4 /

78

(a

AMEND THE INDIAN SELF-D ETERM INATIO N A N D ^

EDUCATION ASS IST ANC E ACT

GOVERNMENT:

Storage

H E A R I N G S

BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES SENATE 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IND IAN AFFA IRS

NIN ET Y-FIF TH CONG RESS 

SE COND SE SSIO N

ON

S. 2460

TO AM EN D T H E IN D IA N SE L F-D E T E R M IN A T IO N AND

E D U C A T IO N A SSI ST A N C E AC T

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

25-601 O WASHING TON: 1978
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAI RS

[Created by 8. Res. 4, 95th Cong.J

JAM ES ABOUREZK , South Dakota, Ch airm an

HO WAR D MET ZE NB AU M, Ohio DEW EY F. B A RT L E TT , Oklahoma

JO HN M EL CHER , Montana MAR K O. H ATFIE LD, Oregon

Alan R. Parker, C hi ef Cou nsel

Micha el D . Cox, M inor ity Cou nsel

(U )

o

3

~ 1

CZ3 3 $

P l

v

OJ

“ I o

I V
C O N T E N T S

Bil l

Page

S. 2460__________________________ ______ _____________________ 5

Departmental report_______________________________________ 111

W it nes se s

Crow Flies High, Rose, president, Fort Berthold Tribal Council________ 15

DeLaCruz, Joseph, president, Quinault Tribal Council_______________ 15

Prepared statement________________________________________ 24

Gerard, Forrest, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs___ 106

Prepared statement________________________________________ 108

Respone to questions_______________________________________ 129

Goodwin, George, Deputy Assistant Secretary of th e Interior for Indian

Affairs_____________________________________________________ 106

Jackson, Gordon, Kake Tribe, executive director, Rural Alaska Community

Action program_____________________________________________ 15

Johnson, Dr. Emery, director, Indian Health Service, Public Health

Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare____________ 143

Prepared statem ent________________________________________ 136

Response to questions___________________________________. . . . 146

Kennedy, Ed, comptroller, Northern Cheyenne Tribe _________________ 15

Little Owl, Ronald, Tribal Council member, Three Affiliated Tribes____ 15

Morishima, Gary S., program manager, Quinault Nation_____________ 15

Risingsun, Ted, representing Allen Rowland, president, Northern Cheyenne

Tribal Council______________________________________________ 15

P repared Sta te men ts

Abourezk, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota, and chairman 

Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs_______________________ 2

Concha, Carlotta P., AIS, Inc ___________________________________ 83

Hiwalker, George, Jr. member, Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council_____ 52

Spang, Raymond, chairman, Northern Cheyenne Indian Action program__ 60

Taylor, Jonathon L., “Ed”, Eastern Band of Cherokee India ns_______ 67

Tonasket, Mel C., chairman, Colville Business Council_______________ 70

M ater ia l Sub mitte d

Byrd, Hon. Robert C., a U.S. Senator from West Virginia, and chairman,

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on D epartm ent of the Interior and 

Related Agencies, memorandum of August 1, 1977, on reprograming 

guidelines__________________________________________________ 119

Clark, George, letter of March 30, 1978___________________________ 80

Dean, S. Bobo, law offices of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Kampelman,

lette r of November 10, 1977, with attachments____________________ 86

Forrest, Erin, National Tribal Chairmen’s Association, letter of March 28,

1978_______________________________________________________ 79

Frey, James M., Assistant Director for Legislative Reference, Office of

Management and Budget, letter of March 27, 1978________________ 134

Hena, James S., director, Development Office, Navajo Community College,

lette r of November 4, 1977____________________________________ 92

Khan, Asad Ali, superintendent, Busby School, Northern Cheyenne Tribe,

letter of March 10, 1978_______________________________________ 62

MacDonald, Peter, chairman, Navajo Tribal Council, lette r of April 14,

1978_______________________________________________________ 94

(in)
IV

Ma rtin , Phillip, president, National Indian Managem ent Services, Inc., Pas® 

lette r of March 29, 1978, with enclosures__________________________ 96

Na tional Congress of American Indians, Policy Resolution No. 5_______ 104

Paddock, Raymond E., Jr., president, Central Council, Tlingit and Haida

Ind ians of Alaska, letter of March 16, 1978________________________ 76

Rogers, R. Anthony, law offices of Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, letter of

March 31, 1978________________________________________________ 81

Spears, Emery P., executive director, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, letter

of March 16, 1978______________________________________________ 75

Tiger, Buffalo, chairm an, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, letter

of March 23, 1978______________________________________________ 77
AMEND THE INDIAN SELF-D ETERM INATIO N AND

EDUCATION ASSIST ANCE ACT

TUESDA Y, MARCH 14, 197 8

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on Indian Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, purs uant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 357, 

Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Dewey F. Bartlett presiding.

Present: Senators Melcher, Bartlett, and Hatfield.

Staff present: Alan Parker, chief counsel; K athryn Harris-Tijerina, 

staff attorney ; and Michael Cox, minority counsel.

Senator Bartlett. The hearing will come to order.

I would like to submit for the record the opening statement of 

Senator Abourezk on Senate bill 2460, to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and also a copy of tha t bill. 

(1)
OPENING STATEMENT

OF

SENATOR JAMES ABOUREZK

S . 2460, to amend the Indian Self-Determinati on and 

Education Assistance Act.

I consider this measu re as singularly important to 

the future course of Indian Affairs. The Amendm ent is intended 

to insure that Congress’ original intent in passing the Indian 

Self-Determination Act is successfully implemented.

The Act states that it would "permit an orderly transition from Federal domination of programs for and services to 

Indians to effective and m eaningful parti cipation by the Indian 

people in the planning, conduct and administration of those p rograms and services. (Sec. 3(b)) Since the Act was passed in 

1975 and the regulations published over 1 1/2 years ago, Indian 

people thrJbghout the Nati on have encountered problems and barriers to the assumpti on of control over Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and Indian Health Service Programs. The Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs conducted oversight hearings to investigate these 

problems with the implementation of Public 93-638, One of our 

hearings, held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, generated testimony 

from over 30 Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations. On the 

basis of Indian testimony and information gathered directly from 

IHS and BIA, it became clear that the intent of Congress has been 

frustrated because there has been no meaningful transfer of control
3

in the actual implementation of the Act. Rather, control has 

been retained by the agencies through a combinat ion of factors.

The Agencies have incorporated into the contra cts their identification of priorities and policies rather than allowing Tribes 

to make the determination. Further, Tribes are severely restricted 

by having to formulate their policy de terminations within the 

narr ow parameters of the current programs and bud get allocations 

of the agencies. Duplications of effort, excessive paperwork, 

and inhibitions against long-term planning in the contracting 

process have seriously u ndercut the intended Tribal control.

As a response to these significant problems, the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs will hold hearings on S. 2460.

The amendment leaves the present structure of Public Law 

93-638 intact. It adds as a new option, however, the opportunity 

for Tribes to elect to de velop a comprehensive Triba l plan for 

the ad ministration and deliver y of the total range of government 

services for which they are eligible under pr esent existing law.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to provide 

a consolidated single grant to implement these tribal plans. The 

intent is to greatly simplify the excessive pape rwork generated 

by the contracting process and to allow for the necessary flexibilit y in local policy d eterminations by the Tribes. Application 

of this comprehensive tribal plan, single grant process, would 

also greatly enhance the local management capabili ties of the 

Tribes and enables them to engage in long-term planning. Finally 

the bill would solve many of the detailed procedur eal problems
4

which the Tribes have encountered.

The Federal Policy of Indian Self-Determination has

been adhered to by the past three Presidents of the United 

States, enacted into law by the United States Congress with 

the passage of Public Law 93-638, and unequivocally supported 

by the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Yet, even 

today the Indian has little true Self-Determination. Congress 

must insure that our policies are not idle rhetoric.
95tii CONGRESS 

2d Session S. 2460

IN TH E SENA TE OF TH E UN ITED STA TES

J anuary 31 (legislative day, J anuary 30), 1978

Mr. Abourf.zk introduced the following bil l; which was read twice and referred 

to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend the India n Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresenta2 tives of the United Sta tes o f Ame rica in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) the Indian Self-Determination and Education As4 sistance Act is amended by inserting after section 2 (b) the

5 following new subsection:

6 “ (c) The Congress further finds that—

7 “ (1) the Indian Self-Determination and Education

k

8 Assistance Act is intended to provide for an orderly

9 transfer of the control of basic Government services and

10 programs from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the

11 Indian Health Service to the Indian tribes and tribal
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

32

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2

organizations by way of an expanded contracting authority; and

“ (2) the intent of Congress lias been frustrated 

because there has been no meaningful transfer of control 

in the actual implementation of this Act. Bather, control 

has been retained by the agencies through a combination 

of factors. The agencies have incorporated into the contracts their identification of priorities and policies, rather 

than allowing tribes to make such determinations. Further, tribes are severely restricted by having to formulate 

their policy determinations within the narrow param ­

eters of the current programs and budget allocations of 

the agencies. Duplications of effort, excessive paperwork, and inhibitions against long-term planning inherent in the contracting process have seriously undercut the intended tribal control;

“ (3) tribes have undergone excessively long delays 

in receiving contract approval or their applications have 

been disapproved because of a cited lack of funds; an 

agency decision which leaves the tribes without redress, 

since it is not grounds for a formal appeal. Even after 

contract approval, the tribal services and programs have 

been fiscally disrupted by the agencies’ reimbursement

t

voucher system of payment. Taken together these and
7

3

1 other factors have frustrated the clear intent of Con2 gross; and

3 “ (4) in an effort to effectively implement the Con4 gress’ intended transfer of control, a consolidated single

5 grant authority which follows a comprehensive tribal

6 plan is necessary. Further, it is consistent with Federal

7 policy and the intent of this Act.”.

8 (b) Such Act is further amended by adding at the end

9 thereof the following new title:

10 “T ITLE III—ELE CT ION TO RE CE IVE SIN GL E

11 CON SOLIDATED GRANTS

12 “single consolidated grants

13 “Sec. 301. (a) Any Indian tribe or tribal organization

14 entitled, under this Act, to enter into contracts with the

15 Secretary of the Inte rior or the Secretary of Health, Edu1(5 cation, and Welfare, or to receive grants from any such

17 Secretary, for the purpose of enabling such tribe or organi18 zation to plan, conduct, and administer programs and projects

19 for, and provide services to, Indians or to carry out certain

20 functions, authorities, and responsibilities previously car21 ried out by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary

22 of Health, Education, and Welfare, may elect to receive

23 a single consolidated gra nt in each fiscal year in lieu of
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

11

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

or in addition to contracts under sections 102 and 103 of 

this Act.

“ (b) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with 

die Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, is authorized and directed to make such grants provided for in 

subsection (a) of this section to each Indian tribe or tribal 

organization having an approved plan submitted in accordance with this title.

“pla n s: approval

“Sec. 302. (a) Any Indian tribe or tribal organization 

which elects to receive a single consolidated gra nt in lieu 

of or in addition to the contracts under sections 102 and 

103 of this Act shall submit to the Secretary a plan for 

providing or carrying out any, some, or all such programs, 

projects, functions, activities, or services referred to in section 

303 of this title. Such plan shall set forth a comprehensive 

description of the programs, projects, functions, activities, 

and services to be carried out or provided by such tribe 

or organization from the proceeds of such grant. The plan 

may be for up to ten years to allow for long-term planning 

or for any lesser amount of time the tribe or organization 

may elect. Either before the gran t or after a reasonable 

period of implementation the tribe or organization may 

amend the plan.

“ (b) The Secretary of the Interior shall upon the
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

request of an Indian tribe or tribal organization provide 

technical assistance for the formulation of their plan either 

directly or through contract. In the awarding of contracts 

for technical assistance, preference shall be given to an 

organization designated by the tribe or organization, or in 

the event there is not a designation, the Secretary shall give 

preference to Indian organizations. The Secretary is directed 

to provide whatever assistance and expertise is needed to 

implement the plan with respect to (1) equipment, (2) 

bookkeeping and accounting procedures, (3) substantive 

knowledge of the programs within the plan, (4) community 

understanding of the grant, (5) adequately trained personnel, and (6) other necessary components.

“ (c) (1) Upon the receipt of a plan submitted by such 

tribe or tribal organization, the Secretary of the Interior 

shall have ninety days to review and make a determination 

on whether (A) the service to be rendered to the Indian 

beneficiaries of the particular program or function planned 

will be adequate; (B) adequate protection of trust resources 

is assured; (C) the proposed project or function in the plan 

can he properly completed or maintained by the plan.

“ (2) In the event the Secretary of the Inte rior disapproves all or any portion of a plan, he shall (A) state his 

objections in writing to the tribe or organization within sixty 

days, (B) provide to the extent possible assistance to the

S. 2460----- 2
10

6

1 tribe and tribal organization to overcome bis stated objec2 tions, and (C) within thirty days following such state3 ment of objections, provide the tribe or organization with a

4 hearing at their request under such rules and regulations as

5 he may promulgate, and the opportunity for appeal on the

6 objections raised.

7 “ (3) If the Secretary of the Interior does not send any

8 written notification of disapproval of all or any portion of

9 such plan within ninety days of its receipt, such plan shall

10 be deemed to be approved in its entirety.

11 “ (4) The Secretary of the Interior shall not disapprove

12 any plan because of the percentage of funds devoted to a

13 particular program, project, function, activity, or service.

14 “ (5) Tribal determinations of need, priorities, and sub15 stantive programing as expressed in the plan will only be

16 evaluated by the Secretary on the basis of the criteria set

17 forth in section 30 2(c) (1) above. Consistent with the

18 United States policy of tribal self-determination, as set forth

19 in this Act, the guidelines to be followed in evaluating such

20 plan shall be whether approval of the plan would constitute

21 a failure as trustee to uphold the rights of the beneficiaries,

22 and not whether the tribal policies reflected in the plan are

23 consistent with the judgment of the reviewing official or

24 officials.

25 “ (6) The Secretary of the Inte rior shall approve any
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

plan which requires funding up to the amount that the appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided for his 

operation of the program, or portion thereof, for the period 

covered by the plan. The amount shall include direct costs, 

indirect costs, and administrative costs for the operation of 

the program. If a tribe or tribal organization submits a plan 

which requires funds in excess of such amount, the Secretary 

shall, upon the request of the tribe, conditionally approve 

the plan up to the requested amount. Thereafter, the Secretary is directed to submit to the Appropriation Committees 

of both Houses of Congress as an appendix to the Presidential budget request, a list by tribe comparing the amount 

the tribe will receive under the Presidential budget request 

in comparison to the tribal estimate of need under the tribal 

plan. If the Congress later appropriates the tribe ’s estimated 

need, rather than the President’s request, then the prior approved plan will have its funds increased by a like amount.

“ (7) The Secretary is authorized to require any tribe 

requesting that he provide a single giant pursuant to the 

provisions of this title to obtain adequate liability insurance. 

Each such policy of insurance shall contain a provision that 

the insurance carrier shall waive any right it may have to 

raise as a defense the tribe’s sovereign immunity from suit, 

hut that such waiver shall extend only to claims the amount 

the nature of which are within the coverage and limits of
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

8

the policy and shall not authorize or empower such insurance 

carrier to waive or otherwise limit the tribe’s sovereign immunity outside or beyond the coverage and limits of the 

policy of insurance.

“programs

“Sec. 303. All programs, projects, functions, activities, 

or services for which the Interio r Department or the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are authorized to 

perform for Indians may be included in any plan submitted 

pursuant to this title.

“san ctions

“Sec. 304. (a) Regardless of the length of time for 

which the single consolidated grant is planned, the Secretary 

of the Interior shall conduct an annual audit of the use of 

grant funds in order to insure that the total amount granted 

under the plan was spen t directly or indirectly on the intended services. The tribe or organization shall retain the 

righ t to determine the priorities within the plan as long as the 

total amount was spent within the plan.

“ (b) If the audit finds funds were used for purposes 

other than the plan, then the Secretary shall notify such tribe 

or organization that, if corrective action is not undertaken 

within ninety days, further payments may be withheld to
13

1

<>

6

7

S

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

9

such tribe or organization under that portion of the plan affected by the misuse of funds. If no corrective action is taken, 

the Secretary is further authorized to notify such tribe or 

organization to return to him all or any part of the unexpended sums paid under this title during tha t fiscal year 

pursuant to the affected portion ot the plan.

“ (c) Except to the extent otherwise provided in subsection (a) of this section, the provisions of section 5(b) 

shall be applicable to any financial assistance provided pursuant to this title.

“cont inu ation of services

“Sec. 305. In any case in which the Secretary of the 

Interior has taken an action under section 304 of this title 

which results in vital services not being provided to individuals who were the beneficiaries of such services under such 

plan, the Secretary of the Interior shall take such action as 

may be necessary to provide for the continuation of such 

services for the fiscal y ear covered by such plan.

“payment s

“Sec. 306. Payments made pursuant to this title shall 

be made in advance and may be made in installments with 

necessary adjustm ents on account of overpayments or underpayments as the Secretary may determine.

25 -601 0 - 78 - 2
14

10

1 “aut horizations

2 Sec. 307. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized

3 to provide any approved plan with funds appropriated for

4 the benefit of Indians pursuant to the Act of November 2,

5 1921 (42 Stat. 20 8) , and any Act subsequent thereto.”.
15

Senator Bartlett. We have several witnesses today. Would you raise your hands as I call your names? Joseph DeLaCruz, president of the Quinault Tribal Council; Allen Rowland, president of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council. •

Mr. Risingsun. I am representing Mr. Rowland.

Senator Bartlett. Rose Crow Flies High, president of the For t 

Berthold Tribal Council. Gordon Jackson, Kake Tribe, executive director, Rural Alaska 

community action program. Would the others please introduce themselves?

Mr. Little Owl. I am Ron Little Owl. I am vice chairman of the 

Three Affiliated Tribes.

Mr. Kennedy. Ed Kennedy.

Mr. Morishima. Gary Morishima, Quinault.

Senator Bartlett. Thank you. I have Joseph DeLaCruz as the first witness.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH DELACRUZ, PRESIDENT, QUINAULT TRIB AL COUNCIL; TED RISINGSUN, REPRESEN TING ALLEN ROWLAND, PRES IDEN T, NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBAL COUNCIL; ROSE CROW FLIES HIGH, PRES IDENT, FORT BERTHOLD TRIBAL COUN­ CIL; GORDON JACKSON, KAKE TRIBE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RURAL ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM; RONALD LITTLE OWL, TRIBAL COUNCIL, THREE AFFILIA TED TRIBE S; ED KEN­ NEDY, COMPTROLLER, NORTHERN CHEYENNE T RIBE ; AND GARY S. MORISHIMA, PROGRAM MANAGER, QUINAULT NATION

Mr. DeLaCruz. Mr. Chairman, I am Joseph DeLaCruz. We would like to address this situation in a panel forum. I would like to just make a few opening remarks about S. 2460 and save my statement until the rest of the panel members have concluded. There are problems that the tribes are having with self-determination and Public Law 93-638, which this bill is supposed to address. I am sure tha t the members of this panel will share some of the problems tha t our people are facing with the legislation, the adminis­ tration, OMB, and problems that we are having among ourselves. We have some of our Indian people walking across the country trying to bring the American public’s attention to some of teseh problems. Those people have been walking through some very tough 

weather. With what is happening to the Indian situation in the United States, because of the backlash over various Indian trea ty rights and re­ sources, I think tha t the Self-Determination Act and this bill will help a lot toward true self-determination of the Indian tribes. With tha t, I would like to call on Rose Crow Flies High from the Three Affiliated Tribes to give her statement. Her vice-chairman also 

will participate.

Ms. Crow Flies High. Tha nk you. I am Rose Crow Flies High, tribal chairperson of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. I welcome the opportunity that you have given me to come and 

talk before this committee.
16

I will now introduce Ronald Little Owl to carry out my statement.

Mr. Little Owl. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Three Affiliated Tribes and speaking 

for our tribal chairwoman, Ms. Crow Flies High, I would like to read 

the March 14, 1978, testimony before the Senate Select Committee 

on Indian Affairs.

Self-determination to me is promoting the general welfare of my 

tribe. We must utilize our resources in an equitable manner. We must 

educate our children so tha t they may have a better understanding of 

just wha t BI A really is.

Most important, we need our children more educated to find a place 

for themselves in this world.

Presently, we need to make possible a more hopeful, self-sustaining, 

and honorable living, both socially and economically.

This, honorable Senators of this select committee, is what my 

constitution and bylaws tell me we must do. This is my goal.

I realize the goal is big, but it is a good goal. Many of my people 

have died waiting for us to reach this goal.

Now let us Iook at BIA’s goal.

I have had the opportunity to observe BIA for quite some time. 

I have been on the Tribal Business Council for almost 12 years.

Jus t recently, since Public Law 93-638 has become effective, I have 

been forced to observe BIA more closely—because we are supposed 

to take over.

BIA’s goal is not broad like ours, but it seems more complicated 

to me. B IA’s goal is to survive.

As long as there are Indians on reservations, I believe BIA will 

continue to be successful in achieving their goal.

Now the big job I have to do is to take BIA’s goal—survive—and 

spread it, like frosting on a cake over my goal.

I believe I understand the recipe of their goal; but, unfortunately,

1 don’t have all the ingredients to make it work.

The goal of Public Law 93-638 is the same as my goal. Public Law 

93-638 is your goal because you made the law.

This hearing today, I would think, is to find out or assess the performance in achieving your goal. I am sure you will find out tha t it 

is not working well.

Your goal and my goal are the same. I think that if you would agree 

with me on B IA’s goal, this hearing will have accomplished a lot.

Public Law 93-638 gives us at the local level the righ t to begin a 

policy for BIA to follow. Our tribes’ constitution and bylaws give us 

the right to recommend removal of any BIA official who is n ot performing his duties.

With these two powerful tools, I don’t know why I would want to 

take over BIA or contract many of their programs. We tried to exercise 

one of these powers once. We tried and nothing happened. We are still 

getting the runaround.

This past spring BIA brought their budget for our input 1 day 

before it was due at the area level. Then afterwards at a BIA areawide 

meeting, they wanted our input 1 day before they forwarded their 

budget down here.

