referring was that in some areas tribes cross State lines, therefore,
this was saying, and the Navajo is a good example, that they would
have a contract, the back part of that responsibility lay within the
State of New Mexico and another contract for the part of their re-
sponsibility that lies say, in the State of Arizona. It was not to say
that there would be only one contract with one tribe in one State.
Because of the funding situation it varies from State to State, there-
fore, you couldn't make a contract with the Navajo that would apply
across State lines. They have to recognize the taxing authority may
vary between New Mexico and Arizona ; that is what that part refers
170
to. It does not say that there would be only one tribe in a State with
whom they could contract.
Does that clarify that part for you ?
Mr. Oliver. In other words, there could not be a situation where
there would be only one tribe in the State that might contract, this
is the question I am asking ?
Mrs. Gereatt. We would say it does not require that. I don't think
that the Secretary would enter into a thing with the Yakimas, for
example, to provide education for the Colvilles if that is what you
are fearing. This does not contemplate that that would happen or
would not permit it.
Mr. Oliver. But it is pretty much left up to the discretion of the
tribe as similar to Johnson-O'Malley ?
Mrs. Gereau. Eight. In your State quite probably they would con-
tinue to make the contract with the State Department of Education
just as you are doing now.
In some other States, South Dakota is a good example, where pri-
marily it is the Sioux, and at the present time the Johnson-O'Malley
contract is with the Sioux Tribe. But the part that you are referring
to, I think, has led to some confusion because we were talking about
the fact of the tribes and the Navajo are an example where they cross
State lines and the reservation is not all in one State.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, I understand.
I might add this comment, Mr. Chairman, that this question was
brought up with my State advisory board
Senator Abourezk. It is a fair question. I think we can perhaps even
clarify that more in the language of the bill, so I appreciate your
suggestion on that.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you.
From what she has expressed from the Johnson-O'Malley commit-
tees, they would like to see it continued to the State as in the present
situation.
Again, I would like to refer to section 203 of the bill which provides
for basic school support for eligible school districts. Such support is
provided to the extent that combined local taxes and Public Law 874
provisions do not bring district revenues up to the average State and
local level of the five most comparable school districts in the State
which may be eligible for assistance under this bill.
I would like to point out, and I do not have figures to substantiate
this, but I could certainly furnish them if it was felt — but education of
Indian children in schools which have a rather high percentage of
Indian children e'nrolled, the cost per child is fairly high, much higher
than the average school district in the State of Washington.
I refer to such schools as Taholah where the average cost exceeds
the State average, which is $800, to around $1,300 or $1,400 per child.
And, if I am reading correctly for the financial implications under
section 203, the formula here will make a substantial increase in fund-
ing for chese kinds of schools; is this correct?
Senator Abourezk. That is correct; yes.
Mr. Oliver. The board felt that they would certainly support the
bill in this aspect and felt that this was a good feature. And as a mat-
ter of fact, they felt it was a better feature than 874.
171
And I hope the chairman of the committee will make a point of this
because there is a great need in some of these districts.
Mrs. Gereau. Mr. Oliver, part of the thinking of the committee was
that 874 is in such trouble that we wanted to have standby legislation
that would guarantee that the Indian districts did get an adequate
amount of money to achieve their educational opportunity, even if 874
funds are continued to be cut back or withheld, or rescinded, or what-
ever happens to them. We wanted to have this language available.
Mr. Oliver. I see. I should like to turn to another section of section
203, I believe, that provides for additional funds for special programs
beyond basic support, such as guidance and counseling services.
There was a rather strong feeling here that this could be done
through Johnson O'Malley with sufficient funds, with the increase
in the Johnson O'Malley funding to enable the local committee to
determine what kind of special services were needed and what kind
of services they wanted and where the priorities were to be put.
And, in the case of limited funding I don't see anything in the bill
that seems to indicate there will be unlimited funding.
Senator Abourezk. It wouldn't do us any good to put it in the bill
anyway.
Mr. Oliver. I refer to another point in the bill which my board
felt rather strongly about. Reference was made to a ratio of teacher
aides and counsel aides and counselors to the number of Indian chil-
dren being served. It was felt that this takes away the input of the
local committee in determining as to the need of Indian children in
their particular school.
And I might add for the record that in our 115 Johnson O'Malley
teacher aides and counselor aides in the State, the function of these
Indian people and the relationship to the number of children with
whom they are working varies quite widely in respect to the felt need
of how they can best serve Indian children.
Senator Abourezk. Mr. Oliver, do you think that it would be better
to have in these particular positions a minimum, put in the word
"minimum," so that at least we know there will be this many and
perhaps more if the local school district wants more, would that be
all right with you ?
Mr. Oliver. Mr. Chairman, I have to continue to refer to the State
of Washington and I want to restrict and limit my remarks to how
I perceive the needs of education of children in the State of Wash-
ington. And I feel that this may be significant as to what we have
done that has worked. We have tried to make things apply so widely
that any reference to a minimum or maximum I would like to avoid
because we have a chapter in the manual on the employment of aides
in the public school and Indian parents have begun to understand and
to employ how these paraprofessionals may be assigned.
Senator Abourezk. I just might point out that this is a flexible
requirement, it is not mandatory. You will see at the bottom of page
12 of the bill and the top of page 13, it says :
Additional funds provided under any contract pursuant to section 202 shall
be utilized by the contractor so as to provide Indians enrolled in schools of any
affected district with such programs as.
And then it continues with the counseling services and so on. So, it
is not a mandatory requirement ; it is requirements that can be utilized
if they want to.
172
I would like to state, Mr. Oliver, that you are coming up with some
very good suggestions. However, we do have one more witness that
we would like to try to complete. It is 12 o'clock now and we would
like to finish up with the last witness on this set of hearings before
we break for lunch. So, I would appreciate it if you could try to com-
pact your suggestions which have been very good and which are help-
ful to the committee in a shorter time than you had originally
anticipated.
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, I shall.
Section 203 (a) (8) requires a community education committee where
a majority of the school board is not Indian. In Johnson-O'Malley
we require a community education committee at all levels and we
feel that that should remain the same, we should not write in any
special provisions.
There is a reference to a statewide Indian advisory council on
Indian education where the State is the contractor and the council
must be proportionately representative of all tribes, section 203(b).
Here again, I think if we are working, if we represent parents
we ought to represent parents and let the parents decide as to how
the representation should be affected.
In the State of Washington we have very large tribes, we have
some very small tribes, and we feel that a representation as suggested
by the people themselves would suffice.
I should like to make one reference to school building construction,
and I believe that is part C, is that right?
Senator Abotjrezk. Yes.
Mr. Oliver. In part C, which provides $30 million for school con-
struction, there is certainly a need in a number of States; that I feel
that this should be determined by the States and the regional offices
because it varies widely.
There seems to be some apprehension and confusion as to why
Public Law 815 hasn't been funded and why it hasn't been imple-
mented effectively. There is some fear here that national legislation
again may find itself in a dormant state due to impoundment of
funds in a rather combersome way of getting money out for school
construction.
There is on file in the State of Washington surveys made up to
4 and 5 years ago in reference to school building situation and needs
that should be considered, and applicants are already on file. These
applications haven't been responded to.
And it is not felt that new legislation is going to speed this up.
What is needed is school building construction not legislation. And
if we have a bill on the books, why can't we fund 815 and get these
buildings in some state of operation?
Senator Abotjrezk. We have been asking the administration that
for quite sometime and have been unable to get an answer, so we
appreciate your adding your voice to that question.
Mr. Oliver. I would grant any remaining time I have to any ques-
tions that may want to be directed to me.
Senator Abourezk. I have no questions. I will ask the staff mem-
bers if they do, Mr. Oliver.
Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. We appreciate your testimony
and the suggestions and we will consider all of them and try to work
out something on it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]
173
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Olympia
June 1973
TESTIMONY ON S. 1017
INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
and
EDUCATIONAL REFORM ACT OF 1973
Prepared by
EMMETT S. OLIVER
Supervisor of Indian Education
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
State of Washington
Olympia, Washington
-143 O - 73 -- 12
174
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Dr. Frank D. Brouillet, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
for the State of Washington, and the Indian children in all the schools of
our State, I wish to express gratitude to our own Senator, the Honorable
Henry M. Jackson and the Honorable James Abourezk, Chairman of this great
Committee and the rest of the sub-committee members for the privilege of
appearing before this body and presenting testimony at this time on S. 1017
as they affect the education of Indian children in the State of Washington.
The purpose of my presentation today is to try my best to explain the oper-
ation of the Johnson-O'Malley Program in this State, its affect on Indian
children, and the need for expanding educational services and facilities for
these children.
In the State of Washington, forty-two public schools presently receive JOM
funds. The total Indian enrollment in the 42 schools is 5,900 out of a total
student population in these schools of 44,260. Locations of schools are shown
on the below map.
The forty-two (42) JOM schools in the State of Washington are organized into
six (6) regional Consortia. (Ref. enclosed map of State). The map shows the
name of the school district and the name of the JOM PAC Chairman. Each committee
must have at least five (5) committee members. This represents over 200 in-
volved Indian parents - speaking for 6,000 Indian children. A statewide JOM
Advisory Board is made up of two representatives from each of the six regional
consortia. (see diagram on page )
175
176
FORMATION OF CONSORTIUM OF JOHNSON-O'MALLEY COMMITTEES
I. Purpose
1. Basis for Statewide Committee
a. Assist Supervisor of Indian Education in decision making.
b. Organ to represent Indian viewpoint.
c. Express opinion to State Superintendent of Fublic Instruction.
.2. Consortium may:
a. Pool resources - hire a consultant to serve more than one
community.
b. Express collective need to local community college.
c. Conduct its own in-service training for aides and
committee members.
d. Share joint projects in community goals of education,
needs assessment, curriculum study, etc.
3. "Two heads are better than one"
a. Committee exchange ideas.
b. Self evaluation.
c. Practice monitoring.
II. Schedule of Meetings
Consortium meets monthly. Rotate host committee. Potluck or host
dinner meeting. Prepare program for others to see. Show off what
has been working. Engage resource person.
III. Expenses
Chairman or representative travel paid out of local budget. Research
underway for devising means to obtain advance travel. May be legal.
Two consortium representatives (big 12) travel and per diem borne by
the State office.
177
JOHNSON-O'MALLEY
ADVISORY BOARD PROPOSAL
REGION I
Sequin
Port Angeles
Cape Flattery
Quillayute
Queets-Clearwater
Taholah-North Beach
®
REGION IV
Toppenlsh
Wapato
Granger
Mt. Adams
Klickitat
Glenwood
Goldendale
REGION II
®
North Kitsap
Hood Canal-Shelton
Kamilche Valley
Yelm
North Thurston
Oakville
®'
REGION III
Ferndale
Nooksack-Mt .
LaConner
Marysville
Auburn
Bel ling ham
REGION V
Brewster
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Keller
Grand Coulee Dam
Nespelem
Baker
REGION VI
Inchelium
Columbia
Wellpinit
Mary Walker
Cusick
Curlew
WEST
EAST
178
JOM educational activities, in addition to the 42 schools, involve the Migrant
and Indian Education Center at Toppenish, Olympic Community College in Bremer-
ton, and the Summer High School Program involving Indian children from Wapato,
Toppenish, Granger and White Swan, and the Indian Summer high school at Fort
Warden near Port Townsend. Data from these programs are not included with
public school findings, but it is recommended that these programs be con-
sidered an integral part of Washington's JOM program.
The Johnson-O'Malley Act, as ammended, authorizes the Secretary of Interior to
contract with State Superintendents of Education in those States having a
sizeable Indian population that is served by the public school system. The
State of Washington has administered a Johnson-O'Malley program under contract
since 1934. At that time, the State assumed full responsibility for the educa-
tion of all children in the public schools, and the schools operated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for Indian children were closed.
Johnson-O'Malley funds had first been used exclusively for bus transportation
and school lunch costs. Since the passage of P.L. 874 (Federal impact legis-
lation) and the National School Lunch Act, JOM funds have been used for special
program activities designed to improve the educational opportunities for Indian
children.
Special programs that are currently underway in a number of school districts
include the following types of activities:
1. Home-school liaison (personnel are employed from the
Indian community) .
2. Teacher or counselor aides.
3. Remedial and/or basic skills improvement
4. Expansion of curricular offerings.
5. Curriculum development (emphasis on Indian history and culture).
179
6. Inservice training and staff orientation workshops.
7. Study hall and special tutoring efforts.
8. Provision for payment of student fees and supplies when necessary.
Program emphasis may be illustrated by the following table showing amounts
distributed to activities during the academic year 1971-72.
PROGRAM EMPHASIS
Academic Achievement
Cultural and Vocational Awareness
Indian Involvement in Education
(teachers, aides, counselors)
Early Childhood Education
In-Service and Continuing Education
Counseling, Attendance Services
Supplementary Student Support
Amount
Percent
$172,853 24%
104,135 14%
91,783 12%%
77,617 104%
7,206 1%
238,402 324%
40,684 54%
Total Approvals
$732,680
100%
180
CRITEPIA REGULATING THE JOHNSON-O'MALLEY PROGRAM
Factors that help determine eligibility of a school district to receive
Johnson-O'Malley funds:
1. The school must be located on or near Indian Trust Land.
2. School enrollment shows a significant ratio of Indian
children in attendance.
3. Evidence of need. There must be some indication that the
school program is not adequately meeting the educational
needs of its Indian pupils.
Examples: High drop-out ratios, underachievement in
the academic courses, or non-participation
in school activities, etc.
4. The school district must show a need for supplemental funds
from the Johnson-O'Malley program after considering all
available revenue from local, State and federal sources.
5. A committee of Indian parents is required to be formed before
application is made for a JOM funded program. The committee
collaborates with school district officials to identify
educational needs and to develop the proposal for approval.
*Eligible Indian children means those that have \ or
higher degree of Indian blood residing on or near trust
land.
RESTRICTIONS FOR USE OF JOHNSON-O'MALLEY FUNDS
1. JOM funds may not be used for schools lunches after 1971-72.
the free or reduced price lunch program is available to all
needy children. Indian children should not be excluded from
the benefits of these programs.
2. JOM funds may not be used for general school operation costs.
3. JOM funds must not supplant or duplicate program efforts that
can be supported through other available revenue sources of
the school district.
4. JOM program grants are not based upon a per pupil ratio , but
rather on the merits and needs of special programs that identify
with the Indian enrollment.
181
PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY
School districts having approved programs must submit a report of the Indian
enrollment breakdown by age and grade no later than October 1 of each year. A
special JOM form, 621AM3, rev. 2/2Z/68, is provided by the State Office for
this purpose.
If there is a need to revise or modify activities that are a part of an approved
program during the year, the changes must be reported by letter to the State
Office.
In the event that additional funds are required to carry out an approved program,
an application must be submitted for approval. See attached application form
shown below. Approval will be based upon availability of JOM funds.
For audit purposes, it is necessary that each school district maintain accurate
financial records that reflect an expenditure of JOM funds for the purposes
listed in the program application. Records are kept for a period of ten years.