Of course, the budget is for a fiscal year 2 years down the road; 

but, at the same time, BIA is operating on a budget that was passed

2 years ago.
17

Public Law 93-638 has taught me to understand that. Last spring, we submitted our 93-638 self-determination grant proposal with a supportive tribal resolution. Within the budget, we had a salaried management position for 7 months that was equivalent to $30,000 per year. We also had a position for an in-house attorney. We wanted somebody qualified to interpret all these goals, objec­ tives, and means t hat you have put forth so that we could use them 

wisely to help our people. BI A told us nobody was worth $30,000 per year; and we couldn’t hire an attorney as an employee. We went ahead and filled the 

position, but BIA won because both employees are gone. Just recently, BIA approved our in-house atto rney’s contract, 

but he has been gone for 4 months. The management people we had spent considerable time cleaning up our backyard first. They developed and implemented possibilities to administer programs that we presently have under management. They developed a whole new in terna l management structure for the tribe. They developed the indirect cost proposal with multiple rates for 

different Federal agencies. Indirect costs for fiscal year 1978 were limited to a 13-percent rate for BIA programs. Why didn’t BIA or you tell us that? We could have developed a management structure around the 13-percent 

rate and survived. I believe the internal management structure that our 93-638 

management team has set up is the most effective. Because none of us can become fully aware of all the regulations or basic responsibilities tha t we have to the funding sources, we are at the mercy of our program directors and the funding sources. Most tribes have over 30 different gran t programs from many different agencies. We never get involved until the program is in 

trouble or shut down. Our 93-638 team found us out of compliance as far back as 4 years with some programs. One program never was audited since its inception in 1974. That program is shut down, but now we are still 

held accountable for those funds—day-care center. Pa rt 151, title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, pertains to grazing regulations on Indian reservations. This area deals with our most 

important resource—land. Pa rt 151 is very weak. For example, it is without specific procedures for prosecution of violators of grazing privileges. As a result, there exists a natural tendency to violate grazing privileges and make BIA reluctant in initiative to monitor grazing 

regulation compliance. BIA tried to force us to prosecute violators in tribal courts, which we presently do not have the jurisdiction to do in this matter. A grazing lease is between a lessee and BIA. BIA is the administrator of the lease. More important, we are denied in 93-638 from dealing with trust 

responsibility in regard to land. I don’t think BIA brings these problems to you, because I have not seen nor heard any changes in title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, 

since it was adopted.
18

You gave us Public Law 93-638, and I am grateful. B ut somehow I 

feel I am doing somebody else’s job.

BIA has never been held accountable to anybody here or anywhere. 

I think in your terms you call it assessing performance.

Sure there has been a lot of study done on BIA, but those are 

studies—because I have never seen any heads roll.

The only time BIA is looked at, is when they subm it their budget. 

But then only their budget is assessed.

1 ou, or the Office of Management and Budget, by natural habit 

chop here and chop there. This last time you passed us instead of 

BIA. You chopped our indirect cost moneys channeled through BIA.

I don’t think you would be effective if your budget was cut for your 

staff. But I forgive you for that. It would be an honest mistake, 

because BIA is very complicated.

Remember their goal I told you about—survive. BIA has been 

around almost as long as we Indians. We have shared some of our 

secrets with BIA, but they have never shared theirs with us. We 

thought we needed them, bu t I think they need us.

We Indian people are at fault too. You probably have heard m any 

conflicting views about 93-638 from us. We are like the farmers of 

this country. We lack uni ty and have self-interests. Try and dismantle the Department of Agriculture once, and the farmers will be 

on the warpath.

BIA and the Departm ent of Agriculture are like twin brothers— 

nobody assesses them, and they continue to grow into powerful, 

complicated bureaucracies.

My tribal members, while waiting for us to achieve our tribal goal, 

have set their goal. They have become very select in electing honorable 

leaders who will stand by them. Most important in their goal is the 

fact that everybody votes in our elections. We have 100 percent voter 

turn out in our tribal business council elections on the Fort Berthold 

Indian Reservation. That has been their self-determination. However, 

BIA has a way of changing leaders.

I have worked with, and will continue to work with, BIA to help 

my people. I have worked out some problems with BIA, b ut these have 

been very small problems. A larger problem still exists.

I shall not change in my belief and goal for my people.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Bartlett. Tha nk you very much.

Mr. DeLaCruz. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Gordon 

Jackson from Alaska now.

Mr. J ackson. My name is Gordon Jackson. I am the president of 

the Rural Alaska community action program.

I don’t have any prepared statem ent this morning. Most of my 

comments are impromptu.

We plan to send a statement for the record within the next week 

or so.

Mr. Chairman, in Alaska, Public Law 93-638 has caused some 

considerable problems there.

We generally agree with the inten t of the act and feel very strongly 

that there are a lot of amendments tha t have to be developed to implement tha t act in Alaska.
19

One of the biggest ones tha t I foresee, which will continue to cause problems in Alaska, is the current definition within Public Law 93-638 

regarding the tribe in the State of Alaska. As you know, it includes any village, village corporation, or regional corporation. The organizations tha t generally implement contracts under Public Law 93-638 are the Native associations. I would continue to urge—and I feel like a broken record whenever I say that—but I personally think it needs to be addressed not only by this committee bu t perhaps they might consider looking at Alaska as an amendment to create a commission to study the Indian government situation in Alaska. During the past 60 years—or over 100 years—there have been a number of entities created by the Federal Government, which include reserves and reservations, IR A’s regional and village corporations, 

Native associations, and things like that. I personally think it is time for the Federal Government to look at the total situation and also look at the State government situation. I come from the Kake Village Corp. Under the term of Public Law 93-638, I can belong as a member to five tribes. Five tribes include the Sealaska Corp., the Kake Tribal Corp., the IRA Corp., the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, and the traditional governments. As a member of the Kake Tribal Corp., I belong to five tribes. When it comes to contracts in the State of Alaska, you have a sit­ uation whereby you have to have positive resolutions for the Native 

associations to contract. According to a survey we did last summer, the Tanana Chiefs Con­ ference had set aside and spent $40,000 getting positive resolutions 

from the villages within their region. I personally feel that tha t is an excessive amount to implement the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Now on indirect, on Native associations, let me give you a little 

background on tha t. In the early 1970’s they were created mainly to seek a fair and just settlem ent of the Alaska Indian Claim Settlement Act. After the Act passed, there were a number of them continued as Native associations. Most of their administrative costs were funded by 

the community action program in the State. During the Nixon era, he wanted to terminate the community action program about 1973. As a re sult of this, Native associations began to seek extra grants and contracts to fund their administration by way of indirect. Tha t began in 1973. Expansion within the past several years has been phenomenal. As a result of the increase and the expan­ sion of the programmatic activities, you also have an expansion,with 

indirect. We have a number of problems with indirect. A lot of it is very inconsistent throughout the whole Federal Government. For instance, in the implementation of some of the programs within the Alaska Federation of Natives, we had a number of grants and contracts. Training grants are subject to indirect cost limitation of 8 percent. State grants give zero indirect. In some Bureau programs, they also 

gave indirect. It makes a lot of nonsense to go through the process of development of an indirect cost rate with the cognizant agency and the- Federal
20

Government does not adhere to th at policy of accepting a rate audited 

by the Federal Government.

During the past indirect cost crisis, there are a number of Native 

associations in the State tha t have gone through a number of crises. 

For instance, the Cook Inlet Native Association had budgeted an 

$800,000 indirect cost allocation. Their allocation this next contracting 

period is about $200,000.

So you see the real parameters of this problem, in that if they aren’t 

given the indirect cost th at is granted through their covenants at the 

agency, then those Native associations are going to go bankrup t.

Tha t includes Yupiktak Bista, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, 

Tlingit and Haida Central Council. Those Native associations are 

the only delivery system available in those areas. The State has no 

delivery system; the Federal Government has no delivery system.

So if they go bankrupt, Mr. Chairman, there will be no delivery 

system for Native associations for the provision of services under 

Public Law 93-638.

The cost-reimbursable contract, in my opinion, is the biggest cause 

of increases in indirect costs. You have to spend money to get it back.

Other things tha t happen with the cost-reimbursable-type contract 

is t hat you are audited four times. The first time you are audited is 

when you negotiate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian 

Health Service. They look at your budget and say tha t this amount 

of travel is excessive; we are cutting tha t out. This position is not 

needed; we are cutting tha t out.

The second time you are audited is when the vouchers are sent in 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They look at the vouchers and say, 

my goodness, you are not going to get reimbursed. This allocation or 

this expenditure is not needed.

The third time you are audited is by virtue of the fact tha t the board 

of directors require an annual audit of the Native association.

The fourth time you are audited is when you are audited by the 

Office of A udit Investigation and Review within the Department of 

Interior.

So, you see, it is the biggest cause of increases in indirect, in my 

opinion, and t ha t should be addressed.

Another thing I would like to talk about is the formula based on 

population. The Alaskan Indian Claims Settlement Act accepted 25 

or more natives as the number needed to establish a native village 

within the State. It is based on a 1970 census.

The Alaskan Indian Claims Settlem ent Act roll showed tha t the 

1970 census is way off base; and that really should be addressed.

I would just like to say one more thing before I turn it over to the 

next witness.

This is on the budgeting cycle that you have proposed.

We have worked with the planning and budgeting process within the 

community action program, and the planning process is fine. However, 

unless you have enough dollars, th e planning process is moot.

I would certainly hope th at the planning process would be funded by 

enough dollars so that you can, indeed, have an adequate needs assessment and other things that are needed to make a planning process 

work.

Basically, that is my statement. I than k you very much.
21

Se na tor Bart lett. Tha nk y ou, Mr. Jac kso n.

M r. D eLaCruz. Tha nk y ou, Mr. Chairma n. Mr. Ted Risings un will make the next presen tatio n on behalf of the 

Nor th er n Cheyenne Tribe .

Mr. Risin gsun. Tha nk you. M y name is Ted Risin gsun. I am an enro lled Nor th ern Cheye nne from Busby , Mont., and an elected representativ e of my comm unity 

servin g on the No rth ern Cheyenne Tr iba l Council. I have b een chosen to repr es en t m y tribe in tes tifyin g on Senate bill 2460. Ou r test imony will confine itself to the are a office inv olv em ent in 

co ntracting with the Nor th er n Che yen ne Tribe . Th e f ac t of the m at te r is th at when yo u t alk a bo ut area office involve ­ ment, you m ust question th e degree of h onesty on the par t of the area 

office officials. Since 1973, thes e are a office officials have consistently abu sed the tru e missions of “t ru st r espo nsibility” and “a dv oc acy” for the N or th ­

ern Cheye nne Tribe. Th e B illing s area office has repeate dly violate d their truste e resp onsi­ bility in th at it has, ra th er th an the tribe, determined wha t is b est for the Nor th ern Cheye nne people. Th ey have don e this throug h the selective use of congressio nal enactm ents and th e acc om pan yin g reg ula tions, the pla nning docume nt kno wn as the band analysi s, pu nitiv e actions, and the general negative at titu de s of ind ividual 

Bu reau of Indian Affairs employe es. Th e e nab ling factor for t he ar ea offices to accomplish this, unch ecked, 

is the lack of admi nistr ative accountab ility. Th e are a office dema nds one fin ancia l/m anagem ent repo rt after an othe r from the Nor th ern Cheye nne co ntracting staff; yet, who 

dema nds such rep orts from the se are a office officials? Wh en asked for rep orts, no one rea lly seems to kno w and the sta nd ar d answei is: We d on ’t know , or: Th e A lbu querq ue D at a Ce nte r 

is tem po rar ily o ut of order. We can only conclude th at this lack of a ccou ntab ility is a conscious effo rt on the pa rt of the midlevel bu reau crat to deny adeq ua te com ­ mun ica tio n or info rmation sh aring betw een the tr ibe a nd t he Bure au of 

In dian Affairs. W ith ou t the inf orma tio n-shari ng and solid comm unica tion lines, co ntra ct negotiations become mockeries of Pub lic Law 93-6 38. Th e trib e, thr ough contr actin g, has notice d sev era l nonprod uctive 

fun ctions or acti vities. Th ese are :

Grant Officers Representative.— These positions do no t have any 

au th or ity; the y pro vide no pro duct. Fo r example, we have seen our g ra nt s officer’s r ep resentati ve once in the last 18 m onths .

Contracting Officers Representative.— No nfunctional pos itio n un ­

nec essary interim step. Th ese people do no t hav e sig na ture au thor ity , do no t provide local decision, and mo st tim es are cre ate d to protect Bu rea u employees who ordina ril y would be riffed because of tribal 

contr actin g. Train ing and Technical Assistance Officers.—Th e quest ion is wh at 

do the se people do? Th e position s created redu ce the ava ilable m oney reso urces to the tribes. Had responsible ind ividuals been placed in these slots, it would be un derst an da ble bu t this is n ot th e case.
22

While addressing training and technical assistance, let us add that 

all the employees of the area office should be geared to providing 

technical services to the tribes. Just this week we had a division 

chief refuse to provide technical advice concerning a graveling project. 

Other times, Bureau of Indian Affairs employees have come to the 

tribe, assisted in formulating work programs, and later rejected 

those same plans as unacceptable, as was the case with the JohnsonO’Malley project.

The Northern Cheyenne, in particular, have been penalized for 

being aggressive in protecting their various resources. We have been 

relegated to the back burner whenever special contracting opportunities become available, such as specific management improvement 

opportunities.

The Billings area office does not award management contracts 

under an equitable criteria. They base the award on popularity 

contests and political bartering—not on technical merits of the 

proposed activity.

A good case in point involves the methods in which the contract 

support funds have been spent during fiscal year 1976 and fiscal year 

1977 for management contracts.

Also, a scrutiny of 1978 training and technical assistance dollars 

will further verify this practice.

To date, the tribes receive only the residue of any appropriations 

authorized by Congress. Our investigations have indicated that the 

bureaucrats are taking anywhere from 40 percent and upward from 

each authorized category. This is in addition to the line items authorized for Bureau administration.

Also, a closer scrutiny of Bureau permanent slots and temporary 

slots will give you an idea of administrative overloads. Here, again, 

should a tribe question this practice, the area office slowly deletes 

personnel slots from the agency and transfers those slots to an agency 

that does not question area office activities.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe has IPA ’d 16 slots since 1975 just 

to save the Billings area from losing the slots.

Since we have been in an adversary role, the local agency has been 

penalized each time an employee is transferred. In snort, the slots 

are n ot filled or the slots are transferred with the employees.

While this continues, we look with optimism to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs central office with its new strong leadership potential 

in Mr. Forrest Gerard to begin solving these many issues presented 

here today.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council has been most active in 

accepting the responsibility of exercising the opportunity of contracting Federal program trust responsibilities heretofore operated by the 

Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. 

India n Health Service, which is an administrative responsibility of 

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

We currently have in operation some 40-odd contracts or grants 

entered into with these two agencies. We exercised the right to 

contract immediately upon the availability of the right.

In doing so, we have encountered every known obstacle in the actual 

enforcement process of 93-638, either at the agency or the area office.

The Bureau of In dian Affairs has attem pted to thwart, interpret,
23

or ignore the congressional inte nt in the original writing of Public 

Law 93-638.

The tribe, in turn, has been instructed tha t it must contract; th at it 

cannot contract; or that the desires of the tribe do not fit the 638 

program.

Gentlemen, Public Law 93-638, as we see it, is n ot and was not 

intended to be a program. It is administrative guidance or, more 

commonly, management direction.

This direction was intended for all Federal agencies dealing with 

Indian nations, whether it be the Department of Agriculture or the 

Department of Commerce.

The congressional intent, unfortunately, has been circumvented by 

entrenched bureaucrats who knowingly issue management directives 

tha t completely contradict both the letter and the intent of the law 

of the land.

Now we see Senate bill 2460 as an opportunity for the tribe to do 

what we have not currently been able to do and tha t is to provide for 

comprehensive long-range packaging of tribal needs and desires.

In addition to this vital planning mechanism, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe firmly believes, tha t the Bureau of Indian Affairs officials 

will assume an integral role of advocate rather than adversary.

The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, therefore, supports the 

amendm ent to Public Law 93-638.

In conclusion, we hope that the frankness expressed today does not 

initiate new reprisals and punitive actions against the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe.

Thank you.

Senator Bartlett. Thank you very much, Mr. Risingsun.

Mr. DeLaCruz. Mr. Chairman, I have quite a lengthy statement. 

I am going to ask one of my technical staff from Quinault, Gary 

Morishima, to highlight it and we will submit the full s tatemen t for 

the record.

Senator Bartlett. That will be fine.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLaCruz follows:]
24

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH DELACRUZ, PRESIDENT, QUINAULT

NATION, STATE OF WASHINGTON, BEFORE THE SENATE SELE CT

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS RE: S. 2460, AMENDMENT TO

PUBLIC LAW 93-638

I am pleased to appear bef ore the Committee today to 

testify on S. 2460, which proposes to amend the Indian SelfDetermination and Education A ssi stance Act (P.L. 93-638). With 

me today is Gary Morishima, a membe r of my technical staff. In 

the two years since P.L. 93-638 has been implemented, the BIA 

and tribes across the nation have experienced varying degrees of 

difficulty in dealing with the fund amental changes brought as a 

result of this landmark legislation.

My testimony today will not dwell upon problems of P.L. 

93-638, but will instead conce ntrate upon certain positive things, 

including S. 2460, which should be considered for implementation 

to improve the process of self-determination.

I would like to preface my remarks by stating that in our 

opinion, P. L. 93-638 and the impl ementing regulations are basically sound. Because the concept of P.L. 93-638 necessarily cuts 

across organizational lines and involves philosophic issues relating to federal responsibility, it is our belief that the pro blems and frustrations that many trib es are presently experiencing 

are manifestations of deeply-rooted problems which have resulted 

from a long and complex history of more than 200 years of federalIndian relations. We conclude that these problems are not simply
25

the result of P.L. 93-638 or institutional deficiencies which 

may have become entrenched within the BIA. What the SelfDetermination Act has done is just added visibi lit y to some of 

those problems enabling Indian tribes to become more directly 

involved in BIA and IHS operations. The net effe ct of this 

participation has, in many cases, resulted in a w idening rift 

of BIA-Tribal relationships - the Tribes and the BIA have now, 

more than ever become adversaries and the Bureau is beginning 

to lose the support of the people it has been established to serve

The time has come for Indian country to stop and assess 

what' s happening. We are not used to assessing conditions with 

a cold, perceptive, and calculating eye. We are instead used 

to dealing in the neb ulous world of emotion and intuition. We 

do n’t analyze; we feel; and what we feel is confusion, consternation, and anger. For two centuries, we have been tied up in a 

black bag, suspended in atmosphere of politics and social reform. 

We have been pushed and shoved and punched and pull ed from all 

directions. Where are we going? What is being done to us?

What are we doing to ourselves? Why is what's happening, happening? We are confused and seemingly powerless to see outside 

the bag. Have we become puppets who are ma nipulated to dance at 

the whi m of some grand design to carry out our own genocide under 

the guise of self-determination? Are we unwittingly playing a 

role in classic mili tary strategy in helpi ng to isolate and destroy 

a common "enemy"? Are we playi ng into the hands of those who wish

2
26

to subvert or repress the moral and legal obligations of the 

federal government to r ecognize and deal respo nsibility with our 

fundamental human rights? We have no answers; only questions.

We cannot help but feel and wonder.

This much, however, is clear. All the laws, regulations, 

and administrative direction in the world will not change the 

problems we have expe rienced throughout Indian country in trying 

to exercise self-determination because attitudes cannot be legis ­

lated or mandated. There are dangerous undercurrents in this 

whole issue that we m ust be acutely aware of less we be swept 

away. I cannot help but be reminded of the forester who accidentally fell off a cliff and desperately clung to a tiny branch. 

"Lord, save me," the forester appealed. Much to the forester's 

surprise and consternation, a booming voice replied, "My son, 

do you have faith?" "Oh yes" the forester responded without 

hesitation. To which the voice answered, "Then, let go."

At this time in history, we must ca refull y assess our 

strengths and weaknesses and design a workable, positive plan 

to begin to help shape our own destiny - this is true selfdetermination. We m ust resist the strong temptat ion to seek a 

convenient scapegoat; we mus t not succumb to the enthusiam of a 

mob mentality and poin t w agging fingers at anyone, including the 

BIA. To be sure it woul d be easy to yield to this temptation 

and point a finger at the BIA as a self-perpetuating, money-gobbling, inefficient monstro us Bureaucracy, but to what purpose? 

Only further polarization and suspicion could result. Please,

do n’t misinterpret my comments; the BIA is fraugh t wit h serious 

- 3 -
21

internal problems which require corrective action, but we

must all recognize that those problems have not been totally 

of the Bureau's own making and that dwelling upon the past 

will not help improve our future. The Bureau has evolved over 

150 years of vacillating federal policies from annihilation, 

assimilation, termination, and now self-determination; let us 

all recognize that the Bureau is by no means perfect, but it 

has been an illegitimate and unwanted child of federal policies 

for which we must all share a joint responsibility.

Before Indian self-determination can b ecome reality, the 

fundamental character of the entire federal government must be 

transformed into one of advocacy. Make no questions about it, 

self-determination is a double-ed ged sword with real potential 

opportunities but also very r eal dangers of a subtle and insidious 

nature. My brother from the Cherokees could well be right that 

"P.L. 93-63 8 will not only do away with the BIA in very short 

order, but will terminate the tribes of this nation from government s ervices and responsibilities". I have no magic solutions 

as to how these dangers can be avoided or how to bring about the 

promise of self-determination and the removal of the threat that 

it pres ently carries.

But I digress, we are here to discuss S. 2460 and P.L. 

93-638 and this is not the proper forum to discuss my personal 

ideas relative to fundamental changes within the federal Indian 

relation ship or even the operations of the BIA.

4
28

As present ly enacted, we concur with the Navajo 

and Puyallup Tribes that P.L. 93-638 is not a self-determination 

law, but rather an enabling law which permits tribes to contract 

to operate programs which the B1A or IHS has failed to run satisfactorily. If these organizations were providing services efficiently then, tribes would have no need to conside r contracting— 

given the assumption that deeply intrenched problems within the 

Bureau and IHS are not likely to improve substantially in the near 

term, tribes mu st either contract to provide services to its people 

or sometimes suffer the consequences of unsatisfactory performance 

secured at extrao rdinary costs.