Accountability of funds are insured by the use of three forms, F-125, F-126
and F-147. Attention is called to Column F on the application where Object
Code numbers coincide with object code numbers of F-125. Claims can only be
made against the final budget shown on the F-125 as matched by what the JOM
PAC authorized. School districts may not receive monies other than those which
are approved by the Committee. School districts cannot overspend their JOM
budget since payments made by submitting the F-147 are always checked against
the F-125. The foregoing fiscal procedures make it virtually impossible to
allow for misuse of JOM funds as approved by the Committee.
182
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
INDIAN EDUCATION FUND (JOM) : FY 19
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
ADDRESS
COUNTY
TELEPHONE PROJECT
NUMBER DIRECTOR
Total JOM Request for 19 - _
Amount Approved by State Agency
By:
$
Date
Supervisor of Indian Education
AFFIDAVIT: This application has been developed and approved for the Indian students in this
School District by the Johnson-O'Malley Parent Advisory Committee and the School
District officials, and will be carried out as described herein.
(signed)_
Date:
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
(signed)_
CHAIRMAN, JOM COMMITTEE
Date:
I. Estimated Enrollment for Program
Application Year 19 - _
(Circle appropriate grades in each level.)
Dist. Eligible
Total Indians*
a. Kindergarten
Age 5
b. Elementary School
Level
12 3 4 5 6
c. Middle School or
Junior High Level
4 5 6 7 8 9
d. High School Level
9 10 11 12
e. Special Education
(Ungraded)
Total Enrollment
*Eligible Indian children are those
meeting the Code of Federal Regulations.
II.
General Information
a. JOM Committee Names
Parents of
*Eligible
Indian
Children
Secretary:
Yes
No
Address:
|
1
b. JOM Program Staff Names:
Indian
Yes
No
c. If funds from sources other than JOM
are used in program, please provide the
following information:
1 . Amount $_
2. Source
3. How used
III. Program Application
(Use foldout pages following)
183
paAjas
s^uspnis
1
g
I
ol
Si
a 1
o
II
3
5
ai
^
184
u w
GO 5} i .-)
0) H «
■h a i i-i
M en h
a n <u
to a) i-t m
•o a c -g
U'rl CI C
*-» <4j m rt
6S
O *J
*4 OJ
<3 «
■■■< -J j. v
to u ai u
, o c « a
o o t-i ra
CO U H U
*M Q) ^ i-«
1 -H .3
1 »w 2
a] 0)
t> o c -g
Uti ai d
u <4-< pq <d
<d — i
u 4-1 m to
•h m u tu
10 QJ
41 -H QJ 2
•H h <U 41
rH •■jmioi
I 3 O O M <0
* -J ITi vj> r* CO Ov
MB a. a. o c «I a
0>o B p o O m ra
ih * ^ in \0 rs CO (7v
41 >>i-<
I o o *-» q M
i I h a^ u
i a a. a. o c
I W (Q CJ H U
■O *J *J >
41 i-l <0 I 1 1
4-> 14-1 £ CU
■h n ai a) i c
5
>% -H e*-H flJ
« «^ UTO^DO^
185
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Under this uniform system of school expenditure classification,
expenditures are classified by function, sub-function (or activity),
object of expenditure, and program. This classification system will
permit the identification of expenditures by specific accountable
state and federal projects, and facilitate the preparation of reports
and administpring budgets along standard functional lines.
General Fund expenditures are classified using a five position
code as follows:
Function-
ed
Object of Expenditure-
Proeram-
00
This code, while referred to as a five position or digit code, can
be expanded by adding positions to one or more of the three fields. For
example, if a school district wishes a more detailed analysis of the
object of expenditure, the object field can be expanded to as many posi-
tions as desired. Any expansion of a field, or block of numbers, must,
of course, be uniform in order to retain the identity of the three
fields. For example of expenditure code expansion, see page III - 65
Optional Program Coding.
Note to JOM Committee members:
This and the attached pages are reproduced from the Accounting Manual For Public School
Districts in the State of Washington, issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the State Auditor.
Committee members who need more complete information on school district accounting methods
may request a copy of the Manual from the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The five digit code system illustrated above is basic to the school district accounting
system. These codes will appear in column (6) of Form F-147, and when properly understood,
will identify the purpose of each expenditure item documented. A typical entry on the
F-147 could be as follows:
Jean Jones, Teacher Aide:
Function: Teaching
J5 3. 64
Object: Salaries_
Secretarial
Craft, & Others
Program: Other Federal
Projects; JOM
See the following pages for keys to the Expenditure Accounts. The format on these pages is
used on the budget. The objects of expenditures are shown in the vertical columns, and the
key for these is at the bottom of the third page. The program codes are shown on the last page
186
III - 32
x
X
X
W
OS
H
X
X
X
X
o
U
X
w
s
x:
x;
x
x
X
X
CO
H
Z
=1
o
o
c_>
<
w
as
H
O
(A
H
CJ
U
CL,
x:
UJ
6L,
O
z
o
M
H
<
CO
o
x:
CO
c
•H
3
c
c
u,
■H
o
1
H
•H
-O
X)
iJ
3
<
()
to
c
to
- <u
u o
C "H
HI H-i
TJ <M
C O
(II
4J CO
C CO
■rl cu
l-< c
CU tH
D. CO
3 3
to CO
s
o
•H
4J
o
3 -->
M >
■4J I
co <
c ^
M
CO
U-l T3
O -H
c
o
to
n
«j
C CO
O "H
•H C
U -H
CJ E
3 TD
>
to
-i tn
to ao-*
a. c o
•h -h o
U £*
CO"
■h to X
M « «
CM H H
00 l-i
to
HI
CJ
■H
>
cu
to to
cu
CJ /-v
•H ,H
> CO
)-l CU
to CO
C l-i
3 -u
O X
(_> Id
O CU
c
CO
> -v c
U C CO
tu cu T3
Q- u *H
3 .u 3
H tn < o
CO
CU
u
•H
>
u
01
to co
cu
—I o
CO -H
cj >
■H Vj
00 CU
O CO
f-t
o .c
J3 J->
(0
0)
H
a
3
O
>> CO
CO cu
Cu X o
c
o
T-l
CO
>
1-1
01 T3
D. O
3 O
CO It,
C
O
•H
U
CO
4J C
ti o
O -H
a. co
co
3
09
C
CO
u
H
nj
>
cu
a. cu
3 a.
to o
c to
■H C
£2
c o
I
■H 3
4j CU
CO "H
CU I
a c
O H
1 CO
u
cu e
oo cu
2 t
CO CO
O Ou
co
tu
co
3
CQ
00
■o
i-H
JD
01 to
OS cu
(0
^ 3
CQ
1-1
c ^
CU CU CO
o E C
c CU o
CO tj -H
ui co JJ
3 i-H -H
to at)
C 0) TJ
H OS <
•-I csi rl c H
co
CiH Nn-jmict^cooi
H CN CMCNCslCNlCNCslCNCN
■H
•o
1-1
a.
o
a
3 H N n *J lO vO
O H rg -j
3 hcm n -j
in id r^ co
O, 1*1 fl c^l ro rl n
Cti -3- -J- -3-
Cj if! lO lO lO
l/> u-i u-i 1/*1
187
III - 33
HE
x x
>< x
X X
x x
H
X
s
X X
c
3
17'
in
W
0)
•H
o
4J
OC u-i
•h
3
[A
c
O
Ul
>
rO
XI
■H
4-1
>-,
•H
C
TJ
Vj
o
CD
r4
3
—<
•H
•H
in
4J
•H
«
M
B)
u
3
D.
4-1
•
•H
c
03
0)
ui
u
4-1
n
4-1
a;
•H
or
>
3
in
Dfl
c
<4J
U-4
O
c
TJ
C
OJ
4J
c
vi
10
o
^>
01
•H
H
UJ
o
1-
m
B
■H
■-I
OJ
4-i
(0
•H
01
01
to c
C
or,
0-
c
0)
aj
4)
o
4)
Ul
■a
f-H
1)
4-1
1) 4-4
V4
•H o
.11
C
n
o
o
a
•H
x;
01
4>
It
>
TO
co c
0)
a- -h
(11
rH
HI
01
iH
lt-4
•H
c
c
c
>
4-1
u
D.
c
•H
4-1
c >-<
4-1
IB
*
in
4)
o
<fl
o
01
in
TO
TO
U
O
o
Li
o
4-,
4-
u
c
•r-t
hi
■H
i/i
c
3
■H
c
C
C
11
H
TO
•H
TO
o
0.4-1
H
>
-n
XI
C
4J
f>H
tr
o
0J
>
u
III
ai
C/>
o
PL,
CJ
4-»
u
0,
W TO
r
n
-H
•H
m
l-i
£
<)
U
4-»
l-i
4-1
TO
ill
M
C HI
-i
4J
4-1
rH
u
3
0>
c
41
c
c
c
r^
TO
■a
U
p.
G
01
OJ
O Q-
n
[11
n)
■r4
C
in
4-1
m
a
■H
•H
•l-i
4-)
in
u
c
3
o
TO
.c
4-1 '-
X
•H 3
u
n
u
4-J
a>
C
m
c
-i
TO
TO
TO
•H
4J
eg
TO
•u
U
4-i
M TO
4J
4-1 VI
CI
C )
S3
t.
M
ai
w
V
^
^
c
C
a
lC
UJ
U
H
'J
1) 3
o
VJ
3
(U
>-i
01 rH
en
^
m
^n
r^
on
c
rH
OJ
C*l
<r
|
g.
— i
CM
m
-*
m
vD
4-1 00
ON
P-vO
10
vO
-o
vO
vO
10
x>
TO
r~
r~-
r^
i —
C
TO
oi
en
ON
CT>
0^
Ui
GO-*
Ul
O
rC
u
0-
M
o
o
o
O
r^
r~-
00
a,
o>
(«
01
■H
>
l-i
D
>.
L0
TO
r^
4-1
ig
3
3
a
4-1
u
r-l
01
-4
TO
l-i
41
4J
u
;•
•H
C
nj
Q.
V4
TO
u
H
LJ
r^
CO
Oi
TO
01
•rH
4-t
u
^1
0)
4-1
01
TO
c
T.
0)
0=
va
0)
0)
01
01
>!
T-1
rH
U)
.— 1
CL Jd
c^
O.
E
3
UJ
OO
CQ
M
0)
rH
X
TO
4-1
CJ
o
■H
c
-3
j:
o
4J
01
kH
1
H
CO
V4
UJ
-3
u
g
XI
rH
„
H
0)
TO
rH
H
4-1
C
TO
Q
TO
O
■H
fr^
O
•H
rJ
UJ
-H
0)
TO
CL,
14-1
en
4J
X
■H
01
0)
UJ
4-1
<4H
r4
4-4
C)
o
!■•-
01
V4
01
O
U
Pw
!>"•
Crt
1
1
1
H
( )
«
01
01
UJ
01
01
01
-i
■rJ
•H
■H
cc
rJ
rl
H
O
TO
ic
10
rH
rH
rH
1
TO
«
(0
CO
|fl
u
LO
UJ
J
■
•
H
—1
CJ
CI
188
III - 54
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION
PROGRAM CODE
(Fourth and Fifth Positions of Expenditure Code)
Program Code
00 - Undistributed (Indirect Cost, Prorated Periodically)
05 - Summer School Program
10 - Elementary Program
20 - Secondary Program
28 - Vocational Education - Secondary
29 - Traffic Safety
30 - Handicapped Program
39 - State Institutions
Federal Projects - PL 89-10
41 - Title I Projects
45 - Title II Projects
47 - Title III Projects
49 - Title IV Projects
Federal Projects - Cultural
50 - Head Start (Ec . Op. Act)
53 - Neighborhood Youth Corps (Ec. Op. Act)
57 - Adult Basic Education
Federal Projects - Other
60 - Manpower Development and Training Act
62 - PL 864 - NDEA Title III
64 - Other Federal Projects
Non-Federal Special Accountable Projects
70 - Projects Funded by State
75 - Projects Funded by Foundations and Other Non-
governmental Sources
Adult and Vocational-Technical
81 - Adult Education
85 - Vocational - Technical Schools
90 - Community Services
189
o
_i
vol
<
L-l
u
i- u
«: u
- u z
^3 5
(23 <
1
3
3
cr-
' tf
»<
Q
D <
Q
0a
«
>
^
u
<
o o
■J
o
o
«
Q
as
a.
°1
- Eh Eh
- -z. <\
v. U,
c-«
— dc;
Z "X
O i-i
3 O
? J
O Cu
< a
"*
o
.
a
> *
v«
d
H
VJ
v
N3
^
~ w Id
* Q Q
2 O
1
1
>
Id U
a*
X
w
h
*1
- -
£«
pT n
J
- g a
Ijo ^
^^«
1
><
3 2
*
*
^t
CO
3
Ch
a
H
w
□
s
-~ X S>
\
i
|
a
t n >-
1
a
3
— I < id
i
|
BJ
Eh
u
i B
1
< o
Id
«<
—
J c,
o
K
— 1
„ Eh
ro <
— Q
<
ex
3 =
V
a*
o
(X
Id
Eh
K
<
CX
-1
*** e
—
! ^
~ Cdtd
rj e; CO
— oe
UID
\
_
i
02
to
z>
o
>
0.
_<5 *
>
a.
Eh
o
ex
8
z
- g
s
o
ex
Cm
S
V
s
-♦
1
r
«
2
'.j
IX
o
"J
Ijm
^ q 1
*-H
Q
O
O
u
to
o a;
On uj
H a:
a <
O 3
a i"x
t-H.
[d
' )
'£
j
CO
J
i G
\i
1
<
E~
O
H W
Eh
Q <
5 Q
2 O
O Eh
<
0.
CX H
W X
Eh UJ
im ■:
.< u.
Eh
:!.'.
98-143 O - 73 -- 13
190
Form F-125 (4/71)
State of Washington
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Olympia
BUDGET SUMMARY
PROJECT BUDGET
SUMMARY FOR
(Federal Title Designation)
Budget Period:
Beginning_
, iy
Name of Agency
Ending
/ 19
Address of Agency
SALARIES
Employee
Benefits
ObJ.l
Su
pplles
Contract-
ed
Services
0b J. 7
Travel
0b J. 8
Capital
Outlay
0b J. 9
TOTAL
EXPT'I! . 1
Certifi-
cated
ObJ.l
Non-Cer- -
tlflcated
0b J. 243
&
Material
ObJ. 1 ,
Books
0bJ.6
(1)
(2)
(5)
CO
(5)
(6)
(7)
(«)
(9)
(10)
(11)
ADMINISTRATION
100
INSTRUCTION
200
ATTENDANCE
PUPIL SERVICES
300
FOOD
SERVICES
400
*
PUPIL TRANS-
PORT. SERVICES
500
*
*
*
OPERATION
OF PLANT
600
*
*
*
liMWTENANCE
OF PLANT
700
INDIRECT COST
SUB-TOTAL
jecia
REMODELING AND FACILITIES ACQUISITION
Building Fund
Expenditure Category
Projeot
Number
Expenditure
Type
Objeot
3
(Including
Buildinqs - New Portables)
4
Buildinas - Remodelina
5
Equipping Buildings
SUB-TOTAL
* Only under S]
1 circuras
tances.