As propose d legislation, S. 2460 would p rovide a valuable 

addition expand the options available to tribes in their quests 

for self-determination by allowing for cons olidation of grants 

and contracts. We support this legislation. There are, however, 

certain modifications to various aspects of the bill which we 

woul d like to offer for your consideration.

First, although authority to consolidate Interior or 

H.E.W. programs w ould be helpful, we recommend that the legislation be expanded to cover any functions p erformed for an on 

behalf of Indian peopl e by any federal agency. This would help 

overcome the notion that self-determination policies only affect 

Interior and H.E.W. by clearly recognizing that those policies 

apply to all federal organizations. More fundamentally, such an 

action would provide an opportunity to eliminate a great deal of

5
29

administration costs and help to alleviate problems of 

piecemeal funding of major project efforts.

Secondly, we recommend that tribes be given the option 

of consolidating programs to any degree desired. Rather than 

restricting the concept to a single master grant or contract as 

is presently embodied in the p roposed legislation, we propose 

that tribes should be able to de cide whether it would prefer 

to operate under one, two, or a hundred contracts. Such authority 

would enable tribes to assert greater flexibility and control 

within its own operations.

Third, we request that the term co nsolidation be clarified 

> to avoid future confusion and problems. From first hand experience, the Tribe has learned that consolidation can mean many 

different things. Our law enf orcement contract consists of a 

"consolidation" of five contracts which were formerly administered individually. Although w e now have one master contract, 

we are still forced to maintain separation of funds from each 

of the five sources within our accounting system because those 

sources come from different B ure au allocation categories. Such 

conso lidation may relive some administration by the BIA, but 

certainly does little to improve the efficiency of our operations.

Fourth, we support the concept of long-term planning and 

a moral commitment to provide the support necessary for orderly 

progress and development. Such an avenue may help alleviate the 

feeling in Indian country that self-determination will inevitably 

lead to self-termination. (See GA O Study HRD-78-59, Indian Self- 

* Determ ination Act — Many Obst acles Remain) The concept, however,

- 6 -

25-601 0 - 78 - 3
30

is in need of greater refinement. In Section 3 0 2 (a), the 

term reasonable period of time must be defined to offer administrative guidelines to be formulated. Rath er than casting 

a tribal plan in bronze, once it has been submitted, we would 

suggest that a process including determination of time constraints 

for revision be established for plan amendment. We support the 

concept behind improved visibility of tribal needs by the Appropriations Committees. Consideration m ust also be given

to potential problems of plan amendment related to reprogramming 

procedures established by 0MB and ap propriation s committees. In 

order to avoid such problems, we suggest that consistent with c(2) 

of the stated findings contained in S. 2460, Trib es be given the <

latitude to alter their plans of operations to reflect changes in 

their internally determined priorities so long as their expenditures 

do not exceed the total appropriated amount. Alth ough such language may be contained in 3 04 (a), further clar ification may be 

necessary to avoid misunderstandings.

Fifth, the eventuality of retrocession (either by initiative 

of the Tribe or by the Secretary under Section 304) of all or any 

portion of a conso lidated grant must be addressed. We would recom ­

mend that any implementing regulations prom ulgated pursuant this 

Act be patterned after those already developed for usual 638 

contracts. It may be that plans approved subsequent to the amen dment (S. 2460) would automatically be subject to rules and regulations generally covering P.L. 93-638, but we w ere uncertain 

of the intent.
31

Sixth, we recommend that,if necessary,Section 302(b) 

of the Act be amended to include authorization for ap pro pri ation of funds necessary to enable tribes to develop comprehensive 

plans which are satisfactory to the Secretary.

Seventh, the language of Section 302(c) referring to the 

plan approval process must be carefully structured in r ecognition 

of the potential and likely eventuality that an adversary relationship between a tribe and a BIA or IHS office could pre clude tribal 

participation and perpetuate subserviency. Although the Act 

contains provisions (304 C-2) which direct the Secr etary to provide such assistance as may be possible to overcome deficiencies 

in the proposed plan, we are also concerned that improper administration of technical assistance -in this area could lead to problems similar to those experienced under P.L. 93-638. Moreover, 

it may be necessary to address certain questions concerning the 

degree to which the Secretary may delegate plan approval authority 

and clarification of procedures which must be followed in the 

event of disapproval similar to the manner in which declination 

issues are outlined for P.L. 93-638. If the three crit eria as 

set forth in section 302 (c) are to be the only declination issues, 

then it must be clearly stated rather than implied. The phrase 

"(The Secretary shall) provide the tribe or o rgan ization with a 

hearing at their request under such rules and regulations as he 

may promulgate (emphasis added)" poses obvious potential dangers 

to tribes.
32

There also appears to be an inconsistency in the requirements of the Secretary in the event of plan disapproval.

Section 302 C(a)(A) states that the Secretary shall submit objections in writing wit hin 60 days (presumably of the date of plan 

submittal, but not specified by the Act) while Section 302C(3) 

provides automatic appr oval if no disapproval is received after 

90 days. Two obvious ques tions arise: 1) what happens between 

60 and 90 days?; and 2) wha t guidelines would preve nt the Secretary or his designate to frustrate tribal attempts to implement 

an "automatically" app roved plan? Is Secretarial oversight intended to be restricted to financial audits after plan approval 

under Section 304? The principal point is that a proper balance 

must be struck between the proper exercise of the Secretary's 

responsibility and the d esires of the Tribe, or else the entire 

plan approval process could easily degenerate into one of repression.

We support Sectio n 306 allowing for advance payments; such 

a provision would do much to alleviate some fiscal management 

problems resulting from o ur present cost reimbursable voucher 

payme nt system.

Our major objection to the Act concerns Section 302 C (6) 

which appears to limit restri ct plan approval to the dollar amounts 

contained in the Secret arial funding levels. In an amount, if requested in excess of that level, then a conditional approval 

(whatever it is) is issued with no clarification as to what 

happens if insufficient funds to meet tribal needs are appropriated.

- 9 -
33

Under such circumstances, it is not clear whether the entire plan 

woul d then be disapproved, modified, or just held in limbo.

Furth er problems arise in determining just what the Secretarial 

funding level is when certain benefits packages and other cost 

savings institutions like FTS and GSA are available to the BIA 

and or IHS, but not the Tribe. Problems are further compounded 

at a mu lti-tribal agency where some diffi culty ma y be encountered 

in separat ing costs attr ibutable to services rendered to individual tribes. More fundamentally, without a major revision to the 

BIA's budget process restrictions of this nature woul d place 

tribes once again into a position of designing its programs around 

an artifici ally entrenched priority system re flected in the budget. 

We view the restriction on p lan approval contingent to Secretarial 

funding levels as co ntradictory to the stated and desirable intents 

of r eflecting tribal needs or priorities within appropriations requests. Rather, if any refer ences to bud getary limitations is 

essential, we would suggest that the Secretary be instructed 

clearly to separate tribal needs from agency needs to provide 

the Tribe •• with information indicating the total funds available 

for use by the Tribe rather than tie the language to a vaguely 

define d Secretarial funding level for a particular program or 

activity. We further recommend that provisions m andating the 

Secretary to separate funds appropriated for implementation from 

those u sed in BIA & IHS operations.

- 10 -
34

In summary, S. 2460 appears to have substantial 

potential to provide a much needed vehicle that tribes may 

exercise in their attempts to attain self-determination. However, 

it is clear from our s tandpoint that many q uestions and problems 

remai n to be resolved before the Act should be implemented. Most 

of these issues relate and may in fact be inseparable from fundament al problems within the BIA itself.

In the interests of time and clarity, I will confine my 

comments to a few very narr ow topics concerning fiscal problems

W

we have encountered implementing P. L. 93-638. Many of these 

problems have plagued the BIA for decades and some have been

reemphasized by the recent issuance of several GAO studies re- *

lating to Bureau operations. One thing is clear, GAO reports

not withstanding, improvements are not likely to occur until

everyone begins to accept their fair share of the ownership

responsibility for constructively seeking solutions to difficult

and enormously complex problems. Everyone, the tribes, the BIA,

the Department of Interior, executive offices, and Congress must

all share the responsibility of creating efficient and effective

deli very of services and resources necessary for Indian tribes

to attain self-determination.

With treaty abrogation issues, a spreading backlash ' 

against Indian rights, and the ever growing scrutiny of Congress, 

this is no time for destructive finger pointing accusations, selfprotectionists attitudes, shoulder shrugging, buck-passing, 

minu te inspection of past problems or present deficiencies, or

11
35

or looking back over o ne’s shoulder— because we just might fall 

off a cliff. It would serve no constructive purp ose whatever 

to add more fuel to an already volatile situ ation by joining 

a witchhunt and launching into a stinging diatribe against the

BIA and IHS.

The time has come 'instead to change our emphasis and 

direction to seek a positive, carefully-planned impetus for the 

future. We must stop dwelling upon what has happened in the 

past and concentrate inste ad upon how we can become masters of 

our own destiny. We must develop a wo rking partnership to implement the spirit of self-determination. Only through concerned 

and dedicated leadership and active involvement of all parties 

can serious and complex problems be resolved.

I will concentrate upon a single pr obl em to illustrate 

the intricate web that appe ars to have been wove n about this 

whole issue of Indian self-determination. All over the nation 

Indian tribes are facing a very pressing and serious situation 

resulting from the insufficient availabi lity of administrative 

support funds for tribal administration of contracts entered 

into under the authority of P.L. 93-638. Superficially, it 

appears that the probl em was the result of a negli gent and 

deficient fiscal management process within the BIA, heightened 

by self-protectionist attit udes and i ncompetent BIA employees.

But is this the whole case? We think not. There are indications 

that lead us to believe otherwise. Let us examine the facts.

- 12 -
36

The history of the funds available for contract support is 

very revealing.

(Million Dollars)

Appropriated Obligated

FY 1976 

FY 1977 

FY 1978 

FY 1979

$ 10.7

9.7

8.7 

10.9

$ 8.8 

12.7 

(?)

First of all let us begi n by recogni zing the roles of

the budge t cycle and the appropriations process. Like other 

federal agencies, the BIA must essentially prepare its budgetary 

request two years in advance. For all intents and purposes, the 

first year of operation for P.L. 93-638 was FY '76. It was a new 

process to both the BIA and the tribes. The Bureau should be commended in that it had anticipated sufficient levels of funding for 

adequate contract support and actually underspent the appropriation authorization by nearly $2 million. But instead of commendation, what resulted? In the second year of operation, FY 77, both 

the tribes and the BIA wer e still getting their "act together", but 

the appropriations committees, apparently in view of the underexpendit ure evidenced at the time of appropriation the previous 

year directed a $1 million reduction in indirect costs. The BIA 

ended up over-spending by $3 million. Unfortunately, weaknesses 

with in the BIA's own financial reporting system did not provide 

sufficient back-up to justify any increase in contract support 

funds and nearly a million dolla r cut was directed for FY 78

13
37

reducing the total allocation to $8,742,000. To BIA officials, 

it was obvious that with the developing interest among the tribes 

that the appropriation was going to be insufficient to cover 

anticipated outlays. It is our understanding that the reduction 

was appealed, but denied by the appropriations committees because 

of i nadequate supporting documentation. For FY 79, the BIA re ­

quested only $10.94 million for administrative costs, but fortunately the new Assistant Secr etary of Indian Affairs interceded and 

submitted a budget amendment to increase appropriations by an additional $12.8 million. Why w asn’t such executive action taken in 

the past? We conclude that the principle reason was that leadership 

within Indian Affairs was lack ing at the time. There is no Commissioner, no Assistant Secr etary of Interior, just a bunch of 

people wh o were in an acting capacity without authority or po ssibly interest.

The situation today for Quinault and other tribes in the 

Portland Area is this. We have been told that only 35 percent 

of the app roved indirect costs for operation of our programs 

will be available to us pe nding some other action such as approval 

of a supplemental appropriation. With cuts of this magnitude, 

we face the very real and unhapp y prospect of having to stand 

by and wit nes s the erosion and destruction of all our capacity 

building efforts that we have developed since the inception of 

Buy Indian and P.L. 93-638 contracting. We have been forced to 

reduce administrative services to tribal programs, delay indefinitely improvements to our operations and demand long hours,

- 14 -
38

weekend duty, and e normous workloads upon our staff with no 

financial compensation. We have been lucky that the dedication 

of our staff and their commitment to see self-determination succeed 

has motivated them to end ure these extraordinary personal sacrifices. 

But these stop-gap mea sures cannot be sustained m uch longer; 

patience is wearing thin and the strain is beginning to demand 

its price. We now are facin g the loss of concerned and competent 

administrative staff, the loss of some extremely valuable people 

to the success of o ur programs, and substantial reduction in the 

level of services that we can deliver to our people. We have 

already suffered damage to our reputations and credit standings 

with vendors and significant reduction in support services to 

our program operations.

I will not a ttempt to delve in detail in the effects of 

the indirect cost short fall, rather I request the Cha irm an’s 

permission to submit supportive documentation at a later date.

What has been don e to relieve the distressing problems 

which presently threaten to destroy our self-determination 

efforts? It is our u ndersta nding that once A ssistant Secretary 

Gerard became fully aware of the indirect cost problem, he 

initiated measures to t ry to correct the anticip ated shortfall.

One of the things he did was to prepare a $10 million supplemental 

appropriation request for consideration by the Department of the 

Interior sometime in Decem ber ,1977.

- 15 -
39

For reasons unknown to us,the request was delayed 

in the Department for approximately two months before it was 

referred to OMB for action where it remains to this day. The 

Appr opriations Committees of both the House and Senate are aware 

of the tri bes’ sorry plight, but have made the decisi on not to 

consider a supplemental reques t until after the FY 79 budget 

review process is completed. Tribes would not be able to receive 

any relief if a supplemental were passed until late August or 

, early September — by that time the damage will have been done.

But even if the Appropr iations Committees were willin g to consider the extraordinary measur e of a special supplemental, it 

could not do so because OMB is holding up the request. (In fact, 

OMB is reported to have cut down BIA's supplemental request to 

$6 million because the fiscal year was already partially expired.

What alternatives are there? Essentially (1) to consider 

reprogramming of BIA funds. But this woul d require special approval of Congress and wo uld result in decreased operational 

levels in certain program areas and further pose threats of 

jeopardizing future appropriations for important services. Compound the problem by u nantici pated costs due to blizzards in the 

north and floods in the southwest and what have you got left? 

ft perplexing problem that man y fail to appreciate. (2) Reprogramming in anticipation of passag e of a supplemental woul d apparently 

not be legal;and las tly,(3) Let the tribes suffer the full burden 

of the cons eque nces.

* - 16 -
40

In the meantime, more fuel is being added to an already 

explosive situation by the release of GAO studies cit ing what 

appear to be gross ma nagement deficiencies within the BIA and 

the Senate Select Committee has issued a press releas e with a 

headline reading "Indian Affairs Committee to Hea r Testimony 

on Tribal Crises Caused by Improper Administration of the Indian 

Self-Determination Act". These reports have generated outcries 

of righteous indignation by tribes and terminationists across 

the country.

Who is to blame for our present circu mstances? The BIA?

OMB? The Appropriations Committee? The Senate Sele ct Committee?

The Tribes? Interior? History? You decide. No one can be absolved 

of all responsibility; we cannot lay the blame solely on anyone.

But even if we could blame won't solve our problems; some positive, 

constructive action that will require the mutual understanding 

and cooperation by all parties must be undertaken befo re this 

cris is can be resolved.

From our p erspective,it seems to us that the operations 

of the BI A have in fact contributed to this problem, and we are 

offering specific recommendations to improve the o rga niz ati ons 's 

fiscal management capacity. We believe that a great deal of the 

confusion and misunderstanding resulting from the indirect cost 

proble m has resulted from the lack of open and adequate communicati on and involvement of Indian tribes in the decision-making

17
41

structure of the BIA. We frankly have not been told the 

"whole truth" by BIA officials and have been at the end of the 

pipeline too long not to recognize when we are not being dealt 

with openly and honestly.

We have witnessed first hand apparent problems in pers onnel, financial management, and have felt both the favor and the 

wrat h of Are a Directors. We cle arl y recognize that there are 

those within the BIA and elsewhere who would like to see selfdetermination fail. We would be ready to participate in any 

oversight hearings that may be called to constructively deal 

with these problems. But further documentation of these problems will not solve our dilemma. Nor will the B IA ’s flat 

denial that the allegations of tribes and the GAO are true serve 

any useful purpose. The point is that for whatev er reaso n the 

BIA has lost credibility within the Congress, the Executive Offices, 

the tribes, and even within its own organization. Somehow that 

credibility must be restored.

We are proposing that the first step in this long and 

arduous-' process begin with the establishment of a new working 

partnership between the tribes and all levels of the BIA. We 

propose to change the fundamental character of the federal-Indian 

relationship from paternalism to full participation in selfdetermination. We would base this relationship upon the founding 

principles of open communication, willing accommodation, and mutual 

respect. Tribes must be given the opportunity to participate in 

the man agement and operation of the Bureau, including fiscal

18
42

management accountability and personnel assignments. No longer 

should or can the BIA afford to unilaterally make the key decisions 

which will affect our lives and destiny. Let us wor k to solve 

our mutual problems together.

There are undo ubtedly m any reasons why the BIA may say 

that sounds good, but _it is naive and too impractical. To this 

we would respond that there are compelling reasons why such an 

arrangement is necessary. That a concerted effort made in utmost 

good faith must be put forth to see if this impractical concept 

cannot be made to work and w ork well.

The fundamental issue now is whether the sword of selfdetermination has already m ort all y wounded the "enemy". We are 

not seeking lip service to our needs and interests, or endless 

flowery rhetoric; we ask only for a genuine commitment to form 

a true partnership. We u rge that the Bureau join hand-in-hand 

with the tribes so that the spirit of self-determination can be 

served.

Thank you.

- 19 -
43

Mr. Morishima. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gary Morishima. I 

am a program manager for the Quinault Tribe that has experienced the problems and the frustrations of trying to deal with Public Law 

93-638 ever since its inception. In the 2 years since Public Law 93-638 has been implemented, the Bureau and the tribes across the Nation have experienced varying degrees of difficulties in dealing with the fundamental changes brought 

about as a result of this landmark legislation. My testimony today will not dwell upon the problems of 93-638 ; but rather we choose to concentrate, instead, upon certain positive things, including S. 2460, which should be considered for implementation 

to improve the process of self-determination. I would like to preface my remarks by stating briefly that, in our opinion, Public Law 93-638 and the implementing regulations, are basically sound. But because the concept of self-determination necessarily cuts across organization lines and involves philosophic issues, relating to Federal responsibility, i t is our belief that the prob­ lems and frustrations th at many tribes are presently experiencing with the Self-Determination Act are, in fact, manifestations of deeply rooted problems which have resulted from a long and complex history 

of more than 200 years of Federal/Indian relations. We have concluded th at these problems are not simply the result of the Self-Determination Act or institutional deficiencies, which may have become entrenched within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What the Self-Determination Act has done is just added some additional visibility to some of the problems that already existed, by enabling Indian tribes to become more directly involved in Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and IHS operations. The net effect of this participation has, in many instances, resulted 

in a widening rift of BIA/tribal relationships. The tribe and the Bureau have now, more than ever, assumed ad ­ versary roles; and the Bureau is beginning to lose the support of the 

people it has been established to serve. We believe tha t the time has come in Indian country to stop and 

really assess what is happening here. We are not really used to addressing things with a cold imperceptive and calculating eye. We, instead, tend to deal in the realm of intuition 

and emotion. For more than 200 years it has been like we have been tied in a black bag and suspended in an atmosphere of politics and social reform. We have been pushed and shoved and pushed and pulled in virtually 

every direction, but where have we been going? What is being done to us? W hat is happening? What are we doing 

to ourselves? We are confused, and seemingly powerless to seek outside the void 

of this bag. We have, in fact, become puppets. Are we being manipulated to dance at the whim of some grand design to carry out our own genocide under the guise of self-determination? Are we unwittingly playing a role in the classic military strategy of somehow isolating and trying to destroy some common enemy? Are we playing in the hands of people who wish to subvert or repress the moral and legal obligations of the Federal Government to recognize and deal responsibly with 

our fundamental human rights?
44

We have no answers—only questions. We cannot help bu t feel and 

wonder.

This much, however, is clear. All the laws, regulations and administrative direction in the world will not change the problems we have 

experienced throughout Indian country in trying to exercise selfdetermination.

Attitudes cannot be legislated; they cannot be mandated.

We recognize tha t there are certain dangerous undercurrents in 

this whole issue tha t we must acutely be aware of lest we be swept 

away.

I cannot help but be reminded of a parable of a forester who actually 

fell off a cliff and desperately clung to a tiny branch for survival.

Lord save me, the forester appealed, and much to the forester’s 

surprise and consternation, a booming voice replied: My son, do you 

have faith? Oh, yes, the forester responded without hesitation. To 

which the voice answered: Then let go.

At this time in history, we must carefully assess our strengths and 

weaknesses and design a workable and positive plan to begin to shape 

our own destiny. This, we believe, is true self-determination.

We must resist the strong temptation to seek a convenient scapegoat and not succumb to the enthusiasm of a mob mentality and point 

wagging fingers a t anyone, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

To be sure, it would be easy to yield to the temptation and point 

to the Bureau as a self-perpetuating, money-gobbling, inefficient, and 

monstrous bureaucracy. But what purpose would such action serve? 

Only further polarization and suspicion could result.

Please don’t misunderstand my comments.

To be sure, the Bureau is fraught with many problems—many 

serious problems—which require corrective action, but we must all 

recognize that the problems have not been of the Bureau’s own making 

and tha t dwelling upon the past will not help our future.

The Bureau has, in fact, evolved over 150 years of vacillating 

Federal policies, from annihilation to assimilation, termination, and 

now self-determination.

Let us all recognize that the Bureau is more an illegitimate and 

unwanted child of Federal policies, for which we must all share a joint 

responsibility.