T
OTAL
PROJECT
BUDGET
(Sum cf an
Components )
191
Form F-125-I (4/72)
State of Washington
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Olympia
EXPENDITURE DETAILS OF PROJECT BUDGET
Expenditure codes should be derived from or consistent with FUNCTION & OBJECTS per Accounting Manual for Public
Schools of the State of Washington. Details herein are to be summarized and entered on Form - - IDOET
The codes that occur most commonly are prelisted herein; space is provided for inserting position title or desig-
nation of type of personal service for unusual situations.
Part I - Salaries and Wages
Account
Code
Number of Employees
Total
Salary
1 oyee
Classification of Assignments
Regular
Summer
Total
FTE
Total
FTE
ADMINISTRATION:
Comparability Report
13-2
INSTRUCTION:
Director & Management
21-1
Supervisor
21-1
Clerical
21-3
!
Teachers :
25-1
25-1
25-1
Released Time
25-1
Substitute Teachers
25-1
Teacher Aides
25-3
Librarian
27-1
Librarian Aides
27-3
Counseling
28-1
PUPIL SERVICES:
Attendance
32-3
Guidance
33-1
Psvchcloqist
34-1
Health Services
35-2
FOOD SERVICES - Lunchroom
44-3
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION: - Drivers
52-3
OPERATION: - Custodial
63-3
MAINTENANCE: - Buildings
73-3
Repair
74-3
.
TOTALS
3a
192
Form F-125-I
(4/72) (continued)
Part II - Non-Salary Expenditures
Account
Code
AMOUNT
OBJECT 5 - SUPPLIES & MATERIALS*
Audio-Visual Supplies s Materials
22-5
Instructional Supplies s Materials
25-5
TOTAL
OBJECT 6 - BOOKS
Text Books & Work Books
26-6
Library Books
27-6
TOTAL
OBJECT 7 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Education Consultants :
Project Design days @ $ per day
21-7
Evaluation & Monitorinq days @ S per day
21-7
Inservice Education days B 5 per day
25-7
Other days @ $ per day
Maintenance & Repair of Equipment
20-7
Medical Services
35-7
Utilities K Fuel
60-7
Telephone
65-7
Rental:
Film Rental
22-7
Instructional Equipment
25-7
Building or Space
66-7
Parent Advieorv Committee
21-7
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
OBJECT 8 - TRAVEL
Director
21-8
Staff & Inservice Workshops
25-8
Consultants
25-8
Attendance (Specify)
32-8
TOTAL
OBJECT 9 - CAPITAL OUTLAY
Equipment (Itemize below) :
TOTAL
List in generalized categories such as, A-V Materials (22-5) ,
Food (42-5), Gasoline (52-5), Instructional Materials (25-5),
3b
193
STATE OF WASHINGTON — INVOICE VOUCHER
Form F-146 (3/71)
CLAIM AND REPORT FOR FEDERAL TITLE
SUBMIT IN TRIPLICATE
AGENCY
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
Old Capitol Building
Clympia, Washington 98504
" -hool Dist .
Street
City
County
CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the amount
listed for materials furnished, services rendered,
expenses Incurred or other items of indebtedness as
charged in the attached claim is a true and correct
charge against the State of Washington; that the
claim is Just and due; and that I am authorized to
sign for the payee.
Title
Date
1 . LOCAL PROJECT NUMBER 2 . PROJECT YEAR
AMOUNT APPROVED
4. 75% LIMITATION
5. DISBURSEMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDING
6. Total Federal Cash Received to Date This Project
7. Disbursements Previously Reported
8. Disbursements in Quarter Just Ended
9. Total Disbursed to Date (Item 7 + Item 8)
10. Federal Cash Balance (Item 6 Minus Item 9)
11. Estimated Cash Needs Month of
12. Cash Required (Item 11 Minus Item 10)
13. Esti-ated Cash Needs Month of
1-4. Estimated Cash Needs Month of
15. Total Cash Requested (Items 12 + 13 + 14)
REMARKS :
D ^c
ck if Project is
Completed.
STATE OFFICE USE ONLY
- • ;. [-_
• R :.
SUB.
na iei :
SUB.
PROJECT
AMOUNT
Checked
Posted
5 ;■ .':".:. -
By Ass't. Fiscal Officer
AMOUNT
VOUCHER HO,
WARRANT
"0.
n
i_>
LU
u.
cc
fj
LU
- >
I 1
ct
o_
_i
t_'
u
D
X
H
c in
z
194
H W
H
a <
Z Q
2 o
B
a
o
H
Z
W
□
z
w
H
z
«
u
a.
a
up
in
o ■
2S
O
to fc,
rt F»>
rt
u
36
195
A look back over the past five (5) years shows how the Johnson-O'Malley program
has grown in this state:
Fy 1968-69 28 schools annual budget. .. $165 ,621
FY 1969-70 30 schools annual budget... 247,519
FY 1970-71 35 schools annual budget... 703, 274
FY 1971-72 36 schools annual budget. . . 732,680
FY 1972-73 42 schools annual budget. . . 950,000
A number of school districts have Indian children enrolled but do not qualify
for JOM assistance under the present regulations of the Act. The total number
of school districts in the State of Washington having at least ten (10) Indian
students or 50 percent of enrollment NOT being served by JOM is 110. As cited
above, the number of Indian students presently being served is roughly 6,000.
There are over 13,000 Indian students in Washington who would be served by the
ten or fifty percent guidelines. Some large districts have significant numbers
of Indians enrolled but do not qualify under the present definition of eligibility
(Trust land) of the JOM Act. An example of some NON-JOM urban school districts
having significant numbers of Indians enrolled are:
Seattle 860
Tacoma 605
Seattle Public Schools has questioned the eligibility criteria of JOM pointing
out that they have more Indians enrolled than any other public school system in
the state.
196
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
A recent study of 23 schools served by JOM showed a comparison of average
daily attendance with non-Indian children.
Indian student attendance varied from 85.0% to 100% (average 91.6%). Non-Indian
attendance varied from 88.8% to 97% (average 93.6%). Generally average daily
attendance has increased in schools served by JOM. Omak High School on the
Colville Indian Reservation reports an increase in attendance of 211%. Im-
provement in attendance may be attributable to the outstanding performance
of the Indian counselor aides and teacher aides. There are 115 counselor
aides and teacher aides employed in the 42 JOM schools. These Indian aides
are also responsible for a positive attitude change on the part of the Indian
students. There is a marked increase in the Indian participation in extra-
curricular activities. There is also a noticeable drop in the number of poor
work slips sent home at each grading period.
197
TEACHER AIDES
There are 70 teacher aides employed by the 42 school districts. They are
functioning in areas of remedial special education, special tutors, teacher
assistants, and consultants on Indian Culture. Superintendents and certificated
school personnel report that significant changes are being observed in all
areas where aides are assisting the regular teachers. Several teacher aides
take over classes completely and, in a number of cases, are teaching reading.
IN-SERVICE TRAINING
Plans are being formulated to provide an opportunity for all the Indian
aides to earn an Associate of Arts Degree. Ten Community Colleges have
offered to cooperated in the training program. Ninety percent of the Indian
aides canvassed express a desire to work toward an A. A. degree, B.A. degree or
a regular teaching certificate. Most aides have families and to take residence
work on a college campus would work a hardship where the person is a mother.
(Eighty percent of Indian aides are mothers having one to seven children).
Ways are being sought to provide academic, professional improvement courses
taught at the local community — using the school facilities.
Summer school classes are being planned at University of Washington, Western
Washington State College, Eastern Washington State College, and Central
Washington State College. It is expected that one-third of all the Indian
aides would request to attend summer sessions. Aides are usually on a nine-
month salary (many take home less than $300 per month). Funds are desperately
198
needed to assist Indian aides in all pursuits of inservice training and professional
upgrading. The aides themselves contantly express a need to take course work
and acquire skills to help them become more effective counselors and teachers
of reading. Estimates on in-service training funds for Summer of 1973 are as
follows:
For six-weeks summer session for one Indian aide:
Fees and transportation $100.00
Room and board 450.00
$550.00
Number of aides, 30 x 30
Needed for summer of 1973 $16,500.00
It is hoped that the FY 1974 JOM budget will enable local school districts
to support in-service training on a regional basis by paying tuition and
travel for aides to attend nearby community colleges on an evening schedule.
JOM PARENT COMMITTEES
A very vital aspect of the JOM program is the Parent Education Committee.
Effective functioning of the local school JOM projects depends on this com-
mittee. As communities become more involved with school affairs, one can
see the growth into a community education of Indian children. Much remains
yet to be done in assisting parent groups to become more knowledgeable on
education matters. Training of the committee workers is vital at this
very time. More time, expertise and funds must be made available imme-
diately to conduct in-service training for committees.
A handbook has just been published to serve as guidelines to assist committees
to carry on their role in the JOM program.
199
Senator Abourezk. Lucy Covington, you are the final witness of the
day and I just might announce that Mrs. Covington's testimony will
terminate the hearings on this legislation.
We are very happy to have you today, Mrs. Covington. We have
talked to Mrs. Covington before, and we know her concern and interest
in this area.
STATEMENT OF LUCY COVINGTON, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT,
NORTHWEST AFFILIATED TRIBES
Mrs. Covington. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am the
delegate from the Northwest Affiliated Tribes where I serve as first
vice president because the president did not have tribal funds to come
and present the affiliated tribes statement. I am also representing the
Colville Confederated Tribes of the State of Washington.
We, the northwest tribes, have experienced the effects of the lack of
proper education for Indian children for several generations. We have
seen Indian people attempt to better their lives and the lives of their
families only to be put down because of their lack of education and
training.
Due to this lack of education, the Indian people of this country have
been unable to serve equally in public office or otherwise participate in
Government.
Therefore we have not had a voice in policy decisions affecting our
destiny. How long has Johnson-O'Malley been available? The Indians
haven't known how to control the Johnson-O'Malley program. This
must not happen again.
We will manage and direct the use of these funds tliis time. The
money must be tribally controlled. Indian schools belong in Indian
communities. If the old way of sending Indian students out of the
Indian communities had been successful, we would be educated by now.
Sir, I believe in that part of the statement somewhere the stenog-
rapher left out some wording. This does not mean that we do not wish
to continue with boarding schools, we do. And, I don't want this to be
misunderstood.
This situation is clearly the result of two factors to which we have
been subjected over the last 100 years or more. First there was and still
is the fact of discrimination against Indians by the non-Indian
community.
Second, there has been the lack of implementing programs by local,
State and Federal governments for the advancement of educational
opportunities for Indians. Education is a valuable tool for the survival
and dignity of any people.
A concerted effort has been made in this country to keep this tool
out of the hands of the Indian. This, however, has not worked. We have
educated ourselves in many other ways. We have passed on our tradi-
tions. We will persist in our Indian ways.
It is against this background that we wish to express our support
for S. 1017, the Indian Self-determination and Education Reform
Act of 1973. We support this bill and its attempt to recognize the
rights of the Indian people for self-determination.
In addition, we support it because it attempts to increase the quan-
tity and quality of educational services and opportunities to be made
available to Indian children and adults.
200
This will provide the tools of self-determination and progress neces-
sary to strengthen our people. We Indian people wish to solve our
own problems and only ask that we be given an equal opportunity and
equal resources to use for that purpose.
This bill has many of the favorable features of the Johnson-O'Mal-
ley Act. First, it includes programs for pre-kindergarten and adult
education. We look forward to the availability of adult education pro-
grams in our community. These programs will allow the development
of needed skills in those persons who were neglected by the system
of the past.
Our youth are our greatest resource in building an Indian future.
Early childhood programs carefully designed to meet the special
needs of our Indian children will enable all our youth to realize their
full potential in life.
The section concerning school construction will be a real help in
overcoming the problems of poor school systems in various Indian
communities. Our problem is a shortage of Indian teachers and ad-
ministrators as well as a shortage of curriculum and student services
to serve Indian communities.
School facilities have been poorly located and sadly neglected. The
provisions of this act for new construction will meet an urgent need
in many Indian communities.
The summer months when our students are not enrolled in educa-
tional programs provide an excellent opportunity for them to partici-
pate in the proposed youth intern program. The fields involved in the
youth intern program can provide useful exj>erience for Indian youth
in activities related to their future choice of careers on Indian
reservations.
Requiring the Secretary to carry out the specified negotiations in
these fields will insure the quality of the program. We wish to sug-
gest that particular efforts be made to maintain this program in such
Government agencies that are responsible for the management and
protection of our Indian natural resources and are located on and
bordering the reservation.
The portion of the act which allows for the development of pro-
fessionals in Indian education is urgently needed. We have too long
been in the position of having to depend on non-Indians to meet the
educational needs of our Indian people. Despite good intentions, a
non-Indian cannot really understand the needs, desires, and frustra-
tions of an Indian in this country.
He must always stand outside any full understandig of Indian prob-
lems and position. One of the results of the educational situation in
Indian communities has been the lack of trained professionals in
Indian education.
The Johnson-O'Malley Act which was designed to help in the de-
velopment of those professionals has never been sufficiently imple-
mented in this area. The related section of the proposed bill recognizes
this need for the expanded professional involvement of Indian people
in the Indian education.
In recent years there has been an increase in the number of schools
controlled and operated by tribes as part of the tribal government
201
function. Under this bill available benefits will be restricted to State
public schools. For example, on the Colville Reservation we are in
the process of obtaining control of an elementary boarding school
for our Indian children. Under the definition in the proposed bill
the tribal school will not be eligible for the benefits under this pro-
gram.
Because of the restrictive definition of the "local education agen-
cy," tribal schools in the past have been ineligible to apply for and
receive the financial resources of specific Federal programs. Thus,
if the present bill is not amended to include these schools owned and
operated by tribal governments, they will be unable to obtain the
benefits of the Indian Self-determination and Educational Reform
Act of 1973.
We therefore request that this section of the bill be amended so
that the definition of school and school desires include our important
tribal schools and other nonlocal educational agencies.
Under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, parent advisory committees have
been frustrated by their purely advisory capacity. They have not had
the authority or power to implement the parent advisory committee's
desired programs.
Such a committee can never hope to overcome the challenges pre-
sented by the local school board determined not to carrry out Indian
educational reform. We believe that an effective community education
committee should be tied into the already existing structures of local
tribal government or local Indian organizations.
Tribal governments or Indian organizations already have the
structural knowledge and resources to evaluate decisions and programs
in the local community. Such a tie-in would provide the local com-
munity educational committee of Indian parents with the authority
to implement needed educational reform. We therefore request that
this section of the bill be amended to insure this authority on the part
of the community education committee.
Increased funding for public health services and facilities for In-
dians must be provided under this act, including funds for sanita-
tion projects and existing homes, and so forth.