Before self-determination can become a reality, the fundamental 

character of the entire Federal/Indian relationship must be transformed. We must have a relationship of advocacy with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.

Self-determination is a double-edged sword, with potential opportunities but also very real dangers of a subtle and insidious nature.

We are here to discuss S. 2460 and Public Law 93-638.

This is not really the proper forum to discuss my personal ideas 

relative to the fundamental changes within the Indian/Federal relationship, or even the operations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

As presently enacted, we concur with the Navajo and Puyallup 

Tribes, tha t the Self-Determination Act is not a self-determination 

at law but is, in fact, a contracting law which enables tribes to operate 

programs which the Bureau and IHS have formally failed to run to 

our satisfaction.
45

It is clear tha t if these organizations had been providing the neces­ sary services to Indian tribes, there would be no need to consider contracting. There would be no need for legislation of this kind. As proposed, S. 2460 could provide a valuable addition to expand the options tha t are available to the tribes in their quest for self- determination by allowing for the. consolidation of grants and contracts. We support, basically, this legislation. There are, however, certain modifications to this legislation tha t 

we would like to offer for your consideration. Rather than dwell to any great detail on the recommendations, I would like to refer to the comments in the written testimony with 

your permission.

Senator Bartlett. That is fine.

Mr. Morishima. I believe our principal objection to the legislation at this point in time appears to deal with the fiscal management 

aspects of S. 2460. The language of the act presently appears to restrict the so-called comprehensive plan approval to the dollar amounts contained in 

the secretarial level. If an amount is requested in excess of that level, then conditional approval, whatever conditional approval may be, is issued with no clarification as to what happens if insufficient funds to meet travel 

needs are appropriated. Under such circumstances, it is n ot very clear whether the entire plan would be disapproved, modified, or just held in limbo. Further problems arise in determining just what the secretarial funding level is, with certain benefit packages and other cost-savings institutions like FTS and GSA which are available to the BIA or 

IHS but not to the tribe. Problems are further compounded, in our instance, with multi- tribal agencies where the western Washington agency, which we are 

serviced by, supports some 22 tribes. We have experienced substantial difficulty in trying to separate costs, which are attributable to providing services on our reservation. More fundamentally, however, is tha t without a major revision in the Bureau’s budget and fiscal management process, restrictions of this nature would continue to place tribes in the position of de­ signing its programs around our artificially entrenched priority systems 

which are reflected in the Bureau’s budget. We view the restriction on plan approval contingent to secretarial funding levels contradictory to the stated and desirable intent of being able through the plan to reflect tribal needs and priorities 

within appropriations requests. ,

Rather, if any reference to budgetary limitations is essential within the language of the act, we would suggest tha-t the Secretary be instructed to provide the tribes with information indicating what total funding level is available for use by the tribe, rather than re­ stricting funding to some vague language defining secretarial funding 

levels for various programs or activities. In summary, S. 2460 appears to have substantial potential and provides much-needed help and a vehicle th at the tribes may exercise in their attem pts to atta in self-determination. But it is clear, from

25-601 0 - 78 - 4
46

our standpoint, that many questions and problems still remain with 

the legislation, as presently drafted, tha t must be resolved before such 

an act should be implemented. Most of these issues, in fact, may be 

inseparable from fundamental problems that we have experienced 

within the BIA itself.

In the interests of time and clarity, I would like to confine my 

remaining comments to a few very narrow topics concerning the 

Bureau’s fiscal management problems we have encountered in implementing Public Law 93-638.

Many of these problems have plagued the Bureau for decades, 

and some have been reemphasized by recent issuance of several GAO 

studies relating to Bureau operations.

One thing is very clear: GAO reports notwithstanding, improvements are not likely to occur until everyone begins to accept their 

fair share of the ownership responsibility for constructively seeking •

solutions to difficult and enormously complex problems.

Everyone—the tribes, the Bureau, the Department of the Interior, 

the Executive offices, and Congress—must all share in this responsibility of creating an efficient and effective delivery of services and *

resources necessary for Indian tribes to atta in self-determination.

With treaty abrogation issues, a spreading backlash against Indian 

rights, an ever-growing scrutiny of Congress, this is no time for a 

destructive finger-pointing accusation, self-protectionist attitudes, 

shoulder-shrugging, buckpassing, minute inspection of past problems 

and present deficiencies, or even looking back over everyone’s shoulder.

We just might find ourselves walking off a cliff.

It would serve no constructive purpose whatever to add more 

fuel to an already volatile situation by joining in a witch hunt and 

launching into a stinging diatribe against the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs or IHS.

The time has come, instead, to change our frame of reference and 

our emphasis—to change our direction to think of positive and care ­

fully planned impetus for the future.

We must stop dwelling upon what has happened in the past and 

concentrate instead upon how we can become masters of our own 

destiny. We must develop a working partnership to implement the 

spirit of self-determination. Only through concerned and dedicated 

leadership, by all parties, and active involvement can serious and 

complex problems become resolved.

To illustrate, I would like to concentrate upon the intricacies of 

the indirect cost problem presently facing Indian tribes across the 

country. »

The Quinault, like most other tribes into Public Law 93-638 contracts, are facing some very severe and serious problems, resulting from 

insufficient levels of contract support funds for tribal administration 

of these contracts. *

Superficially, it appears th at that problem was the result of negligent, 

inefficient fiscal management processes within the BIA, heightened 

by self-protectionist attitudes and in some cases incompetency entrenched within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

But is this, in fact, the full case? We think not. There are indications 

tha t lead us to believe otherwise. Let us examine the facts. The 

history of the funds available for contract support is very revealing.
47

In 1976, the appropriation was for $10.7 million. Only $8.8 million 

was obligated for contract support.

In 1977, $9.7 million was appropriated for contract support, and 

$12.7 million was expended in contract support.

In fiscal year 1978, our present year, only $8.7 million was appropriated for contract support.

Let us begin by recognizing the roles of the budget cycle and the 

appropriations process. Like other Federal agencies, the Bureau must 

essentially prepare its budgetary requests 2 years in advance.

For all intents and purposes, the first year of operation for the SelfDetermination Act was fiscal year 1976. I t was a new process to both 

the Bureau and the tribes at th at time.

The Bureau’s expenditure for contract support underspent the 

authorization by nearly $2 million in fiscal year 1976. In the second 

year of operation, both the tribe and the Bureau were still getting 

their act together; but the appropriations committees, apparently in 

view of the underexpenditure evidenced at the time of the appropriation hearings, directed a $1-million reduction in contract support 

funds for fiscal year 1977. The BI A ended up having to overspend by 

over $3 million.

Unfortunately, certain weaknesses within the Bureau’s own financial 

reporting system did not provide sufficient backup to justify any 

increase in contract support funds and nearly a $1 million additional 

cut was directed for fiscal ye ar 1978.

To Bureau officials, it was obvious tha t the developing interest 

among the tribes and the appropriation was going to be insufficient 

to cover anticipated needs.

It is our understanding that the reduction has, in fact, been appealed 

by the BI A but was denied by the appropriations committees. For 

fiscal year 1979, the Bureau requested only $10.9 million in its original 

budget request.

Through the intercession of Secretary Gerard, tha t budget amendment was added to tha t request to increase contract support funds 

by an additional $12.8 million.

Why wasn’t such executive action taken in the past? We conclude 

that the principal reason was because of leadership problems within 

the Bureau itself. There was no effective Commissioner, no Assistant 

Secretary of Interior—a bunch of people only in an acting capacity.

The situation for Quinault and other tribes in the Portland area is 

this: We have been told tha t only 35 percent of the improved indirect 

costs for operation of our programs will be available to us pending 

some other action, such as approval of a supplemental request.

With cuts of this magnitude, we face some very serious unhappy 

prospects—of having to stand by and witness the erosion and destruction of all the efforts th at we have undertaken in the pas t 4 years to 

develop our capacity to begin to manage our own affairs.

Senator Bartlett. May I jus t interrupt.

Senator Mark Hatfield will be presiding as chairman, and I would 

like a note made of tha t in the record.

Please proceed.

Mr. Morishima. We have been lucky to date in that the dedication 

of our staff and their commitment to see the process of self-determination suceed has motivated them to endure extraordinary sacrifices.
48

I will not a ttempt to delve in detail into all the effects of the indirect 

cost shortfalls; rather, I request with the chairman’s permission to 

submit supportive documentation at some later date.

What has been done to relieve our distressing problems which 

threatened to destroy our own self-determination efforts?

It is our understanding th at a request was submitted from the 

Assistant Secretary of In terior’s office to the Department of Interior 

sometime in December of 1977 for a supplemental request to cover 

anticipated shortfalls.

For reasons which are unknown to us, this request was delayed in 

the Department for approximately 2 months before it was referred to 

the Office of Management and Budget where it remains to this day.

The appropriations committees of both the House and the Senate 

are aware of the tribes’ sorry plight. But they have made the decision 

not to consider the request for a supplemental until after the fiscal 

yep’’ * 7

 9 budget process has been completed.

This would mean tha t the tribes would not be able to expect any 

relief from the indirect cost shortfall problems until such time late in 

August or possibly even in early September. By th at time, the damage 

will have been done.

What alternatives are there?

Essentially, (1) to try to reprogram Bureau of Indian Affairs funds. 

This would require special approval of Congress and decreased operational levels in certain program areas which may pose further threats 

to jeopardize future appropriations and important services. Programing, in anticipation of the passage of a supplemental, is apparently 

illegal.

The last of these is the one tha t we are presently facing. It is to let 

the tribes suffer the full consequences of the shortfall.

In the meantime, what has been happening? More fuel has been 

added to an already-explosive situation.

The GAO has released studies, citing what appear to be gross mismanagement problems within the Bureau. The Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs itself has issued a press release with a 

headline reading: “Indian Affairs Committee to Hear Testimony on 

Tribal Crises Caused by Impro per Administration of the Bureau 

of the Indian Self-Determination Act.”

These reports have created outcries of righteous indignation by 

tribes and terminationists throughout the country.

Who is to blame for our present circumstances? Is it the BIA, 

OMB, the appropriations committees, the Senate Select Committee 

on Indian Affairs, the tribes, Interior, or is it history? You decide.

No one can be absolved of all the responsibility for this present 

crisis. We cannot lay the blame on anyone. But blame won’t solve 

our problems. Some positive and constructive action, tha t will 

require the mutual understanding and willing cooperation of all 

parties, must be undertaken before this crisis can be resolved.

From our perspective, the operations of the Bureau have contributed substantially to this problem; and we are offering specific 

recommendations to improve the organization’s fiscal management 

capacity.

We believe that a great deal of the confusion and misunderstanding 

resulting from the indirect cost problem has resulted from the lack
49

of an open and adeq ua te comm unica tion syste m and active involvemen t of In dian tribes in the dec isionma kin g stru ctur e of the Burea u.

We, ve ry frankly, have no t been told the whole tr u th by Burea u 

officials an d hav e been at th e end of the pipelin e too long no t to 

recognize whe n we are no t being de alt with openly an d honestly.

We ha ve witn esse d, firsth an d, ap pa rent pro blems in pers onnel, 

fina ncial ma nageme nt, and ha ve felt bo th the fav or and the wr ath 

of are a dir ector s and clearly recognize th at there are those within 

the Bu rea u, and elsewhere, who would like to see self-deter minatio n 

fail. B ut these problems will not solve our dile mm as, no r will the 

Bu reau ’s fla t denial th at allegations of the tribes and the GAO 

are tru e serve any useful pu rpose.

Th e po in t is th at for w ha teve r reas on the B ureau has l ost c red ibility 

with the Congres s, the Ex ecutive offices, the tribes, an d even within 

its own org ani zat ion , and som eho w th at cre dib ilit y m us t be restored.

We are proposing th at th e first step in this long an d arduou s 

process beg in with the establish men t of a new worki ng pa rtn ership 

between th e tribes and all leve ls of the Bu rea u of In di an Affairs.

We pro pose to change the fund am en tal ch arac ter of the Federal / 

Indian rel ationship from th at of pater nalism to full participa tio n 

in sel f-determina tion.

We would base this rel ati on ship upon the fou nding prin ciples 

of open com mu nication, willing accom modat ion, and m ut ua l respect.

The tri be s mus t be giv en th e op po rtu nity to pa rticip ate in the 

manag em en t and opera tio n of the Burea u, includ ing fiscal ma nag emen t ac coun tabil ity and per son nel assignments. No longer should, 

or can, the BIA afford to un ila terally ma ke the key decisions which 

will affe ct our lives and ou r de stiny .

Let us beg in to solve our m ut ua l problems tog eth er.

Th ere are, un do ub ted ly, m an y reasons why the Bu reau ma y say 

th at th at sou nds very good; b u t it is too naive and too im pract ica l.

To th is we would resp on d: Th ere are c ompellin g rea son s why such an 

arrang em en t is necessary. T hat a concerted e ffort, ma de in the utmos t 

good faith , mus t be pu t fo rth to see if this i mp rac tical concept cannot 

be ma de to wor k and to work well.

The fund am en tal issue n ow is wh eth er the sword of sel f-dete rm ina ­

tion has alr eady m ortal ly wo unded the “e nemy .”

We are no t seeking lipservice to our needs and interests or endless 

flowery rhetor ic. We on ly ask fo r a genuine c om mitm ent t o form a tr ue 

pa rtn ersh ip. We urge th at th e Bu reau join h and in h an d wi th th e tribes 

so th at th e sp iri t of self-deter mi natio n can be served.

Tha nk y ou very much.

Se na tor H atfield [acting chairma n]. T ha nk you very mu ch for yo ur 

tes tim on y.

We are m uch aware on this comm ittee of some of th e ite ms to which 

you ha ve referred and the frus tra tio ns we sha re with yo u as members 

of this comm ittee b ecau se of ou r share d hope th at this self-determinatio n could beco me a r eality and no t ju st som eth ing on pape r.

Le st y ou feel th at you a re comp letely isolate d from oth er citizens, let 

me assure yo u th at as far a s the paperw ork fr us tra tio n is co ncerned, all 

citizen s are com plaining ab ou t all agencies—no t ju st th e BIA.

That d oe sn’t in any way ju stify the co nti nu ati on of th at kind of delay or frus trat ion or resolving th at frus tra tio n; but I can assure you
50

that it is experienced by many citizens dealing with many other agencies as well.

Our Paperwork Commission, which has made about 800 recommendations, which self-destructed after 2 years is now hopeful tha t we 

can get some of this jungle of paperwork eliminated—the duplicating, 

the overlapping, the long delays created by it—if we can get all of our 

800 recommendations adopted.

We have had about 200 of them thus far adopted, and we can calculate that it already has been a savings of about $1.5 billion—just in 

dollar amounts. But we have launched last week a citizen’s committee to help pressure the Congress and the Executive agencies of the 

Government to adopt these recommendations, which I think would go 

a long way in helping to resolve some of those frustrations.

But I only isolate the one that you have identified this morning— 

certainly there are many others as well. •

I believe at this time that we have some further recommendations 

to be offered here and presented by Mr. Joseph DeLaCruz.

Mr. DeLaCruz. That concludes our panel recommendations.

Mr. Morishima just gave m y statement. *

One of the recommendations, I think, in listening to the panel, is 

that definitely we need to take a look at tribal participation in the 

Bureau budget process a t the area level.

There has to be a strong push tha t would be a joint tribal/BIA planning effort—like there never has been before because of the dilemma 

tha t we are in—by the tribes, the Bureau, and the administration 

really.

It reflects on all aspects of what is happening in the process of trying 

to carry out Public Law 93-638.

I am sorry tha t you didn’t get here to hear the first part of the 

statement tha t was given on my behalf, because we got into a lot of 

the o ther problems.

We didn’t go through the recommendations on the bill, because it 

is quite likely we will be submitting for the record our recommendations 

on the legislation th at we are testifying on today.

Senator Hatfield. Speaking of the record, we also have some 

questions tha t we would like to submit to you as a panel and that you 

can respond to at the appropriate time to be placed in the record.

Mr. DeLaCruz. Fine.

Senator H atfield. Senator Melcher?

Senator M elcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Are you all convinced that passage of this bill would alleviate some 

of what non-Indians call redtape and Indians call appropriately •

whitetape?

Mr. Little Owl. Mr. Chairm an, I am Ron Little Owl, the vice 

chairman.

In reading S. 2460 last night, I think tha t the Three Affiliated *

Tribes would support passing the bill.

I also feel that, as it was stated in one of the testimonies here, there 

should be provisions made known to the Secretary of the Interior on 

the part of the tribal-level governing body’s wish to have a part in 

implementing.

But that is my own opinion. Maybe the chairwoman here would 

relate a little more on that.
51

Also, I would like to have made known to the committee here—the 

chairman and the committee—tha t we have submitted a copy of our written testimony here. We have subm itted a number of our proposals in applying for 93-638 and phasing our tribal government on into the 

indirect cost to the committee. They have copies of each one of these papers that I have in front 

of me, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the chairwoman would like to say something about that.

Ms. Crow Flies High. I just would like to say than k you to the 

committee for giving me the chance to come here and testify before 

you. I would sooner have the other representatives here carry on.

Thank you very much.

Senator Melcher. Tha nk you.

Ted, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Risingsun. I would like to add two sta tements here. They are 

members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council, Mr. George Hiwalker, Jr. and Mr. Raymond Spang. They are members of the 

Northern Cheyenne Executive Committee. They address themselves to some proposals on w hat we are talking 

about here. I would also like to add as an appendix to the Northern Cheyenne testimony a letter from Dr. Khan, superintendent of Busby School, that will help to clarify some of the statements that were made this 

morning.

[The material referred to follows:!
52

My name i s Geo rg e H iw a lk e r, J r .

As an a p p o in te d d e l e g a te , e n r o lle d me mb er, an d duly 

e l e c te d T rib a l C ouncil o f f i c i a l o f th e N o rt h e rn Ch ey en ne 

In d ia n T rib e o f th e N o rt h e rn Ch ey en ne In d ia n R e s e r v a ti o n , I 

w ou ld li k e to su b m it , on b e h a lf o f th e N o rt h e rn Ch ey en ne 

T r ib a l P r e s id e n t, V ic e P r e s id e n t , an d T r ib a l C o u n c il , th e 

fo ll o w in g te sti m o n y f o r i n t e r n a l r e o r g a n iz a tio n o f th e 

U n it e d S ta te s D ep art m en t o f th e I n t e r i o r , B ure au o f In d ia n 

A f f a i r s .

The c o n te x t o f t h i s te s ti m o n y on b e h a lf o f th e N o rt h ern 

Che ye nn e T ri b e is n e i t h e r new n o r e x t r a o r d in a r y , m ere ly 

r e v is e d and m o d if ie d fr om on e c o n g re ss to th e n e x t c o n g re s s , 

from on e A d m in is tr a ti o n o f In d ia n A f f a ir s to th e n ex t 

A d m in is tr a ti o n o f In d ia n A f f a i r s , fro m on e S e c r e ta r y o f th e 

I n t e r i o r to th e n ex t S e c r e ta r y o f th e I n t e r i o r .

I s h a ll th e r e f o r e e n t i t l e t h i s te s ti m o n e y th e N o rt h ern 

Che ye nn e R ep la ce m en t an d D is p la cem en t T heory , M o d if ic a ti o n 

nu mbe r th r e e , o r mo re a p p r o p r ia t e ly , t h i r d c o n g r e s s , t h i r d 

In d ia n A f f a ir s A d m in is tr a tio n , t h i r d S e c r e ta r y o f th e I n t e r i o r 

r e q u e s tin g Bur ea u r e o r g a n iz a t io n .

In 19 73 , a un an im ou s T rib a l C ouncil a c tio n to i n v a lid a te 

g r o s s ly i l l e g a l le a s e s an d p e rm it s f o r c o a l e x p lo r a tio n and 

m in in g on th e N o rt h ern Che ye nn e R e s e r v a ti o n , f o r tu n a te ly o r 

u n f o r tu n a te ly ex pose d t r i b a l l e a d e r s- to th e m os t c r i t i c a l fl aw 

w ith in th e Bur ea u s t r u c t u r e , a c c o u n t a b il ity f o r s o - c a lle d 

t r u s t - r e la te d a c t i o n s . T h is l a c k o f a d m in is t r a tiv e
accountability clearly exposed the Bu rea u’s inabilities to 

discern the legal obligations of trust respo nsibi lity to an 

Indian Tribe from programat ic services rendered w hich too 

frequently abuse tribal "jurisdictional rights" as a sovereign 

Trust responsibility to the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as a n on ­

treaty tribe is not a service-or iente d program, it is a legal

and legislative obligation to preserve, protect, and guard its

land, resources an'd members from other parties who would dispo

of its jurisdictional owne rship and entitlement rig hts.

I quote

"The concept is obviously one of full fiduciary responsibility, not solely of traditional market-place morals.

When the federal government undertakes an 'obligation of trust 

tow-ard an Indian tribe or group, as it has in the Intercourse 

Act, the obligation is 'of the highest resp onsib ility and 

trust', not that of 'a mere contracting party' or a betterbusiness bureau. 173 Ct. Cl at 925.

Furthermore, the standard of care employed by the trustee 

in the management of the benefi ciary 's land and resources will 

be measured by the standard employed by the trustee in man age ­

ment of its own lands and resources. It is elementa ry that 

the standard or measure of care, deligence, and skill required 

of a trustee in the admi nistr ation of a trust is that of an 

ordinary prudent man in the conduct of his own private affairs 

under similar circumstances, and with a similar object in view 

Restatement of Trusts, §176; 54 Am. Ju r. , Trusts, §322; Scott
54

on Trusts (2d Ed.), §174. The obligation of the United States 

to an Indian tribe whose 1ands are held in trust is greater 

than that towards its own citizens. Oneida Tribe vs U. S., 165 

Ct. Cl. 487 (1964)."

Obviously, if no administrative accountabi lity exists 

within the "Indian Affair s" bureaucracy structure of government, 

and it "trustee obliga tions " continue to be chara cterized as 

"welfare programs" by those persons eternally employed within 

that "Indian Affairs" bureaucracy, "internal reorganization" is 

as destructive as a nat ional "water policy" which deceptively 

advocates national control over all Indian-owned water res ources.