Sir, this is something that was left out completely so it will be sub-
mitted to you. Unless increased appropriations are aggressively
sought through the directive spelled out in this legislation, Indian
tribes might well find themselves merely contracting the frustrations
of Public Health Service administrators.
The Northwest Affiliated Tribes support the passage of Senate bill
1017. with the suggested amendments. Creative administration of
this educational reform program will be necessary if it is to be effec-
tive. Indian people must have the opportunity and responsibility for
the control of this program.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I also have some statements here from Roger Jim,
concerning S. 1342, and S. 1343 and S. 1340.
Senator Abourezk. We will accept those statements and have them
printed into the record in full, and we thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Jim follows :]
202
Statement of
Roger R. Jim, Sr. , President
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
S-1342
The act attempts to reach at the main items Indians have been
deprived of.
Education has been statistically below standard. Only those
who were determined to get ahead progressed above the government school
and went into higher education.
Medical attention is limited because money is not appropriated
to assist or provide enough, or adequate, services for the Indian people.
Clinics are over-crowded and do not fit the present demand. Personnel
is, at this time, in fear of being replaced by Indians, which should
have happened a long time ago. Relief of distress has been nonexistent,
to my knowledge. The need for health facilities in the Northwest is
great because of the few clinics on the reservations and the one available
hospital at Seattle.
The bill refers to transfer of maintenance and operation of hospitals
and health facilities to PHS for Indians. The hospital at Seattle could
easily fit in this area and provide more care for Indian people. The
Northwest is in need of health facilities for Indian people. The Section 9
only refers to detailing of personnel to assist tribes and have no reference
to facilities.
Social welfare is a big problem on Indian reservations. The State
has held very few fair hearings for Indian people. They would rather
deny, than assist them in their problems. The Indian people of the North-
west want the eligibility requirements changed in regard to trust resources-
Trust property and trust income should not be an available resource.
203
Welfare pnblems of Indians can be reduced by understanding social
workers and utilization of the law to its fullest. Today it appears
that local officials are the hardest upon their neighbors in regard to
need of assistance.
URGE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL.
204
Statement of
Roger R. Jim, Sr., President
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
S-1343
The Indian tribes that are in position to assume control have been
waiting for such a bill as S-1343. The reasons being many: negativeness
of civil service employees to Indian wants and progressiveness is only
one. Fear of being replaced is high among career officers in PHS .
Many programs do not reach the people intended, or do not do an
adequate job in accomplishment. The Yakima Nation is directing the
P.L. 86-121 Project on the reservation, and the monies under the program
is doing a better quality job under direction of the Tribal Council for
its members.
Many services under BIA and PHS can be directed by the Indian leaders
who can do a better job than is now being done.
URGE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL THAT WILL ALLOW SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT
TERMINATION.
205
STATEMENT OF
ROGER R. JIM, SR. , ERESIDENT
AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS
S-1340
Directing their own programs on their reservations has been one of
the priorities set for tribal leaders. It has been denied for one reason
or another up to this date. Enaction of the bill would allow for this.
But the question is in regard to employee's position regarding his termination,
for whatever reason the tribe felt was necessary, and of the procedure
after the act of dismissal.
The tribes have asked for direction of the federal programs because
of the negative attitude of some civil service employees. The tribe
could not affect any change in personnel because of the various laws for
the federal employee protecting him from tribal recommendations for
termination. This change would give the tribe the right to change or re-
place any employee for whatever reason that was necessary. The move for
a government employee to retain his civil service status when working
for the tribe is good.
The tribes have always rejected paying taxes, and, undoubtedly,
this means paying a tax for the civil service benefits.
In the mo\e for self-determination, the Indians must have input
into the regulations the President prescribes to carry out the intent of
this act.
URGE ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL, BUT WITH RESERVATION OF PAYING TAXES.
98-143 O - 73 -- 14
206
Senator Abourezk. Mrs. Covington, I wish to compliment you and
commend you for a well thought out statement. And I want you to
know that Senator Jackson and I both very much appreciate your en-
dorsement of S. 1017, and I further want to say that I think you are
extremely lucky to have a Senator like Senator Jackson who takes
the interest of the Indian people at heart and is willing to work hard
and to provide assistance to our subcommittee, and of course to the
full Interior Committee for the implementation of Indian self-deter-
mination.
And, I think you should be proud of your Senator out there ; he has
done an excellent job in that area.
Mrs. Covington. Thank you very much. For the first time we didn't
have to fight a bill, it was one we could support and I am very proud of
that.
Senator Abourezk. That doesn't happen too often, does it?
Thank you very much. Does any of the staff have any questions ?
Mr. Gerard. Mrs. Covington, just one question. You referred to a
contract school in your testimony, is that a former Bureau school or a
mission school ?
Mrs. Covington. It is the St, Mary's Mission School, it has been in
existence probably since before my time, and at the present time — the
tribe is taking over because it has a very difficult time to exist. The
tribe supplements funds to it and most of our students who come out
of this school are good college material.
Mr. Gerard. We can't answer your question right at the moment
but we will take that fact into account as the staff deliberates further
with the Senators on the bill.
Mr. Covington. I believe most of the papers are just about ready and
most of them are signed, it is just a transfer from St. Mary's Mission
to the Colville Tribe. It is the only school we have had in existence
on the Colville Reservation. As you know, we don't have any other
nearby.
Senator Abourezk. Thank you very much, Mrs. Covington.
These hearings are now adjourned. That is the extent of the testi-
mony on this particular legislation.
The next hearings of this subcommittee are scheduled for June 12,
on S. 1786, which is a bill to require that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Indian Health Service come back to this Congress for annual
authorizations.
[Whereupon, at 12 :20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[Under authority previously granted, the following statements and
communications were ordered printed :]
(207)
208
HENRY M. JACKSON. WASH., CHAIRMAN
ALAN BIBLE. NEV.
FRANK CHURCH, IDAHO
LEE MET CALF. MONT.
PAUL J. FANNIN, ARtZ.
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, WYO.
MARK O. HATFIELD, OREO.
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, JR., LA. JAMES L. BUCKLEY. N.Y.
JAMES ABOUREZK. 8. DAK.
FLOYD K. HASKELL, COLO.
JAMES A. MC CLURE, IDAHO
DEWEY r. BARTLETT, OKLA.
JERRY T. VERKLER, STAFF DIRECTOR
\\
QlCmieb J$>{aiesi Senate
COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
m
2 8 June 19 73
The Honorable James S. Abourezk
Chairman
Subcommittee on Indian Affairs
3106 Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Abourezk z
Please have the enclosed letter from Dr. Willard
R. Anderson included in the hearing record on S. 1017.
Very/trul#( yours
(^
u
Enclosure
209
Dr. WilJard R.
Superintendent
Anderson
PRINCIPALS
IARRAE ROCHELEAU
LUKE DYCHE
GORDON HALVEHSON
FLORENCE HANSON
ROY MABTINSEN
MY KeCALLUM
Marjorie MacClean
District Clerk
ARD OF TRUSTEES
DON BEARY, Cb.
JACODSON. Vice Ch.
MICHAEL DOWNINO
REINBOLD JABS
EDYTBX HcCLEABY
BOY NAYEMAT8U
ELEMENTARY DISTRICT NO. 17-H - HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. J
BIG HORN COUNTY
HARDIN, MONTANA .
18034
June 13, 1973
Hfft \ s hti
Senator Lee Metcalf
United States Senate .,.„..,_
Washington, 2. -C.. 20510 £.
Dear Senator Metcalf:
Through the years, as you have championed the causes
of education, your awareness and knowledge^ ofv^he. need for
improved Indian education has always been' evident. This
letter is, first of all, to reinforce your support of Senate
Bill #1017, and secondly to ask your help in providing more
direct assistance for public schools, who because of local
politics and prejudice, are sometimes unable to 6erve the
best interests of the Indian child.