The Northern Cheynne Tribe therefore proposes two options 

for "internal Bureau Reorg anization" contingent upon the 

establishment of Indian Affairs (civil) Review Boards which 

would, annually monitor all legal and legislative trust obligations, as assigned to all Indian Affairs personnel, other 

than political appointees. The individual participants 

comprising such proposed Indian Affairs (civil) Review Boards 

would include the Secr etary of Interior, Assistant Secretary 

of Interior, Indian Affairs, Deputies of Indian Affairs, and 

Tribal leaders within common geographic and/or resource areas. 

These indivudual board participants would be directly responsible for consistant and continued evaluation of Bureau "trust 

obligation" actions and all personnel assigned to carry out 

those actions. They would be delegated the authorities to 

monitor, advocate and lobby for legislative and judicial 

actions which would protect, guard and expand Indian lands,
resources and jurisdictional rights and remove those personnel, 

other than political appointees within the federal "Indian 

Affairs" structure, who fail to carry out "trust obligations".

The "political appointees " assigned to Indian Affairs 

with the Interior Department, and "Review Board" participants 

will thereby be held accou ntable to Congress for expressing, 

advising, and advocating the true desires and needs of Indian 

Tribes and obligations of the United States Government as 

trustee of these tribes.

The first proposed option contingent upon the affectuation 

of Regional and/or Area Indian Affairs Civil Review Boards is 

to abolish the Bureau of Indian Affairs Area offices and 

contract the field agencies, contingent upon assessment of 

functions, redesign of functions and implementation of the 

redesign through tribal control. Such a contractin g action 

will most probably require increased authority, staff and 

funding at the agency level, as well as, research funding at 

the tribal level for the redesign and contracting action.

The second proposed option, also, includes the assessment, 

redesign of functions and contracting of the Bureau Field 

agency coupled with the abolishment of the area offices.

The only variance from the first "reorganiz ation option" is 

that technical legal and resource centers would be established 

in capatible geographic regions which are substa ntial ly 

concentrated with Indian tribes of common natural resource

and land identities.
56

These technical (Trust Responsibility) centers would 

address themselves to legal, land and resource issues which 

consistly thwart Indian tribes from exercising total 

jurisdiction and control over their respective lands and 

resources. Such centers would be entrusted with the 

responsibilities of defining, advocating and lobbying for 

regulatory and/or legislative actions which ensure tribal 

jurisdiction, and' control of land and resources and assist 

tribes in the implementation and design of jurisdictional 

authorities which supercede the regualtions of other federal 

agencies which are vir tual ly ignorant to the realities of 

tribal jurisdictions. In other words such techincal centers 

in conjunction with the surrounding Indian tribes could 

potentially establ ish’ fundamental and appropriate regulatory 

policies for dealing with Indian sovereigns. It is imperative 

that, 1) the personnel housed within these proposed technical 

"Trust Responsibility" centers be highly competent profes ­

sionals, such as, attorneys, geologist, hydrologist, land use 

specialists or the like: and 2) that these technical centers 

be literal "think" tanks removed from any political arenas of 

the bureaucracy.

I would now like to introduce the Northern Cheyenne Tribal 

Comptroller, Mr. Edward Kennedy, who will address the need for 

financial and budgeting reorganization within the Bureau:

Ed
57

The Northern Cheyen ne Tribe find that in contracting, the 

following items .continously repeat themselves:

1. The budget process is archaic

The Base Line data used in developing the Bureau Budget 

does not respond to the Tribal needs as expres sed by Tribal 

Governments. The Base Line data most times, is based on 

obsolete OMB cost informatio n which is not applicable because 

of rapid inflation. Secondly, the data is geared to minimum 

service rendition and not to real tribal need and thirdly, 

budget negotiators for the Bureau use Bureau Budget line items 

as items for "political bartering" on the "Hill".

2. The Bureau budget is impossible to deciphe r

The budget once established, is hidden from the tribe or 

is doled out piecemeal so as to circumvent tribal knowledge 

of the many resources availa ble to conduct a service or 

function. This leads me to say that the BIA requires, no 

demands, that we submit report after report, yet who demands 

an accounting of the BIA, their computer system in Albuquerque 

is the laughing stock of "Indian Country". Bureau employees 

when asked for accounting information always respond with 

"we don't know", now, gentlemen, the Bureau says to the tribe, 

lets "Capacity build" tribal management capabilities, the 

Northern Cheyenne say lets "Capacity Build" the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.

3. The Bureau budget is non-functional as a management

tool.

In any common "Mom and Pop" business venture the
58

principals always -know what cpaital resources are available. 

Here, we have a billion 247 million dollar Bureau budget and no 

one is cognizant of total bureau resources or the application 

thereof. Should the Bureau be desirous of continuing to do 

business with the Northe rn Cheyenne Tribe we demand, for a 

change, that the Bureau become responsible and accountable 

for the total resources available in the name’ of the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe.

4. Bureau accou ntabi lity

The fourth area is Accountab ility itself. When the 

tribe contracts a program, "under whatever title", this is a 

tacit admission of failure of trust responsibility on the 

part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, this TACIT admission 

of failure created PL 93-638.

The Northern Cheyen ne Tribe contracts many and varied 

functions and feels that this demonstrates the lack of 

responsibility and a ccoun tabil ity by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. We recommend that Bureau employees be removed from 

Civil Service Commission status and that these same employees 

be all issued yearly performanc e contracts with the Review 

Board proposed by Mr. Hiwalker monitoring these same p er ­

formance contracts.

Had the Bureau employees (trust officers) done their 

jobs properly many of the problems facing the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe would never have happened.

In conclusion, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe will continue 

to exercise its full sovereign and ju risdictional entitlements
59

as a non-treaty Indian Tribe. It will continue to demand 

total administrative and budgetary accountability from its 

direct trustees both legislatively and judicially. More 

importantly, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe will continue as 

"human beings" long after the Bureau of Indian Affairs has

terminated itself.
60

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe contracted with the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs to operate and Indian A ction Program in 

July, 1975.

The Indian Action Program is a model of the concepts of 

93-638. It allowed the Tribe to make its own decisions; It

allowed for Tribal self determiniation in terms of needs and 

directions. One of the needs met was that a quality education 

to help the Northern Cheyenne People achieve social and economic 

well being. Under conti nued funding we will be able to up 

grade educational and vocational levels and reduce und eremployment and unemploymen t on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. 

The Tribe has made good use of the funds by developing the po st ­

secondary educational system we now have (Dull Knife Memorial 

Col leg e).

To maintain Th e present operations and future program 

development on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation we feel it 

is absolutely essent ial that the Indian Technical Assistance 

Center in Denver, Colorado remain a permanent organizational 

structure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In order to do 

the task assigned to them the Indian Technical Assistance 

Center must have the authority to institute necessary adm inistrative changes with Central Office approval and support.

There must be a well qualified administator chosen to head 

the office. We would strongly urge the Cental Office to 

again offer, Mr. Bob Livingston (one of the original designers 

of the Indian Action Program and an excellent administrator,)
61

the position of Chief of Indian Technical Assistance Center.

In order to make the office a viable funct ioning office of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, it will also be essential that this 

office receive full support from the Central Office.

Again, we would strongly recommend that the Indian 

Technical Assistance Office be maintaine d and upgraded. With 

Central Office support it can provide the o n-site contract 

support and technical assistance necessary to strengthen 

Tribal Indian Action Programs. It would be impractical to 

design another delivery system for Indian ^Acti on Programs, 

when all we need to do is to refine and stren ghthen the present 

system. The added cost of changing systems could be better 

spent by increasing the grants to various Indian Action 

Programs.

Presented by

Raymond Spang, Chairman 

NORTHERN CHEYEN NE INDIAN ACTION 

PROGRAM, INC.

Box 206

Lame Deer, MT 59043

25-601 0 - 78 - 5
62

Mr. Al len Rowl and, Ch ai rm an 

No rthern Che ye nn e Tr ib al Co un ci l 

Lame De er, Mon tana 5 9043

De ar Mr. Itwla nd:

This let ter is intend ed t o ac quaint yo u wi th th e p robl em s Bu sb y Scho ol of the 

Nor thern Ch ey en ne Tr ib e ha s b ee n facing in the l ast fe w mont hs.

Sin ce ou r school is lo ca te d o n f ederal t ru st la nd an d ou r sc ho ol enr ollment is 

al mo st all N at iv e Am er ic an , th e t otal f unding f or the sch oo l an d the d orm s etc. 

can es frcrn federal s ource s. Th e o ffic ia ls re quire that we go th rough Billin gs 

Ar ea Office (BIA) for ev er yt hi ng an d anything . Th e proced ur e is so le ngthy and 

tediou s m os t of the ti me s th at the f un di ng and th e facili ti es provid ed f or by 

the fund ing lo se th ei r we ig ht — i t takes so mu ch ti me th at t he jobs are only 

half done be cause th e ri se i n th e cos t of na terials and la bo r ma ke the amo unt inadequate. A go od ex an pl e is the renova tio n o f ou r dor ms. W e were alloca ted $98,50 0.0 0 

for the pur pose . Th e fu nd s h ad t o be fun nelled th rough t he Ar ea Office. We had 

to wa it fo r a lon g tim e to ge t a letteifto the ef fect and t he n w e had t o rus h 

throug h wor ki ng ou t t he detail s. It was our hop e tha t t he fun ds woul d be made 

avail abl e du ri ng Spring , 1977 an d the renovation would be o cn pl et ed before the 

re- ope nin g of t he sch oo l in Fall, 1977. We ar e ho us in g our chi ld re n in hal f o f 

each do rm and the ha lf un de r re novation wil l ta ke a fe w mo re weeks. Our childr en 

suff ere d t hroughout t hi s sch ool year. Sev eral ot he r t hings w er e p oi nted out by 

the Are a offi ce a nd po rt io ns of the alloca te d amo un t we re sl ic ed away for various 

reasons. In Augus t, 19 77 w e we re inform ed b y Sen at or Melc he r' s office ab out a 

speci al fun ding f or Bu sb y Sc ho ol in t he am ount of $200,0 00.00 for the r eno vat ion 

of our Elem enta ry an d Se co nd ar y School b uildib gs. We we re s uppo se d t o ge t a 

lette r f ro m the Ar ea Off ic e an d the mo ne y wa s to be m ad e a va il ab le to us soon 

af ter Oct ob er 1, 1977. W e di d not recei ve a ny wr it te n no te t o t he effe ct until 

af ter the e nd of the y ea r, 1977 i nsp ite of ou r r epeated r eques ts. Ev ery time we 

wer e told "we ar e wo rk in g at it".

Th e a uth ori tie s from B.E.II. in Wash in gt on D.C. tol d us th at se me fundi ng was ma de 

avail abl e t o Ar ea Of fi ce s to help all I ndian sch ools in "Ch ild -Find" a nd starting 

and /or in proving Spe ci al Edu ca ti on Prog ram s. We ha ve not he ar d any th ing about 

it yet. Al l we kno w is thaiB. E.H . and B. I.A. have to ag re e o n the fu ndin g 

pro ced ure s bef or e th e m on ey ca n b e ma de av ailable . We had sub mi tt ed a pr opo sal 

for Educ ati on of I nd ia n Handicapped C hi ld re n in ou r s choo l. We heard tha t we 

wo ul d be get ti ng abou t $47, 00 0. 00 to sta rt ou r progr am. Someh ow, wi th in the 

pro ced ura l for malities o f th e B.E.H. an d B.I .A .t he sch ool ye ar is a lm os t ove r 

an d o ur pr og ra m co ul d n ot ge t off th e lau nch pad. Co ns equently, the ch ildren
63

2

re ma in uns erve d. We reques te d fu nd s fr om Ti tle IV C ES EA ($15,000.00) to d o our 

child -fi nd. Th e spe cialists o f ed uc at io n in Ar ea Of fi ce di d not c on si de r o ur _ 

reque st. Th e money was awarded t o an ot he r sch ool i n Wy om in g a lt ho ug h th ey had 

re ce iv ed the same g rant for th e sa me purp os e last yea r. We ca nnot hel p ge t the 

feel in g of ste p-motherly tre at me nt fr om our Are a Off ic e specialists m os t o f the 

time.

Ti tl e I E SE A f und s ar e also made a va il ab le to us thr ough th e A re a O ff ice. In 1976 

th e Area Off ic e spe cia list fu ssed ab ou t som e figur es in ou r Ti tl e I p rop osa l.

Th ey we re ch anged several tim es a nd fi nally approved wi th little var iatior^fran the 

ve ry fi rst ones. Th e pr oposal wa s d el ay ed and ap pr ov ed on Sep te mb er 20, 1976.

Th e sc ho ol reop ene d o n A ug us t 16, 197 6. To our und er st an di ng the in te nt of the 

Co ng re ss i n creatin g, enac tin g, an d cont in ui ng funding of Tit le I E SE A w as t o 

he lp the nee dy children in th ei r l ea rn in g pro gr am dur in g the en ti re s choo l year.

W e we re l at er forced t o ret ur n t he a mo un t o f mo ne y s pent an th e sa la ri es etc. of 

Ti tl e I pers onnel du ring the pe ri od o f Au gu st 16- Se ptember 20, 197 6 be ca us e o ur 

pr og ra m wa s n ot ap proved befo re t he st ar t of the school. tJo co ns id er at io n wa s 

gi ve n to the fac t that the pro po sa l w as submitt ed long be fo re that . Th e school 

ha d to cu t dow n the Tit le I pr og ra m a nd returned the requi re d am ou nt of mo ne y i n 

question( $6,650.00) from Ti tl e I fund s. Th is was a cc ep te d b y th e Co nt ra ct in g 

Of fi ce r a nd by the Ch ie f of the Div is io n of Ed ucation b ut la te r on, th e A ss is ta nt 

bo tlie Chi ef of th e Di vi si on of Ed uc at io n rul ed it ou t a nd for ced t he sch oo l t o 

pa y t o th em anot her sura of $ 6, 65 0. 00 fr om the Gen eral Fun d. Ti tl e I E SE A was , 

how eve r, sig ned as v al id f undi ng a s p ar t of to tal sch ool c on tr ac t b y Mr . Babb y 

It wa s r uled i llegal by the As si st an t C hi ef of th e Divi si on of Edu ca ti on in the 

Are a of fice. Th s e arli er pa ym en t from Titl e I funds w as als o k ep t b y the m a ny way. 

Th e le ft ove r monies in Tit le I ar e ta ke n a way ea ch ye ar an d the sch oo l cano t 

ca rr y th em over to nex t year.

An ot he r int eresting reg ulat io n in T it le I E SE A is that th e last d at e fo r fi ling 

re qu es t for mod if ication o f th e p ro po sa l is D ecember 15,eac h year. Th e la st day 

for or de ri ng supplies , ma te ri al s e tc. is al so Deoen be r 15. It is no t al lo we d t o 

or de r anythi ng bef ore th e a pp ro va l o f the mo di fication wh ic h t akes a t le as t a 

mo nt h o r more. Th e r es ul t i s th at eve n if the modi fi ca ti on is app roved, no 

su pp li es etc. ca n b e or de re d a nd t ha t m on ey has t o be retu rn ed to Ar ea Offi ce. 

Ev idently, thi s rulin g i s c on tr ar y to th e int ent of the la w an d does n ot se rve 

the ch il dr en at all.

In O ctober, 1977 ou r bu dg et an d Co nt ra ct (Band Anal ysi s) wa s signed. A week a fte r 

th at we wer e told tha t the Ar ea Of fi ce wo ul d n ot pa y for t he milk co ns um ed b y cur 

chi ldren. We were s upposed t o pa y fo r it fr om our gen eral bud ge t an d foo d all ocat ion. Fo r five years pr io r t o th is t he Ar ea Off ic e pai d th e mil k b il ls bu t 

this yea r th ey discovered th at it wa ^hn erro r— po inted o ut to us a ft er s ig ni ng 

the tot al s cho ol con trac t. We did n ot i ncl ude mil k m on ey in o ur f ood b ud ge t for 

ob vi ou s reas ons . W e prot es te d a nd in Dec emb er, 1977 t he Con tr ac ti ng Of fi ce r 

pr om is ed t o ba il us o ut for th e mil!-, b i l l s ( $30,000.00) bu t d ecli ne d to put it 

in wri ti ng a nd in Feb ruary,197 8 (af ter ou r re turn fro m Washin gto n, D.C.) he backed 

ou t o f th e p romi se. It is no t im po rt an t to the m to con si de r tlie nu tr it io n needs 

of no rt he rn Che ye nn e childr en.

Th e 3 .1 .A. Ar ea Office contract ed wi t h th e Sch ool Board and t heir cwn employ ee s 

fo r I.P.A . prog ram. Th e S chool Bo ar d a gr ee d t o g o along. Th at crea te d a de fi ci t
of $60, 000 .00 ea ch y ea r in school b udget, wh ic h wa s ta ke n car e o f by Are a Of fi ce 

for the las t t w years. Af te r signi ng th e Ban d An al ys is Co nt ra ct tills ye ar th ey 

are di ctat in g us to pay fo r thi s frcrn th e Ge neral F un d w hi ch is al ready i n the 

red. Th ey are al so te ll in g us to c ut do wn th e t er m of servi ce of th e I.P.A. 

emp loyee s fr om 12 to 9 mon th s ea ch year, sanet hin g t he y ca nn ot do to civ il se rvice 

perso nne l t hem sel ves . Fo r r easons of l ew per formance by P la nt Manageme nt crew ,t he 

schoo l is p ay in g fo r fo ur errployees who should be t he responsib il it y o f the BIA. 

On e per son is r et ir ed t hr ou gh R.I.F. actior^which was u nc al le d for if the se rvices 

we re no t goin g to be contract ed. Th e S cho ol Boar d h as n o f und s t o ke ep th e ma n 

on job a nd the Pl an t M an ag em en t o ffices in Lam e D ee r an d B illi ng s don't thi nk 

the f unds ca n b e tr an sf er re d to school.

We are hu rt in g for mo ney an d servi ces to ou r c hi ld re n i n ev er y area. We need 

to i mpro ve e du ca ti on a nd curr ic ul um in Busb y School an d they cann ot suppo rt us.

We ne ed additional h ou si ng f or our ce rtified personn el who come to s erv e our 

child ren from fa r- of f pla ce s b ut th ey can 't hel p us . W e ne ed add iti ona l mon ie s 

to fini sh t he ren ov at io n o f ou r do rm s b ut i t i s a very far -fetched hope. W e nee d 

buildi ng fac ili tie s fo r o ur physical education programs an d a gym. for spor ts e tc. 

acti vities. I t do es n ot ap pe ar to be a le gitimate ne ed to than. We nee d t o 

enh ance the a ch ie ve me nt l evel of o ur chi ld re n bu t it ca nn ot be don e with ou t 

add iti ona l funds. W e ne ed th ese fundin gs to sa tisfy th e ne ed s o f educ atio nal, 

phys ical and p ro fe ss io na l gr ow th of ou r child ren . Instea d, we ar e con stan tl y 

forc ed t o cu t d ewn o ur bu dg et to f it the f rame th at is pro vi de d u s b y the Are a 

Office.

Th e sit uat ion ge ts mor e an d mor e fru strating i f you loo k a t it car efully. A ^ h e 

Ch airman of the No rt he rn Chey en ne Tri be I w an t to re qu es t y ou t o find a way to 

oon vey ^fa thetic s ta te o f af fairs bo the U.S.Co ng re ss wh o a re tr ying to hel p ou r 

Cheye nne c hildren b ut who se s inc ere i ntentions and ef fo rt s g et cl ouded by the 

bur eaucr ati c pr oc ed ur es o f th e B ureau o f Ind ian Af fa ir s an d thei r c re w tha t is 

respo nsi ble t o del iv er the "tr ust responsib ili tie s" of the I ndian childre n.

Sinc erel y,

'&£-***

Dr. As ad Ali Kh an 

Superintendent

P.S. The Ar ea Off ic e al so s top ped pa yi ng for th e trave l o f off-reservation do rm 

students. NO le tt er has b ee n recei ved but the pay me nt was stoppe d through 

a t ele pho ne m essage. These^sjudents have t o g o h em e on ma jo r holidays. T hi s 

puts the s cho ol in to another ^o f at le as t $7, 000.00 e ac h y ear. This account 

has always b ee n th e responsi bi li ty of the A re a Off ic e t hrough ou t the his tory 

of th is sch ool (ab out 50 ye ars o r mo re).
65

Mr. Morishima. Senator Melcher, I would like to respond to your 

question. . .

First of all, we believe th at the consolidation auth ority tha t is contained within the body of the proposed act has a good potential to eliminate a g reat deal of the administrativ e costs and to help alleviate certain problems of piecemeal fund ing of major project efforts. However, just like the basic law itself—93-63 8—our principal problems appear to come from vagueness involved in how such a 

program might be administered. On Quinault, we have atte mpted to consolidate some of our pro­ grams under block gran t aut hor ity and under other contracting 

auth ority within the BIA. Our law enforcement cont ract, for instance, consists of the con­ solidation of five former separa te contracts that were administered 

individually. We now have one mas ter contract; but the strange pa rt about i t is th at we are still forced to main tain separate funds and separ ate checking accounts and separate accounting records. We are forced to do this, appar ently, because of the separation of funds from each of five funding sources within the Bureau’s budget process. We hope t ha t such legislation would clarify the consolidation. Tha t does not mean tha t the tribes will be left to share the entire burden of the administra tive responsibility, while relieving some of 

tha t burden from the BIA’s shoulders.

Senator Melcher. I guess th e point of my question is: Is the bill, as drafted, specific enough to alleviate a lot of this bureaucratic restriction and mumbo jumbo th at gets you involved in just what you 

were describing. Did you say five separate accounts?

Mr. Morishima. Yes.

Senator Melcher. Five s eparate accounts for one program.

Mr. Morishima. Yes.

Mr. Kennedy. We feel tha t it is vague as it is drafted right now in 

certain areas. We are preparing written suggested changes to specific portions of the draft bill. We will be subm itting tha t to the committee for your 

observation.

Senator Melcher. I think tha t would be very helpful.

Mr. Kennedy. We feel, especially in the planning portion of the comprehensive plan portion of the granting mechanism, th at we will 

be addressing that. But with regard to your original question, we feel th at perhaps the increased particip ation would come about. But, more impor tantly, it would provide us with more planning stability and jus t one more 

option in the contracting mechanism. We feel it is a helpful step in the right direction, and we will submit 

some test imony tha t we feel will clean it up.

Senator Melcher. I think th at would be very helpful.

Than k you very much.

Senator Hatfield. I would like to just make a comment. I find i t increasingly frustr atin g to find tha t even where legislative inten t is clearly spelled out, th at either it is circumvented or frus trated frequently by bureaucratic design or inaction—whatever it may be 

called.
66

We have a growing numbe r of examples where Congress has passed 

a bill. I think we have, in the case of Indian affairs, clearly established 

congressional intent which is not in any way recognized by the time it 

is actually implemented.

I think it is probably one of those occasions where we might contemplate—and I shall talk to the Chairman about it—even though it 

is early in the so-called legislative history, to call in the BIA and have 

some oversight hearings to see exactly what their record is as far as 

carrying out legislative intent or if there needs to be clarification of 

legislation that was assigned to them to carry out. And if they are not 

perhaps clear as to what our inte nt was.

We have a very recent example of this in the oral bidding law which 

was passed by the Congress only a few months ago and still has n ot 

been implemented. Now we find that there is a review going on within 

the review.

It becomes almost apparen t—not quite—th at they do not like the 

law that we passed and, therefore, they are not going to enforce it, or 

they do not want to enforce it.

So we get into that kind of a situation.

I wouldn’t want to raise your expectations that even if we put together a clearly defined act here and passed it and got the signature of 

the President, tha t doesn’t end the problem. Many times we have to 

follow through with legislative oversight.

Maybe this is the time to do tha t with the bills we already have 

passed, and let them know we are serious.

I would like to recognize t ha t we have today in our hearing room 

four of the area directors:

Harley Zephier, Aberdeen, S. Dak.; James Canan, Billings, M ont.; 

Vincent Little, Portland, Oreg.; and Clarence Antioquia, Juneau, 

Alaska.

We will have questions th at we would like to submit to the area 

directors.

They did not come with w ritten statements or testimony, but rather 

were invited here and made themselves available for resource purposes 

today.

So we are grateful for th eir presence, and we have some questions we 

would like to ask them to respond to for the record.

Senator H atfield. There being no other questions, this committee 

will, therefore, stand in recess.

Thank you all for being here this morning and for your contribution.

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing recessed.]

[Subsequent to the hearing the following material was received:]
Testimony of Mr. Jonathan L. "Ed" Tay lor March 13, 1978

I wish to express my app rec iat ion for this opp ortunity to s ubmit my perso nal

and profe ssi ona l views of the prop ose d amendment to P.L. 93—638, the Indian SelfDetermi nat ion and Education A ssist anc e Act.

Firs t, I w ish to reiter ate that the Eastern Band of Cher okee Indi ans remains

basica lly oppose d to the e xis tence of this Act, however, we do not w is h to stand in

the way of or to interfere in an y w ay wit h the individual rights of a tribe or a

grou p of tribes, to pu rsue their goal s and efforts for their peopl e within the intent

and pur pos e of the Act. Therefore, my testimony is be ing o ffer ed in that spirit.

I r ecall the days whe n this bil l was bei ng proposed as the long awaited

solu tion to problems creat ed by the decades of p ate rnalism and bur eaucracy that

the F edera l Government inflicted up on the Americ an Indi an people. This bill proposed

radical cha nge s in the ma nner in wh ic h the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian

Hea lth Servic e were to adm inister the ir programs. I pe rsonally was o ver joy ed at

the prospe ct of change that w as so p ro mising at that time. In the three or four

years that have passed since then, I and thou sands of other Ame ric an Indians are

still waiting for those chan ges to occur. Alt hough there ha s been significant

increases in the practice of con tra cting betw een the Federal Governm ent and Indian

Tribes, I still detect a gross lack of understanding and sensitivity on the part

of Feder al employees regarding the recog nit ion of Tribes' sov ereign tre aty rights

and Implied powers contained withi n the Constitut ion of the Un ited States, whi ch

con firmed the existence of Indian N at io ns as separ ate gov ernmental enti ties. Instead

there is a contin uin g int erpretation of the role of the Fede ral G overn men t as

ben efa cto r and a continuing per cep tion of the A merican Indian as ben efi cia ry much

in the same v ein as welfare recipient s of government prov ided services. Mr Senator,

this is WRONG.

If an amendment to P.L. 93-6 38 can change this attitude, than I a m for any

such amendment. If this amendment can transfer control over the b udg et and the
68

planning process from the Gove rnment to Tribes and eliminate the frustrating and 

unn ece ssa ry delays in pro cessing con tracts and reimb ursement docume nts , I say 

"pass itT" If this amendment wo ul d expedite the transition from total Federal 

con trol and domination of Am er ic an India n life and it woul d substanti all y restore 

the lost dignity, pride and self-s uff ici enc y once enjoyed by the Tribal groups,

then I am for it.

Mr. Senator, I stand for any type of change or effort that would Increase, 

or cre ate an equal opp ortunity fo r Americ an Indians. Even thou gh the Civil Rights 

laws have long been in effect, I still observe and w itn ess incidents wher e Amer ican

Indians living on or near reserv ati ons are still v ict ims of discrimi nation. If 

this amendment can help to o ver come this disc rimination, whether it is b latant or 

subt le in intent, then I call for every Ame rican Indi an to sup port it and testify

to that effect.

Today, we are speaking of som eth ing that is much gre ater — wh ich has the 

pot ential of producing great impact upon the social, educational and political 

struct ure s of American Indian Trib es. In my opinion, we are not dis cus sin g procedural changes — we are tal king about a way of life I Neve r befor e, during 

modern times, has the potential for institutional change been be for e us as it is 

now. This amendment as I see it offer s hope — a hope similar to that whic h many 

Ameri can s had for Jimmy Carters' Administration. Ever y day I read or hear of the 

disenc han tme nt that many A mer ica ns suffer with this Administ ration. Unfortunately, 

what present day disappointment and fears they ma y have, Americ an Indians have 

suf fered far greater under every U.S. President in history.

Now that Congress has spoken in the form of P.L. 93-638, let them speak 

again now that our v ery exi ste nce as a unique and separate form of governme nt is 

being cha lle nge d in the courts and in the halls of C ongress. I was asked personally

to off er my views concerning this amendment to P.L. 93-638. I call for the passage 

of this amendment, which would permit comprehensive plans to be prepar ed and submi tt ed by American Indian Tribal Governments, which would direct the Secretaries
of Interior and the Depart ment of Health, Educ ation and Welfare to exe cute block 

grant fun din g in response to these com pre hen siv e Tribal plana. I unders tan d that 

these act ions would not lessen or w ea ke n the time tested and legally uph eld trust 

obligat ion and responsibility of the Federal Government in behalf of qua lified Indian 

Tribes, therefore, I am calli ng upon the Congr ess In its w isd om to r eaf firm the 

rights of Trib al Government to dete rmine their own des tiny and life course. I 

am also cal ling upon Cong ress to r eaffirm and strengthen the gov ernment to g overnment rel ationship that has evolved from the Cons titution of the Uni ted States.

Thank you Mr. Senator for heari ng my comments and I do want to set the record 

straight that Jonathan L. Taylor doe s not waffle on the issues as you sugge sted 

in the last .hearing on P.L. 93-638, held in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
70

Colville C on fe de ra te d Tribes

P. O . Box 1 5 0 - N e s p e le m , W a sh . 9 9 1 5 5 (5 0 9 ) 6 3 4 -4 5 9 1

STATEMENT

OF

MEL C . TONASKET 

CHAIRMAN

CO LVILL E BUSIN ESS COUNCIL

BEFORE

THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IND IAN AFFAIRS 

UNITE D STATES SENATE

ON

S . 246 0 - TO AMEND THE INDIAN SELF-DE TERMINATIO N AND 

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT

ON

MARCH 1 6 , 19 78
Mr. Chairman, and members o f th is < 'm mittce, I am ple ase d to appear

bef ore you tod ay to o ffe r th e vie w s o f • lie C o lv il le Tri be on S, 24 60 , a

b ill to amend the In dian Sel f- D et er m in ati on and Ed ucation A ssis ta n ce A ct ,

commonly re fe rr ed to as P ublic Law 63 8.

My tr ib e gen er all y su ppor ts th e co nc ep ts o f S. 24 60 , th a t o f making it

e a s ie r fo r tr ib a l gov ern ments or tr ib a l org an iz ati ons to con tr act fo r s e r ­

v ic e s , pro gra ms, fu n cti o n s, p r o je c ts , or a c t iv it ie s fo r th e b e n e fit o f Indian

p eo p le .

However, we do hav e some co nce rn s wi th some p rovis io n s in th e b i l l

wh ich we would li k e to d ir e c t ou r comments to .

A ll tr ib e s g en erall y a gree, I th in k , th at th e contr act a p p li ca ti o n and

co n tr act m odif ic ati on p ro ce ss i s q u it e le ngt hy and co m plic at ed -- per ha ps

d e li b e r a te ly and n e e d le ssly s o . I p erso n all y don’ t f e e l th at th e tim eframe c a ll e d fo r in th e b i l l fo r S ecreta ria l re vie w , d et er m in ati on, and

th e ap pe al pro ce ss con tr ib u te s much in th e way o f su b sta n ti v e improvement

on t h is s it u a tio n .

I f th e Sec re ta ry we re to ta ke th e f u ll a llo tte d tim e in which to

re vi ew a t r ib e 's a p p li ca ti o n and make a fin a l det er m in at io n or gr an t an

ap pe al hea ri ng, a h a lf ye ar co uld co nce iv ab ly la p se bef ore a tr ib e knows

wh ethe r or no t i t can co ntr act a burea u program or fu n cti on . I hop e your

commi tte e or s t a f f w ill giv e some co n si d erati on to amending th e b i l l to

bri ng i t more in li n e w ith th e r e a lit y o f th e ne ed s and g oals o f tr ib e s .

I ap p recia te th e e ffo r ts th at ha ve al re ad y been put in to th e d ra ft in g o f

th is le g is la t io n , but down on th e le v e l where we liv e and where th e impact

i s g r e a te s t, we don 't f e e l t h is tim e span is a wo rkable one fo r good management con tr ol
72

Th e same co uld be sa id fo r th e sp an o f c o n tr o ls in im pl em en tin g th e 

p ro v is io n s o f 638. Your b i l l c a l ls fo r ome ra th e r co m pr eh en sive , lo n g - 

ra ng e p la n n in g by tr i b e s . We a re in ag re em en t w ith th a t in te n t. Goa ls 

must be s e t flow in g upward fro m lo w er o p e ra ti n g le v e ls . We r e a liz e th e 

c o n s tr a in ts impo sed upon up pe r man agement by th e g u id e li n e s o f th e l e g i s l a ­

tio n , but how many tr ib e s ha ve th is lo n g -r an g e pla nnin g c a p a b il it y ? Fo r 

th a t m a tt e r, wh ere docs th a t c a p a b ility e x is t w it h in th e Bureau i t s e l f ?

The p re s e n t 3 - ti e r e d le v e l o f bure au o p e ra ti o n s is more s u it a b ly geare d to 

serv e a s in g le , common ne ed , c lie n t b a se . In dia n peo ple ha ve d if f e r in g ne ed s

wh ich re q u ir e a v a rie ty no t only in th e s e rv ic e s but a ls o in th e ma nner in *

wh ich th o se s e rv ic e s a re d e li v e re d .

And s in c e t h a t 's th e c a s e , th e decis io n-m akin g must be moved c lo s e r 

to th e t r i b a l le v e l wh ere more e f f e c tiv e le a d e rsh ip ca n be pro v id ed , whe re 

co mmun ication is e f f e c tiv e , and whe re bure au re sponsi veness is not e x c e ssiv e ly 

lo ng. 1 su bm it to you th a t i f tr i b e s ha d r e a lly had a more a c tiv e r o le in 

d r a f tin g th e re g u la ti o n s we w o u ld n 't ne ed th e p re se n t am end ments. Now, we 

ha ve a ne ed to up gr ad e th e q u a lity an d q u a n ti ty o f th e ag en cy s t a f f to meet 

th e c o n tr a c ti n g ne ed s o f th e t r i b e . Th e ag en cy peo ple ha ve to d e al w it h th e 

th e t r i b a l people on a day-t o -d ay b a s is - a re la ti o n s h ip th a t i s n 't p o s s ib le 

w ith th e Are a O ff ic e o r C en tr a l O ff ic e s t a f f . The people a t th e lo c a l le v e l 

a re aw are o f what ou r ne ed s a re , and i f th e y 'r e s in c e re a t a l l in h e lp in g 

to f a c i l i t a t e th e c o n tr a c ti n g p ro c e ss , I' m su re i t must be a so urc e o f 

f r u s tr a ti o n fo r them to r e a liz e th a t t h e i r e f f o r ts ca n be ne gat ed by th e 

me re be ck an d whim of some b u re a u crat in an o ff ic e fa r removed fro m th e 

re s e r v a tio n s , and by e x te n sio n , fro m r e a l i t y .

I f th e p re s e n t a c t iv ity and co nduct en ga ge d in by th e BIA in th e 

1978 v e rs io n o f BIA R eo rg aniz ati on is an y in d ic a ti o n o f th e su pport tr i b e s 

ca n expect from our s o -c a ll e d t r u s te e s , I' m su re you can w e ll a p p re c ia te 

why we f e e l i t ' s an a b so lu te n e c e s s it y to move more c o n tr a c t a u th o rit y and

2
73

people with con tract ing skills down to the a gen cy level. Or, in the al te rnative, let that be a ma tter of local opt ion for tho se tribes whose sole 

resource Is the Are a Office .

My final conm ent s are directed to the formula grant proc ess based on 

population. Eighty- two point nine pe r cent (82.97.) of the Indian tribes in 

the United States have pop ulat ions of less than 1,000 members. Small tribe s 

are adversely affected w he n allocati ons are det erm ine d on the basis of 

population— the sums ar e so small in comp ari son to the needs ns to be 

a almost mean ingless. Th is phenome non is no where mo re apparent in the money

allocated to support an d strengthen triba l gov ern men ts under section 104 

of 93-638. This refle cts a po lic y det erm ina tio n of 0M B requi ring F eder al

»

program funding on a for mul a basis using 1970 Census data. Many tribes 

complain that the 1970 census data is inaccurate.

Serious obj ectio ns to this crit eri a have bee n raised by tribes bec aus e 

of the discre pan cy betw ee n eligible pop ula tio n und er 638 and the servi ce 

pop ula tio n rec ogn ize d by o ther Bureau programs.

The defini tio n requ ir ed by 0MB is as follows: (1) for tribes eli gib le 

for general rev enu e sharing, the latest revenue shari ng figures; (2) for 

tribes not eligible for general revenue sharing, an equi vale nt popu lat ion 

is used (whatever that means) ; (3) for Oklaho ma, the censu s figure for India ns 

belon gin g to that pa rticular tribe in t he former res erv ati on ar ea — if it 

is larger than the revenue sharing popula tion . Th e pop ula tio n figures for 

revenue sharing fund distribut ion are bas ed on the num ber of person s under 

the jurisdic tion of the gov ernm ent and rec eivi ng subs tan tia l gove rnmen tal 

services. For Indian tribes, the figures are U.S. Cen sus estim ates of 

(1) all resident Indians withi n the res erv ati on bou nda rie s whethe r living 

on trust land or not; and (2) Indian resi din g on trust lands per tain ing to 

the tribe and adjacent to the reservation. 0MB as sum es that those Indian s 

* living on trust land adj acent to the res erva tion were receiving services

3
74

from some governmental un it i f not from Hie tr ib e . Th is is not always the

c a s e . I th in k th at th es e arc prob lems t it sh ou ld be looked in to under

t h is le g is la t io n .

With th a t, Mr. Cha irra nan , I co nc lude my te st im on y, and a ga in , I thank

you fo r the opp or tu ni ty to appea r he re to da y.

4
75

ISxvcutibf (Office of (Owe tain ^Nation

D ra w er 1201

fiu ra n t, (fiklatia ma 74 70 1 

924-8280

EMERY D. SPEARS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Marc h 16 , 197 8

H o n o ra b le Ja mes A bou re zk 

C ha ir m an S en a te C om m itte e 

W ash in gto n, D.C . 20510

D ea r S e n a to r A boure zk :

I r e c e iv e d y o u r l e t t e r w ith th e e n c lo s u re o f S e n a te B i l l 2460, c o n c e rn in g 

th e P .L . 93-6 38 am en dm en t. A f te r re v ie w in g th e am en dm en t i n th e B i l l , I 

hav e th e fo ll o w in g co m men ts to ma ke:

The Cho ctaw N a ti o n o f Ok lah om a re m ain s n e u t r a l a t t h i s ti m e a s to 

w h eth er th e y s h o u ld f a v o r o r d is f a v o r t h i s B i l l .

I t h as b ee n th e e x p e rie n c e o f th e C ho ct aw N ati o n o f Okla ho ma to 

a tte m p t to c o n t r a c t B u re au o r ig i n a ti n g pro gra m s an d f in d in g 

d is c o u ra g e m e n t wh en n o t i f i e d t h a t s u p p o r t fu n d s f o r th e A d m in is tr a ­

ti o n o f th e p ro g ra m s by th e T rib e w er e n o t a v a i l a b l e .

I t a p p e ared t h a t by u s in g th e m et ho ds o u tl in e d i n S e n a te B i l l 24 60 , 

wou ld a ll o w th e I n d ia n T rib e g r e a t e r l a t i t u d e in i t s c o n t r a c tu a l 

e f f o r t s .

The Cho ctaw N a ti o n w ould r e q u e s t t h a t r a t h e r th a n r e c e iv in g a d ead ­

l i n e f o r th e T rib e to h av e s u b m it te d i t s p r o p o s a l. B u t, r a t h e r 

t h i s be l e f t a t th e d i s c r e t i o n o f ea ch in d i v id u a l T r ib e . I know 

i n o u r p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , i t se em s t h a t i n th e b e g in n in g th e B ure au 

wa s a tte m p ti n g to f o r c e In d ia n T rib e s in t o a p o s itio n - c o n tr a c tin g 

r a t h e r th a n a llo w in g th em a t t h e i r own d i s c r e t i o n . I n l a t e r m onth s, 

in mo re r e c e n t ti m e , i t a p p e a rs t h a t t h i s i s n o t th e c a s e , how ev er , 

th e In d ia n T rib e d o e s f e e l p r e s s u r e fr om th e B ure au a s to w h eth e r 

o r n o t th e y w i l l c o n t r a c t .

Th ank yo u v ery much f o r s e n d in g a co py o f th e S e n a te B i l l 24 60 to o u r 

o f f i c e . I ho pe th e co m men ts t h a t I hav e made w i l l h e lp you an d y o u r s t a f f 

i n t h e i r d e c is io n m ak in g p r o c e s s .

Em ery D. S p ears 

E x e c u ti v e D ir e c to r

ED S:eqn
76

CENTRAL COUNCIL 

tlin q it an d haiOA I nd ians o f ala ska i. 

One Sealaska Plaza - Suite 2 0 0 

Jun eau, Alaska 99801

(9 07) 586-1432 or 586-3613

• \ 2 71978 H

March 1 6 , 19 78

H o n o ra b le Ja m es A b o u rc z k , C hai rm an 

S e n a te S e le c t C om m it te e on In d ia n A f f a i r s 

31 21 D ir k se n S e n a te O f f i c e B u ild in g 

W ash in g to n , D.C . 20 51 0

D ea r S e n a to r:

P le a s e a c c e p t t h i s l e t t e r a s o u r w r i t te n te s tim o n y , f o r th e 

r e c o r d , e n d o rs in g S .2 4 6 0 , a b i l l to am end th e I n d ia n 

S e lf -D e te r m in a tio n an d E d u c a tio n A s s is ta n c e A ct o f 1975.

Th e C e n tr a l C o u n c il i s p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t i f i e d by t h i s am en dm en t in t h a t i t r e a f f i r m s , to th e B ure au o f I n d ia n A f f a i r s 

an d th e In d ia n H e a lth S e r v i c e , th e c l e a r i n t e n t o f C o n g re ss 

an d th e d e s i r e o f a l l p e o p le in I n d ia n c o u n try t h a t f e d e r a l 

d o m in a ti o n in s e r v i c e s t o I n d ia n p e o p le i s no lo n g e r d e s i r e - 

a b le n o r c o n d u c iv e to th e s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f I n d ia n t r i b e s .

I t i s o u r s in c e r e hop e t h a t th e e x p r e s s io n o f S .2 4 6 0 w i l l 

le a v e th e c o n c e rn e d f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s w ith no o t h e r c o n c lu ­

s io n to s q u a re th a n t h a t In d ia n A f f a i r s s h a l l be g o v e rn e d 

by In d ia n g o v ern m en t. Y ou r c o n s id e r a tio n an d e f f o r t in 

t h i s m a tte r h a s b een g r e a t l y a p p r e c ia te d .

S in c e r e ly y o u r s ,

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF THE TL1NGIT 

AND HA1DA INDIANS OF ALASKA

Raymond E. P ad d o ck , J r . 

P r e s id e n t

c c : H o n o ra b le Te d S te v e n s 

H o n o ra b le Mi ke G ra v a l 

H o n o ra b le Don Yo ung
77

p. O . B O X 4 4 0 0 2 1 , T A M I A M I S T A ., M IA M I . F L O R ID A 3 3 1 4 4

T E L E P H O N E : 3 0 5 /2 2 3 - 8 3 8 0

M arch 2 3 , 1978

BUSINESS & GENERAL

BUFFALO TIGER

CHAIRMAN

BILLY CYPRESS

ASST CHAIRMAN

BOBBY BILLIE

SECRETARY

JASPER NELSON

TREASURER

HENRY BERT

LAWMAKER

S e n a to r Ja m es A bo ur ez k

C hai rm an, S e n a te C om m itt ee on I n d ia n A f f a ir s 

U n it e d S t a t e s S e n a te 

W ash in g to n , D.C .