In District 17K we have three separate schools located
in three separate communities; Hardin, Fort Smith and Crow
Agency. Hardin is composed chiefly of local merchants and
related agriculture, Fort Smith is primarily government
related employees and Crow Agency is 95^ Crow Indian and
Indian related employees.
To pass a bond issue for school facilities we not only
have to get support for the funding, but an agreement as to
where the funding will go. Up' to two years ago the District
was unable to pass operation levies, and last year a building
reserve levy failed and the operation levy took three attempts.
This year we were able to pass an operation levy as well as
an 11 mill building reserve. However, eleven mill in our
District will not even keep up with the present rate of
inflation and in five years we will still have less than a
half million dollars. Four of our buildings are over '♦O year6
old and one is over 50 years old.
ACCREDITED BY THE NORTHWEST ACCREDITING ASSOCIATION AND THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
210
, If this District is to meet its obligation to educate the
Indian child, inadequate facilities are not the answer. Within
the next three years we should remodel or build new facilities
for over 750 students at an estimated cost of three to four
million dollars. I see no solution to this problem through any
of the present programs now in operation. Present programs do
not apply because we do have bonding capacity which could be
used if it were not for the human elements involved. We al60
question whether this should be a local tax responsibility, or
if the community at this point could possibly bear this financial
burden. At least one other school in the District is in about
the same condition as the two Indian related schools in question.
The records in District 17H clearly indicate the past
history of failure to educate the Indian child. Legislation,
such as Johnson O'Malley, Bilingual and the Indian Education
Act have helped us to deal with staffing and programs relating
to Indian education. We now need legislation with the funding
capacity and flexibility to include major facility improvements
which will allow local schools to house and operate already
developed programs.
Our hope is that Senate Bill #1017 in its final form will
be able to deal with the total Indian education problem. We
do support your efforts in this direction and ask only that
Local Education Agencies be given consideration in the admini-
stration of these funds.
Kindest personal regards,
W. R. Anderson
Superintendent
Don Beary
Board Chairman
WRA/mb
211
i,.-. \V,;iard R.
iuperiatendent
Anderson
t-;;i.v:ciPALS
W-'iRAE ROCHSLEAU
LUIS DYCEE
CORDON KALVERSON
FLORENCE HANSON
ROY MAKTINSEN
JAY McCALLUK
aEMENTARY DISTRICT NO. 17-H - HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
BIG HORN COUNTY
HARDIN, IIONTANA
SS034.
STATEMENT OF FACILITY N'SEDS
School District 17-H, Big Horn County, Montana
U&rjorio MacCleau
District Clerk
OARD OF TRUSTEES
DON BEARY, Cta.
ED JACOLSON, Vlco Ch.
DR. MICHAEL DOWNING
REINHOLD JABS
EDYTUE McCLEARY
HOY NAYEMATSU
On April 20, 1972, thc"~attached statement was presented to tho
Board of Trustees of District 17-H as general information for develop-
ing a plan of procedure.
Inflation and increased enrollments at both Crow Agency and at
the junior high level have created a need for additional funding, but
the over-all basic need is still the same.
Crow Agency School is over *tO years old and certainly some tech-
nical assistance will be required to determine the advisability of
remodeling or replacement ;o moot school needs. Estimated cost6 at
this time would be from i600,000 to SI, 500, 000. Minimum school
requirements could be met at the lower figure, but to expand the bi-
lingual - biculture program to meet tho Community needs of the Crow
Agency area could easily require funding in excess of 31,500,000.
Basic plans should include school facilities for a minimum of 350
students and a community auditorium to seat 400 people.
As our bilingual — biculture program expands through the grades
the need for additional junior high school space becomes more acute.
The program has now reached the 4th grade and these students will bo
entering inadequate facilities in two years. The present building
was built about 1920 without any provision for the technical or space
needs of this generation. If this community is to develop a total
school system to meet the needs of ALL children the present junior
nigh school facilities are not in accord with the intent of District
17-H. An estimate of 51,500,000 to 52,500,000 would be required to
remodel or build junior high .school facilities for 400 students.
District 17-K is now in the process of developing a building
reserve fund through local taxes but will need additional funding if
any action is to be seriously contemplated within tho next five years.
/
- t/ //.
Chairman
District 17-H
, 522 No. Center Avenue
Hardin, Montana 590J4
■vXKEOTTO Sr THE NORTHWEST ACCREDITING ASSOCIATION AND TH2 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OFWSUCtNOTRUCTiW:
212
SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 & 17-H
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
April 20, 1972
Crow Agency School
Original Building
14 Classrooms (.. f/^yrs. old)
1 Multipurpose room with stage
New Addition
4 Classrooms
Temporary
1 Kindergarten room (CAP)
5 Portable Classrooms
Building Needs
Classrooms ^
2 Kindergarten Rooms
4 Grade 1 Rooms
15 Grade 2-6 Rooms
1 Library & Media Center With Remedial Facilities
1 Special Education
1 Medical Testing Center
1 Multi-purpose Room
1 Administrative & Teacher Work Space (must include space for
special programs such as Bilingual, COP & Teacher Corps.)
Total estimate 3600,000 Building
Total estimate per Yr. 5100,000 Educational
Special Programs ' 30,000
Teacher Aides 60,000
Equipment & Supplies 6,000
Staff Training & Misc. 4,000
District Building needs directly related to Indian Education
New Junior High School (Grades 9-12)
Estimated Students 400
Estimated Cost 31,500,000
School Financial Picture
1971-72 Budgets 1972-73 Budgets
Elem. H.S. Elem. H.S.
Foundation 5751,009 $335, 664 3760, 204 $361,800
Special Levy 153,379 6 2,293 199,938 72,069
Total 8904,388 3397,957 3960,142 3433,869
Federal Monies - Related Directly to Indian Education
*
H»o«
Both
Elem.
874
S6o,ooo
3160,000
Johnson O'Malley
7,000
41,000
COP
367,000
Teacher Corps
377,000
Bilingual
Sl8o,000
ESEA.
•
372,000
213
Assessed Value.
Taxable Value
District Tax
County Tax
Total
District No. 1
S37.7H.892
10,388,257
District 17-H
$31,262,501
8,508, W7
59.39 mill
48.76 mill
108.15 mill
32^ increase over 1970-71
Voted Increase attempted for 1972-73
H.S. .Gk mill Failed April 1, 1972 (rerun May 9, 1972)
Elem. 4.70 mills Failed April 1, 1972 (rerun May 9, 1972)
Building Reserve Attempted
H.S. 5 mill
Elem. 5 mill
Failed April 1, 1972 (will not be rerun)
Failed April 1, 1972 (will not be rerun)
Summary of Educational Heeds directly related to Indian Education
The history of the Crow People is one of cooperation and willingness
to live in harmony v/ith the" non-Indian culture. However, there is also a
strong feeling to preserve their own self-image and a mutual respect for
tneir history, culture and values.
Through the years the Crow People have been able to preserve their
language, and much of their culture in spite of, sometimes planned, but
more often, an unawareness of the Indian's needs and feelings.
The schools of District 1 & 17-H are obligated to become aware of
all the needs and the feelings of all students if these schools are to
continue as the basic educational tool for universal education in this
community.
The schools of this District serve a bilingual and bicultural com-
munity and must assume the responsibility of allowing all students an
equal opportunity to develop academically and socially in harmony with
a bilingual and a bicultural community.
The Crow language is a useful educational tool and will be develop-
ed as such. As a communicati 