D ear S e n a to r A bour ez k:

Tha nk yo u f o r p e r s o n a lly s o l i c i t i n g my vie w s a b o u t S .2 4 6 0 . Tha nk yo u 

p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r yo u r c o n ti n u e d c o n c e rn f o r r a t i o n a l i t y an d f a i r n e s s in 

th e c o n tin u in g devel opm en t on n a t i o n a l p o lic y re g a rd in g I n d ia n s .

In g e n e r a l , we a g re e c o m p le te ly w ith th e b i l l ' s o b v io u s i n t e n t . I n an 

a tt e m p t t o p ro v id e c o n s tr u c t iv e c r i t i c i s m , how ev er , we s h o u ld l i k e yo u 

t o c o n s id e r th e fo ll o w in g c h a n g e s.

I n th e p re a m b le (p ag e 3 , l i n e s 4 -6 ) f o r th e w ord s "a c o n s o lid a te d sim p le 

g r a n t a u t h o r i t y w hic h fo ll o w s a co m p re h e n siv e t r i b a l p l a n ," p e rh a p s 

chan ge th e la n g u a g e t o re a d : " c o n s o li d a ti o n o f fu nds i n c o n tr a c ts c o n ­

ta in in g sc o p e s o f w or k r e l a t i n g to m ore th a n on e a p p r o p r ia tio n s c a t e g o r y ."

The n u n d e r T i t l e I I I , r e f e r e n c e s h o u ld be made n o t to "s im p le c o n ­

s o lid a te d g r a n ts " b u t to " th e c o n s o li d a tio n o f fu n d s i n a c o n tr a c t fr om 

mor e th a n on e a p p r o p r ia tio n s ."

E x p l i c i t s ta te m e n ts , m o re o v e r, sh o u ld be made to th e e f f e c t t h a t t h i s 

la w s u p e rc e d e s a p p r o p r ia tio n s l e g i s l a t i o n . O th e rw is e , th e a g e n c ie s c o u ld 

come b ack (a s th e y a re now, e s p e c i a l l y in IHS) w it h th e c o n te n tio n t h a t 

in s p i t e o f 6 3 8 , th e a p p r o p r ia tio n s la w s u p e rc e d e s .

C O N S T IT U T IO N A P P R O V E D B Y S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E IN T E R IO R , J A N U A R Y 1 1 . 1 9 6 2

25-601 0 - 78 - 6
78

S e n a to r Ja mes A bo ure zk 

M ar ch 23, 1978 

Pa ge 2

F i n a l l y , th e p r o v is io n ( in s e c tio n 30 1 (b ) ) , t h a t th e S e c r e ta r y o f 

I n t e r i o r sh o u ld be a u th o riz e d to make ev en IHS I n t e r i o r c o n tr a c ts an d 

g r a n ts does make s e n s e , b u t may be to o r a d i c a l fo r IHS to le a v e a lo n e . 

Thr ough t h e i r p e o p le , th ey may be a b le t o s h o o t th e w ho le s e t o f am en dm en ts down on t h i s sc o re a lo n e .

On t h i s m a tte r , i t may be b e t t e r to have th e amend ment d e s ig n a te so meon e w ith in MEW a t a lo w er le v e l th a n th e S e c r e ta r y to e n t e r in t o th e 

a c tu a l c o n t r a c t s w it h In d ia n T r ib e s . Th e way i t w or ks now i s t h a t 

D r. Emery J o h n s o n 's o f f ic e seem s re a d y to a g re e to c e r t a i n p r o v is io n s 

b u t th e a c t u a l c o n tr a c tin g has to be ap p ro v ed by som eone e ls e in DHEW 

who i s n o t a s f a m ilia r w it h I n d ia n s a s IH S. P erh ap s D r. J o h n s o n 's 

o f f i c e c o u ld be ch arg ed w it h th e a c t u a l c o n tr a c tin g in th e am en dm en t.

A g ain , th a n k you f o r c o n s id e rin g my v ie w s .

S in c e r e ly ,

B u ffa lo T ig e r 

T r ib a l Cha irm an
79

^ z -

NATIONAL TRIBAL CHA

ASSOCIATION

S u it e 406 1701 Pe nn sy lv an ia Av en ue , N.W . W as hi ng to n, D. C. 20006 

2 0 2 -3 4 3 -9 4 8 4

March 28 , 1978

Senator James Abouresk 

Senate Sel ec t Committee on Indian A ff ia ir s 

Dirksen O ff ic e Building

Washington, D. C. , 20515

Dear Senator Abouresk:

On be ha lf of the Nat ional Triba l Chairmens As socia tio n, I am ple ase d to lend 

our fu ll support to S 2460.

As you are aware, we have on se ve ra l occasio ns expressed our concerns re la ti ve to problems ass oci ate d with the implementation o f PL 93-638. The po te nt ial for the development of Tr ib al Governments, under the Ac t, have not been fu ll y re alized .

S 2460 would ce rt ai nly be a prefer re d mechanism to at ta in both long and short range go als and eliminat e the fr us tr at io ns of pie ce meal pro ces sin g of contr acts and gra nts .

S 2460 however, w il l pose seme ad ditio na l problems. Small tr ib es may ver y we ll su ff er from continuing ex clus io ns , because of th ei r in ab il it y to meet planning re quis it es . Thus, even i f the small tr ib es would pr efer to u tili z e the Con­ so lid at ed Grant approach, th ei r lack o f resources for plannin g as sistan ce 

would make the ex ercis e of the ad ditio na l op tio n, pr oh ib itiv e.

Sin ce neith er the BIA or IHS have, to da te, exhibit ed the ca p abil it y to provide qual it y tech nica l as sista nc e fo r annual contracts or gr an ts, i t is not li k e ly th at the ex pe rti se needed by sm all tr ib es, w il l be av ai la bl e to meet long range 

requirements.

Unless the Congress can e ff e c ti v e ly monitor the te ch ni ca l as sistan ce performance o f BIA and IHS, smaller tr ib es w il l continue to be frus trated in th ei r attempts 

to ach iev e intended developmental go al s.

Re sp ec tfu lly submitted,

Erin Forre st

EF:mw
80

S enate S e le c t C crm it te on In d ia n A ffa ir s

Re S . 24 60 - Am endments to 9 3 -6 3 8

M ar ch 3 0 , 19 78

i

I u n d e rs ta n d yo u have r e c e iv e d a nu m be r o f s u g g e s tio n s r e g a r d in g t h i s b i l l 

s o my com me nts may be r e d u n d a n t. I ca n o n ly hop e t h a t th e y a r e n o t to o 

l a t e an d w i l l be u s e f u l .

63 8 i s as yo u hav e s t a t e d s t i l l a c o n c e p t r a t h e r th a n a m ea ns o f e f f e c t i n g 

r e a l p r a c t i c a l b e n e f i t to t r i b e s b u t i t s t i l l h a s g r e a t p o t e n t i a l . You 

h a v e , in S . 24 60 , h i t on an a p p ro a c h m ost l i k e l y to a c h ie v e b e n e f i c i a l 

r e s u l t s . No t o n ly i s th e g r a n t a p p ro a c h an im p ro v em en t, th e a d d i t i o n o f 

T/TA fr om DOI s h o u ld b e a v e r y p o s i t i v e am en dm en t. Th e la c k o f T/T A was 

t h e m a jo r w ea knes s in 6 3 8 .

I a l s o th in k th a t 63 8 o r 24 60 s h o u ld c o n ta in a p r o v is io n to o ver co m e 

th e pro b le m o f e x c e p tio n a lly h ig h ( a n t i c i p a t e d ) a d m in is tr a tiv e c o s ts f o r 

an y s e r v ic e o r pr ogra m a t r i b e to o k o v e r . I t i s v e ry l i k e l y t h a t an y 

in d i v i d u a l t r i b e w i l l e x p e r ie n c e h ig h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s ts a t th e b e g in n in g 

o f a p ro g ra m , p r o je c t o r s e r v i c e y e a r . T h is w ould b e f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , 

m an ag em en t an d te c h n ic a l ty p e p o s i t i o n s .

The re co m m en dation h e re i s t h a t S . 24 60 h av e a p r o v is io n to su p p le m e n t 

by 10% th e b a s ic b u d g et f o r an y s e r v i c e p r o j e c t o r pro gra m ass um ed by an 

I n d ia n t r i b e w h eth er by g r a n t o r c o n t r a c t . T h is wou ld e n s u re t h a t th e 

l e v e l an d q u a l ity o f th e s e r v i c e o r p ro g ra m w oul d n o t be n e g a tiv e l y 

a f f e c t e d . T h is co u ld b e don e on a d e c lin i n g b a s i s . T h at i s , th e su p p le m en t 

c o u ld b e red u ce d by l / 3 r d a f t e r th e f i r s t y e a r , a n o th e r t h i r d th e seco n d 

an d t h i r d y e a rs to w her e th e f o r t h y e a r th e su p p le m en t w oul d n o t be p ro v id e d .

T h e re a r e o th e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s t o a d d r e s s th e h ig h a d m in is tr a tiv e c o s t .

F o r ex am p le , th e t r i b e s c o u ld u s e T i t l e I o f 9 4-4 37 (T he I n d ia n H e a lth 

C are Im pr ov em en t A ct ) to e s t a b l i s h m an ag em en t an d te c h n ic a l i n t e r n s h i p s .

Or I n te r n s h i p s o r t r a i n i n g c o u ld be a c h ie v e d to s u p p o r t t r i b a l 638 o r 

24 60 th ro u g h T i t l e I I I , T i t l e I I o r T i t l e I I I o f th e CETA man po wer p ro g ra m .

I f t h i s w er e n o t p o s s ib le o r p ro v e d t o b e to o c o m p li c a te d i t w ould be 

p o s s i b l e to su p p le m en t 63 8 i n i t i a t i v e s w it h ANA (fo rm e rly ONAP) fu n d s f o r 

a d m in is tr a tiv e c o s ts . T h is a p p ro a c h w ould o f c o u rs e re d u c e o r e l im i n a te 

a t r i b a l co mmun ity a c tio n p ro g ra m b u t c o n s id e r in g th e p o t e n t i a l lo n g -te rm 

b e n e f i t many t r i b e s may w an t t o do t h i s .

George C la rk 

W as hing ton, D.C.
MM 31 111

ERNEST L WILKINS ON

JO HN W CR AG UN n»o«-i»ee;

GLEN A WILKINS ON

ROBER T W BARKE R

CH ARLES A HO BB S

ANGELO A IADARO LA

PAUL S QU INN

LEON T. KNAUE R

RIC HARD A BA EN EN

JERRY C-S TRAUS

HERB ERT E- MAR KS

PIE RR E J La FORCE 

FR ANCES L. HOR N

GORDON C COFFMA N

PAT RICIA L BROWN

STEP HE N R BELL

R AN THONY RO GE RS

FOSTE R Dt REI T2E S

W IL K IN S O N , C R A G U N & B A R K E R

L A W O F F IC E S

1 7 3 5 N E W Y O R K A V E N U E , N .W .

W A S H I N G T O N , D C 2 0 0 0 6

(202 ) 8 3 3 -9 8 0 0

C ABLE AD DR ESS

W IL C B A R

ROSEL H. HYD E

Co uns el

March 31, 1978

p ., <><3 2 1978 *j

ALAN I. RUBINS TE IN v

 j IJ

JO HN M. FA CC IOLA ---- i — .

PHIL IP A. NACKE

THOM AS E. W ILSON

JE RR Y R. G OLDSTEIN

EDW ARD M. FOGARTY

RO BIN A. FRIEDMAN

JAMES E. MAGEE

ROBER T B. M CKENN A, JR .

JO SE PH P. MARKOSKI

STEVEN C. LAMBERT

STEP HE N A. HILDEBR ANDT

CH AR LE S I. APPLER

RIC HA RD P. CARR

BARBARA S. WOODALL

TOBEY B. MARZOUK

STEVEN A. LAUER ♦

LAURE L BERGOLD

VALERIE K.S CH UR MAN

BRU CE T. RE ES E *

F. THOMAS MORAN

• NOT ADMITTED IN

OISTPICT OF COLUMBIA

- The Honorable James Abourezk 

1105 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Abourezk:

We are legal counsel for the National Congress 

of American Indians; NANA, a Regional Corporation formed 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; the 

Arapahoe Tribe of the W ind River Reservation, Wyoming; 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 

Reservation, Montana; the Three Affiliated Tribes of the 

Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; and the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe of Indians of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, 

Cali fornia.

We would like to comment on S. 2460, a bill to 

amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of January 4, 1975. If enacted into law, this 

bill would allow Indian tribes the option of receiving a 

single consolidated grant for all programs qualifying 

under the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

rather than separate grants for different programs. The 

bill would give the tribe authority to determine how the 

grant money would be allocated among the various programs. 

Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would review 

the tribal plan, but he w ould not be authorized to 

disapprove the plan simply because he disagreed with the 

percentage of funds the tribe had determined to allocate 

to any given project within the scope of the Act. Instead, 

the Secretary's review wou ld be limited to determining 

whether (1) the services to be rendered under the program 

would be adequate to the beneficiaries; (2) adequate 

protection of trust assets was assured under the program; 

or (3) the proposed project in the plan can be adequately 

completed or maintained by the plan.
82

The Honorable James Abourezk 

March 31, 1978 

Page Two

The proposed Act provides that a consolidated 

plan submitted by a tribe may cover a period of up to 

ten years, or any lesser period of time which the tribe 

may elect. The tribe would have the right to amend the 

plan either before the grant or after a reasonable period 

of implementation.

The proposed Act also provides that the Secretary 

shall approve a tribal consolidated plan which requires 

funding up to the amount which the Secretary would have 

otherwise provided. If the tribal plan requires funding 

in excess of this amount, the Act provides that, upon the 

request of the tribe, the Secretary shall conditionally 

approve the program up to the requested amount. The 

Secretary would then be required to submit to the appropriations committees of both Houses of Congress both the 

figure requested by the tribe and the figure indicated in 

the Secretary's budget. If Congress appropriates the tribal 

estimate, the tribe's budget would be increased up to that 

amo unt .

The bill should not constitute a means by which 

the Secretary of the Interior can ignore his own trust 

responsibility or attempt to shift this responsibility to 

Indian tribes. The goal of Indian self-determination should 

not be misused to become a prelude to the termination of 

the federal trust responsibility. We note that under the 

bill, the Secretary of the Interior would continue to 

exercise his trust responsibility in the administration of 

the program; he would simply not be allowed to substitute 

his judgment for that of the tribe in determining how funds 

were to be allocated among eligible projects. Since the 

bill thus appears to be consistent with both Indian selfdetermination and the trust responsibility of the United 

States, we do express our support of it.

We appreciate the opportunity to present this

statement.

Sincerely,

WILKINSON, CRAGUN & BAF
83

TESTIMONY

Hearings before Senate Indian A ff a ir s Committee on S. 2460 Ind ian Se lf-D ete rm ina tion and 

Education Assistance Amendments

When we speak ab ou t'Irid ian Se lf-D ete rm ina tion we need to assure real se lf-de te rm ination by having the capabili ty to do so. Not only does th is mean the resources of ca p ita l, land , equipment, e tc ., but also the manpower resources. To implement Indian se lf- dete rm in atio n, we need American Indians who are tra ined as profes sion als in a ll the various a c ti v it ie s and func tio ns th at a tr ib e must p a rt ic ip a te .i n , both w ithin and outside o f it s reservation lif e . The situation is such th at the re are serious in equitie s regarding the kinds and qualit y of hea lth , le gal, ed uc ationa l, business, e tc ., services av ailable on a rese rvation as compared to the general population of the United States. Although i t is well th at the government sees the tr ib es as becoming more in co ntro l o f the business of running and overseeing th e ir own a ff a ir s , i t is es se ntial too, th at some investment be made in to pro vid ing tra ined Ind ian personnel to accomplish any semblance 

to se lf- de te rm inat ion.

I t is th is investment in people th at we (A lS .Inc.) are concerned w ith. Of a ll investments made on be half of the Ind ian people i t would appear th at th is could be the most d ir e c t, in additi on to mul­ ti p ly in g the be ne fits over and over. The in div id uals with the pro­ fessiona l degrees would serve as ro le models fo r ch ild re n in the community, wh ile also working e ff e ctive ly with the people of the com­ munity to solve loca l problems according to what is best fo r the com­ mu nity. We have had ou tsiders who know l i t t l e or nothing of the peo­ ple and the community te ll us what is good fo r us too lon g; in sp ite of th is general knowledge, l i t t l e has been done to assure the "returns * 

to the community.

True, there is - p a rt ia l support fo r special programs from the BTA such as the MPH program at Berkeley, the education program at Penn­ sy lvan ia State, and the American Indian Law Program at the Unive rsity of New Mexico, but these have lim ited in te re sts . The ir objectives and clie n te le are specific to ce rtain areas of Indian concern. How­ ever, a tr ib e does not have in te re st or problems in ju s t these areas, but a vast array which would look at the community as a whole. A tr ib e needs a ll the profes sio na l expe rtise th at can be brought tog eth er co lle cti ve ly to promote and inplement re a li s tic goals fo r the community.

The Office of Education in HEW also has fello wsh ips fo r in divid uals pursuing graduate work, but th e ir grants are again lim ited to the five areas of law, medicine, engineering , business adm in is tration, and fo ­ re str y. I t may be well to se t p rio rit ie s , but th is should not li m it the choices of pro fes sio n th at an in divid ual can pursue. I f we as
84

Indian people agree to these directives and regu latio ns as set by 

in divid uals outside the community, then we are denying our own freedom of choice and the purs uit of happiness. Further, i f a ll the 

funds are invested in these sp ec ified fi e ld s , we may be ge tting less 

q u a lity , in th at a person who may have been an exc elle nt his to rian 

or musician, may only be a mediocre lawyer or engineer.

Another po int is th at with the federal monies going to in s tit u ­

tio ns of higher education to adminis ter graduate fe llo wsh ip s, such 

as T it le IX and T it le IV, lar ge po rtion s of the congressional a ll o ­

cations intended fo r gra nts get siphoned o ff the top fo r ad minis tra ­

ti v e costs. For instan ce , the OE-HEW, T it le IX, or Higher Education 

Act, stip ula te s th at the government pay the in s ti tu ti o n of higher 

education an allowance th at "is equal to the to ta l sum of stipends 

paid to fello ws attend ing th at in s ti tu a ti o n ." This seems as i f the 

in s ti tu ti o n gets a 100% ad ministrat ive fee with ou t providing any 

extra service s fo r these fe llo ws.

"This allowance is intended to pay fo r the in structional costs 

of the fe llow s." In othe r words the tu it io n and fees oth er graduate 

students pay. Thus i t may be th at these fello ws are paying more than 

othe r graduate stud ents fo r attendin g the same school. The maximum 

stipend fo r a fe llo w is $325 per month or $2925 fo r an academic year 

of nine months (two sem esters). Thus, fo r a student attending say UNK, 

fu ll -ti m e , where such a program exis ts , with nine hours of course 

work, the "reg ular " graduate student pays $387 fo r the two semesters 

($1134 fo r an out- of- sta te student) wh ile the fe llow pays $2925 fo r 

the same period.

The in equiti es apparent here do not need to be exp lain ed. But 

the reason fo r th is con tinu ed prac tic e does--to the students who are 

in financi al s tr a it s because of th e ir desire to pursue an advanced 

degree. Our experience shows th at most graduate students are married and have several dependents to support wh ile they take the time 

to go to school. Often times these federa l programs p ro hib it the 

students from engaging in ga inful employment. I t seems the funds 

would be more we ll spent by giving as much as po ssible to the students d ir e ctly.

Als o, we understand the cu rren t adm in is tration's emphasis on the 

implementation of 93-638, and commend e ff o rt s towards th is end, however, we cannot ignore the importance of a na tio na l organiz ation th at 

provides services to tr ib e s nation wide. AIS, Inc. is such an orga niza tio n. I f the hig her education monies are contracted out b it by 

b it to the various tr ib e s in the United States, i t is necessary th at 

some of th at money be used to support whatever adm in istrativ e costs 

are involved in disb ursing the funds to tr ib a l members. The ov erall 

e ff e ct of such an action, i f no oth er monies are pro vid ed, would be 

to se rio us ly diminis h what l i t t l e funds are ava ila ble fo r scholarships .
85

Along th is same course, trib a l educational agents would be 

funding only people from th e ir tr ib e . Tribes would be bid ding against 

each oth er, and i f contracts are based on a per ca pita count of t r i ­

bal members, the la rg er tr ib es would get more funds and sm aller trib es 

the le ast funds. Unless, the BIA sets a fund ing leve l fo r a ll schola rs hip ap plican ts, which would apply no ma tter what the pa rt ic u la r 

circumstances of each stu dent. Thus there needs to be some orga niza tio n th at can be unbiased in its e ff o rt s to provide a ll American 

Indians th is much needed profes sion al leadersh ip and exp er tis e.

AIS, In c.'s costs fo r ad ministering graduate scho larship funds 

have been very low compared to the costs stated above. For ins tance, 

th is academic year we were able to fund 229 students from a BIA contr a c t giving us $700,000 from October 1, 1977 to August 31, 1978.

The adm in istrativ e costs from th is amount to ta le d $76,945.91, or 

11% of the funds contracted from the Bureau. This le f t $623,054.09

* in d ir e ct student support. However, even th is was not enough, as 

we were not able to fund everyone the fu ll amount they needed, nor 

were we able to fund a ll the applic ants . From over 300 ap plican ts fo r 

the 77-78 academic year we were able to fund on ly 229, and th a t was

• by stretc hin g the funds as fa r as po ssible.

By the end of Febrary we had many ap plications already fo r the 

78-79 academic year, with appro xim ate ly two to fo ur per day arr iv in g 

in the d a ily mail. This ye arly increase in graduate ap plican ts is 

indeed encouraging and heartening to see, but at the same time 

ala rming , because we do not have the financia l resources to assis t 

them.

Car lotta P. Concha

Approved:
86

Fr i e d , F r a n k , Ha r r i s , S h r i v e r & Ra m p e l m a n

SU ITE IO O O.T HE WATERGATE 6 0 0

6 0 0 NEW HA MPSHIRE AVENUE. N.W.

WAS HING TON. O.C. 2 0 03 7

(202 ) 9 6 5 -9 4 0 0

CABLE "STERIC WASHINGTON"

TELEX 09 24 06

Fr i e d . Fr an k, Ha r r is ,

Sh r iv e r & J ac ob so n

OUR REFERENCE

November 10, 1977

U MV HOT If

Ms. Kathryn H. Tijernia

3158 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re: Proposed Amendment to P.L. 93-638

Dear Ka thy:

My apologies for not getting to you my comments on the 

proposed amendment to Public Law 93-638 sooner. Several 

crises have intervened.

As to the draft bill, I have the following thoughts.

The new section 105 is intended, as I understand, to 

simplify the procedures by which a tribe may administer a 

Bureau program or programs by allowing the tribe, at its 

option, to obtain a "block grant” instead of a contract.

I think it is important to look very closely at the ways 

in which the amendment would actually realize this intention and also at ways in which it might have the opposite 

effect.

First, as to the positive side, by obtaining approval 

of a section 2 plan, the tribe will be enabled to move funds 

around within the activities covered by the plan. Apparently, 

under section 2(b) (2) , section 2(c) (2), and section 4 the 

tribe has the absolute right to set funding priorities within 

the limits of the dollars covered by the plan, subject, of 

course, to the declination criteria (repeated from the existing law in section 2(c)(1)). If the tribe's plan requests 

more money than the Bureau expects to have under the President's budget request to Congress, the Secretary is required 

to submit the tribe's request to the Congress with appropriate 

information comparing the tribal request to the Presidential 

request. Inclusion of funds requested in the plan remains, 

of course, conditional on the Congressional appropriation.
On the negative si de , I am concerned as to whether the 

bill really affords to tribes increased budgetary flexibility.

First, does the bill really authorize a tribe to move 

funds around from one b udget activity to another so long as 

the total amount covered by the plan does not exceed Congressional appropriation? As noted above, it gives the impression that it does this, but what is the effect of the language in section (c)(4) directi ng the Secretary to approve a 

plan "which required funding up to the amount the Secretary 

would have otherwise provided for his operation of the program or portion thereof for the period covered by the plan."

Suppose a tribe's plan covers all agency operations, 

including social services, law enforcement, education, realty 

services, land operations, etc. I have the following questions as to how the amendmen t would work under this situation.

(1) Would a tribal plan be able to increase the portion

of the budget used for counsel ing services for welfare clients 

and decrease the amount for grants (i.e., "hand-outs"), or 

would such a change require Congressional action?

(2) Would the tribe be able to transfer funds from education 

to law enforcement, or vice versa, or from land operations to 

education, etc., if these are its choices, or could the Bureau 

take the position that Congressional action was necessary to 

make such transfers? The answer to this and the foregoing 

question is necessary in orde r to be able to explain what the 

term "program" means in section (c)(4).

(3) Section (c)(4) provides that the amount which the 

Secretary would otherwise have for operation of the program 

shall "include direct costs, indirect costs and a dministra ­

tive costs for the operati on of the program."

This language contains an ambiguity which could lead to 

a curtailm ent under the amendment of an important right which 

tribes now have under the pr esen t Act and 638 contracting procedures. Does the phrase "indirect costs and administrative 

costs" refer to the Bureau's indirect costs and administrative 

costs and require that these be included in the plan budget?

Or does it mean that tribal indirect costs must come out of 

the maximum determined under section 2( c) (4)?
88

Under the presen t 638 regulations a tribe is entitled 

to at least the Bureau's own program costs (including BIA 

administrative and indirect costs) plus tribal indirect 

costs based on the negotiation of an overhead rate with 

the Interior Department's Office of Audit and Investigation. Without this provision, a tribe would be required 

to subsidize the operation of the prog ram in order to 

manage it under 638.

(4) While the requirement that tribal requests in excess 

of the BIA funding level be presented to the Congress is 

desirable, it certainly provides no assurance as to the 

availability of funds for the tribal plan.

(5) In vie w of the foregoing, I have some doubt as to 

whether the amendment would really provide greater budge tary flexibility to tribes than they have now under 638 contracting procedures provided such procedures are followed 

by the Bureau and the Indian Health Service. Instances in 

which the agencies have not followed their own regulations 

and procedures have occurred. If a tribe is knowledgeable 

and aggressive in insisting on its rights under the reg ulations, the agencies (at least the BIA) have, in my 

experience at least, been forced into compliance.

(6) One continui ng problem is the uncertainty as to what 

is the amount of the tribal entitlement under the language 

"the amount that the Secretary would have otherwise provided 

for his operation of the program or portion thereof for

the period covered..." The use of this language in the 

amendment carries the same problem over from the contracting situation. The Bureau's internal bookk eeping procedures are such that it may well be impossible to determine 

the amount spent by the Bureau on the p rogram up to the 

point of contrac ting (see enclosed letter from the Juneau 

Area Off ice), leaving the decision as to the amount avail ­

able for the future in the arbitrary discr etion of the Bureau

On the other hand, the statutory language has proved 

useful to the tribes. In almost every instance of which 

I am aware the Bureau has ultimately agreed that "the 

Secretarial funding level" was actually higher than it 

first said it was.
(7) It may be that one of the reasons for expressions of 

support for a "block grant" is the desire of tribes to eliminate mandatory contract clauses now included in 638 con ­

tracts. I do not believe that the amendment would have any 

effect on this issue. Each Secretary can under P.L. 93-638 

now dra w up standard mandatory clauses for 638 contracts without reference to other contracting laws. I note that the 

amendment does not contain any specific authorization for the 

issuance of regulations. I assume that this is because section 107 of the existing Act would be applicable. Under section 107 the Secretaries will undoubtedly promulgate regulations providing for standard grant conditions. It can be 

anticipated that these conditions would cover many of the same 

matters now covered with such variations as the respective 

agencies consider appropriate in view of the use of a "grant," 

instead of a "contract." HEW grant conditions have historically been extremely complex and often irrationally burdensome to grantees.

(8) I note that in section 1(b) the Secretary of the Interior 

is authorized but not directed to make grants under approved 

plans although under section 2 (a) he "shall provide financial 

assistance..." To clarify this ambiguity I suggest that "and 

directed" be inserted after "authorized" in section 1(b).

(9) Is it intended for the Secretary of the Interior to make 

grants from funds appropriated to HEW which section 1 (b) 

seems to indicate? Is this workable?

(10) One final question: Doesn't the requirement for preparation of the "plan" add an additional layer of paper work in 

the event that the amendment is interpreted to require the 

processing of a "plan" and then the processing of a grant 

application?

Again, my apologies for the delay in transmitting these 

thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Don't 

hesitate to call if you have any other questions. I would 

like very much to see any subsequent version of the bill.

Sincerely
90

RECEIVE P-OCT 2 6 ,j/7

IN REPL>

U N IT E D S T A T E S

D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E IN T E R IO R 

BU RE AU OF IN DIA N AFF AIR S

Juneau Area Office 

P. O. Box 3 8000 

Juneau, Alaska 99802

O cto ber 20 , 1977

S. Bobo Dean

F rie d , F ra nk, H a r r is , S h riv e r 

& Kampelman

S u it e 10 00 , The W ate rg ate 600 

600 New Ha mpshire Ave nu e, N.W 

W as hi ng to n, D.C. 200 37

Dear Mr. Dean:

Dur in g f i s c a l y e a rs 1971 th ro ugh 1977 no re c o rd was kep t 

o f th e ro ad m ain te nance d o lla r am ou nts sp e n t a t A nnet te 

Is la n d . Our r e p o r tin g sy st em re c o rd s th e money sp en t by 

th e ty pe o f work p erf orm ed on an Are a- w id e b a s i s . In th e 

p a st we ha ve not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d as to th e am ou nt sp e n t in 

th e v a rio u s v i l l a g e s . The b e s t in fo rm a ti o n we ca n giv e 

you is an e s tim a te b ase d on th e numb er o f lo c a tio n s we 

wo rked a t an d th e Are a budget fo r th a t p a r t i c u l a r y e a r.

The fo ll o w in g f ig u r e s

F is c a l Ye ar

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

r e p re s e n t su ch an e s tim a te :

Amount Spent a t 

A nnett e Is la n d

• $20 ,0 00 

20,0 00 

18 ,0 00 

19 ,0 00 

20,0 00 

25 ,0 00 

35 ,0 00

S in c e re ly y o u rs,
91

C .C E 1V E 0 W 7 laz/

COUNCIL ANNETTE ISLANDS RESERVE -

W a l l y L ea se. M ayor

M ar gar et M ar sd en. Sec retary

Ro n a l d M il n e, T reasur er

M e t l a k a t l a I nd ia n C o m m u n it y

T o w n o r M e t la k a t la

P. O. Box 8

M e t l a k a t l a , A la ska 99 026 

E sta b lis h e d 1887

October 31, 1977

Cla ren ce Anticq uia , Area Di re cto r 

Jur.eau Area Offic e 

P.O. Bax 3-8000 

Juneau, Alaska 99802

RE: Metlak atla Indian Cannunity 

Foa ls Maintenance Program

Dear Mr. Anticquia:

This is in response to th e Area O ff ic e's le tt e r of October 20, 1977 to the 

Corn-unity's Factern Counsel, S. Boho Dean, which informed Mr. Dean o f estima tes 

o f road maintenance d ollars spe nt at Annette Isl and. As you knew, the Council 

had th is information requested in order to deve lop a proposa l to contract, the 

Anne tte Isla nds roads maintenance program under P.L , 93-638,

The Council vehemently pr ot es ts th is le tt e r. The le tte r is an in su lt to the 

Me tla katla Indian Cannunity. The le tt e r has grave implicatio ns as to the re la tion ­

ship between the Area O ffic e and the Metlakatla Indian Cannunity and re fl ect s 

an at titu de in the Area O ffic e which se rio us ly undermines the Federal government's 

p oli cy of Indian Self-D ete rmina tion. In li g h t of the Co un ci l's dis sa ti sf act io n with th is resp onse, the Council 

hereby form ally req ues ts pursu ant to 25 CFR § 271.16 de sc ript io n o f the Annette 

Island s Reservation Roads Maintenance Prograrr. as operated by the Bureau and an 

id enti fi ca ti on of the Bureau's d ir e ct co sts fo r the program.

cc : S. Bobo Dean, Esq 

Trimpthean War Canoe

Yours tru ly.
' ' • n i n t ^ i p n u n i n ' i f m i t n i i r i i n n i n f j t i t i z / r rtr r- t x z

DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 

SHIPROCK BRANCH - BOX 580 

SHIPROC K, NEW MEXICO 8 7 4 2 0 5 0 5 - 3 6 8 - 5 1 3 1

5 0 5 - 3 6 8 - 5 1 3 2

No ve mb er 4, 1 9 7 7

S e n a to r Ja m es A b o u re z k , C ha ir m an 

S e le c t C om m itte e on I n d ia n A f f a i r s 

D ir k so n S e n a te O f f i c e B u il d in g 

Room 5 32 5

W ash in g to n , p .C . 2 0 2 1 5

A tt n : K a th e r in e H a r r i s T e j e r i n a

D ea r S e n a to r A boure zk:

Tha nk yo u f o r p r o v id i n g me w it h a co py o f y o u r p ro p o s e d 

am en dm en ts t o P L 9 3 - 6 3 8 . W hi le I am n o t f a m i l i a r w it h a l l th e 

p ro b le m s a s s o c i a t e d w it h c o n t r a c t i n g an d g r a n t s p u r s u a n t to 

6 3 8 , I h av e J u s t r e c e n t l y be co me aw ar e o f th e r e q u ir e m e n ts 

o u t l i n e d in 6 38 r e g u l a t i o n s r e g a r d in g f r o n t e n d mon ey .

In s t u d y in g y o u r p ro p o s e d am en dm en ts I ' v e a r r i v e d a t 

th e o b s e r v a ti o n t h a t t h e b lo c k g r a n t m ec han is m p ro p o s e d i s n o t 

f u l l y th e a n sw e r t o f r o n t end fu n d in g . E s p e c i a l l y s in c e in y o u r 

c o v e r l e t t e r y o u i n d i c a t e t h a t th e c o n t r a c t i n g and g r a n t p r o ­

v i s i o n s now i n 6 3 8 w ou ld be l e f t i n t a c t . W h il e t h e b lo c k g r a n t 

a p p ro a c h may b e lo o k e d up on a s th e a n sw e r t o f r o n t en d money 

a v a i l a b i l i t y , b lo c k g r a n t s a r e n o rm a ll y o n ly a c o n s o l i d a t i o n 

o f s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i c a l g r a n t s . By r e t a i n i n g t h e r u l e s p r e ­

s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 7 6 .1 0 o f 6 3 8 r e g u l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g g r a n t s , 

a d is b u rs e m e n t p r o c e d u r e i s la y e d o u t i n h i b i t i n g a d v an c e d 

fu n d in g a s , I' m s u r e , I n d ia n t r i b e s w ou ld l i k e t o h a v e .

A c a s e in p o i n t i s th e N av aj o Co mm unity C o l l e g e 's i n a b i l i t y 

t o r e c e i v e fu n d s i n a d v a n c e du e t o th e s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t i o n 

c i t e d a b o v e . BIA i s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t can o n ly ad v an c e 1 /1 2 

o f NCC 's a n n u a l a l l o c a t i o n b a s e d on p r o j e c t e d m o n th ly e x p e n d it u r e s . NCC w ould r a t h e r h av e 25% o f i t s a n n u a l a l l o c a t i o n in 

a d v an ce b u t t h e BIA c i t e s S e c ti o n 2 7 6 .1 0 w h ic h p r o h i b i t s ad ­

v a n ce s i n am o u n ts n e c e s s a r y t o s t a r t - u p a p ro g ra m .

To c ir c u m v e n t t h i s p ro b le m , I w ou ld s u g g e s t t h a t th e w o rd s , 

"Th e am ou nt a p p ro v e d f o r g r a n t s s h a l l be co me a v a i l a b l e i n a d ­

v a n ce d q u a r t e r l y in c r e m e n ts f o r o b l i g a t i o n on O c to b e r 1 o f eac h 

F i s c a l Y ea r an d s h a l l re m a in a v a i l a b l e u n t i l o b l i g a t e d , " be i n ­

s e r t e d in th e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e . T h is i s p a r a p h r a s e d from 

S e c ti o n ( 1 0 3 ) . ( a ) ( 1 ) o f P L 9 3 -3 8 3 w hic h I b e l i e v e i s th e f i r s t 

ti m e th e b lo c k g r a n t m ec ha ni sm wa s u s e d .
93

Of c o u rs e , th e r e w i l l be nee d f o r a d d i tio n a l la n g u ag e to 

c l a r i f y th e p o in t. A noth er s u g g e s ti o n m ig ht be t h a t 80% o f 

g ra n t fu n d s be ad van ce d to ea ch g ra n te e a t th e s t a r t o f a 

pr ogra m an d 20% p a id o u t p r i o r to c lo s in g o u t o f a g r a n t 

p e rio d o r F is c a l Y ea r.

W hi ch ev er way th e advanced fu n d in g pro ble m i s a d d re s s e d , 

i t w i l l m os t c e r ta in l y r e q u ir e ch angin g th e r e g u la tio n s an d o r 

a u th o r iz in g th e S e c r e ta r y s to w ai ve any re q u ir e m e n ts when 

la c k o f s u f f i c i e n t cash fl ow w i l l c r e a te un du e p ro b le m s.

I ho pe th e ab ov e w i l l be o f some u se .

S in c e r e ly ,

D ir e c to r

Dev elop men t O ffic e

*

►

25-601 0 - 78 - 7
94

TH E NAVAJO N ATIO N

W IN D O W ROCK. NA VA JO NATIO N IA R IZ O N A I 8 6 5 1 5

APR 1 4 ISTfc

P E T E R M A C D O N A LD

CHAIRMAN. NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL

WILSO N C. SKEET 

VICE CHAIRMAN. NAVAJO TRIBAL C OUNCIL

The Hon or ab le Jam es Ab ourez k 

U ni te d S ta te s Sen at e 

S e le c t Com mit tee on In d ia n A ffa ir s 

53 31 D irk se n Sen at e O ffic e B uil din g 

W ashing ton, D. C. 205 10

Dea r S en ato r Ab our ezk : A

He re a re th e comm ents o f th e Na va jo N at io n co n ce rn in g S .2 4 6 0 , th e 

In dia n S e lf -D e te rm in a ti o n an d E duca tion A ss is ta n c e Ac t ame ndm ent.

We a re in t o t a l su p p o rt o f th e b i l l . As you w il l r e c a l l , a t th e 

Sen at e S e le c t Co mm itte e on In d ia n A f f a ir s o v e rs ig h t h e a rin g on P u b li c Law *•

9 3-6 38 held in A lb uq ue rq ue , New Mexi co, in Ju n e , 19 77, we p re s e n te d a

le n g th y w rit te n s ta te m e n t an d an o ra l st ate m e n t d e li v e re d by m y se lf . In 

bo th o f th e s e p r e s e n ta ti o n s we e x p la in ed how P u b li c Law 9 3 -6 3 8 do es no t 

a c t u a ll y all ow m ea nin gfu l t r i b a l s e lf -d e te r m in a ti o n . I t m er el y p ro v id e s a 

mec hanism fo r c o n tr a c ti n g BIA and IHS pr og ra m s.

As you w ell know by now, th e c o n tr a c ti n g mode o f d e a li n g w ith th e 

BIA and IHS le a v es much to be d e s ir e d . Alth ou gh th e in t e n t o f "6 38 " i s c l e a r , 

th e BIA and IHS s t i l l h as an op en o p p o rt u n it y to d e la y , im pe de , ca m ou fla ge , 

and o th e rw is e h in d e r th e " s e lf -d e te rm in a ti o n " e f f o r t s o f T r ib e s . And th ey 

a re m ast er s a t t h i s .

The o n ly way to av oid t h i s i s n o t to begin c o n tr a c ti n g n e g o ti a ti o n s 

w ith the m. T hi s is whe re th e valu e o f g ra n ts i s r e a l i z e d . As I s ta te d in 

A lb uq ue rq ue , th e me chani sm th ro ugh wh ich s t a t e and lo c a l go ve rn m en ts re c e iv e 

fe d e ra l fu nd in g to c a r r y o u t pr og ram s to se rv e t h e i r c i t i z e n s i s th a t o f 

g r a n ts . The g ra n t me ch ani sm all ow s g r e a te r f l e x i b i l i t y in th e d esi gn and 

co nd uc t o f pr og ra m s, an d p u ts th e fe d e ra l gr an tm ak in g ag en cy in much more 

o f an "a rm 's le n g th " r e l a t i o n s h i p to th e lo c a l o r s t a t e go ve rn m en ta l e n tity 

re c e iv in g th e fu n d s. I f th e $3 1 m il li o n t h a t th e N av aj o T ri b e c o n tr a c ts 

from th e BIA we re to become a s in g le lin e ite m in th e B u re au 's bu dg et fo r 

F is c a l Year 19 79 , and wer e to be s e t a s id e as an e n ti tl e m e n t to th e Na vajo 

T ri b e , to be aw ard ed a s a g ra n t upon su bm is si on o f p la n f o r i t s u se, ta k in g 

in to ac co un t a l l th e o th e r ne ed s o f th e Na va jo T ri b e an d th e re s o u rc e a v a i l ­

a b le to i t , we wou ld, f o r th e f i r s t ti m e , be a b le to u se th e s e fu nd s f o r p u rpo se s r e la te d to T r ib a l p r i o r i t i e s , r a th e r th a n c o n ti n u in g to acco mmo date th e 

s e lf - p r o te c tiv e i n s t i n c t s o f a fe d e ra l b u re a u cra c y .

*
In one major ar ea we ar e a lr e ad y us in g a si m il a r ap pr oa ch . For 

th is ye ar we re ceiv e a si n g le "b lo ck " g ra n t from th e IHS. Th is g ra n t is ad m in is te re d by ou r D iv isio n o f H ea lth Improvement Se rv ic es which th en awards su b -c o n tr acts to o th er h e alt h se rv ic e p ro v id ers . Th is pr oc es s doe s no t nee d 

to re q u ir e th e pe rm ission o f e it h e r th e S ecre ta ry o f th e I n te r io r o r H.E.W. 

how ever.

To make th is more wo rk ab le, i t i s im po rta nt th a t s u f f ic ie n t fun ds ar e a v a il a b le to allo w fo r in d ir e c t c o s ts a t th e "actu al au dited c o st le v e l. " Our ex pe ri en ce with "63 8" th us f a r shows th a t th is i s a ma jor prob lem. To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s , co nc er ning th e BIA, we re ceiv e on ly $2 00 ,0 00 o f an es tim at ed nee d o f $ 2 .8 m il li o n fo r in d ir e c t and c o n tr a c t su pp or t c o sts . The s it u a ti o n wi th th e IHS i s sim il a r. I t mig ht be im po rtan t to p o in t ou t th a t th e "F ed er al Gra nt and Coo pe ra tiv e Agreement A ct ", P ubli c Law 95-2 24, which d efi n es c o n tr a cts and g ra n ts and e li g ib le gover nm ent al e n t i t i e s , doe s no t me nti on In di an tr ib a l go vernm ents. We hope th is w il l no t de ve lo p in to a pro ble m. We would app re cia te 

you lo ok in g a t th is and ad vi si ng us o f yo ur fi n d in g s.

With th is I would li k e to ur ge you to ta ke a l l st ep s to se e th a t th is 

b i l l is pa ss ed in to law and p le ase l e t me know i f th ere is an yt hi ng I can do to he lp ac hi ev e t h is . Your su pp or t and a tt e n ti o n to In di an a f f a ir s i s to be 

commended and I si n c ere ly ap p re cia te yo ur work.

R esp ectf u ll y ,
96

NATIONAL INDIAN M A N A Q G M G N T SeR V IC eS , INC.

March 29,? 197 ^ ~ :

Honorable James Abourezk 

United States Senate 

Se lec t Committee on Indian A ffairs 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Abourezk:

Thank you fo r forwarding a copy of the proposed amendment to Public Law 93- 

638, S.2460.

I believe you have introduced le g is la tio n which could provide valuable fl e x ­

ib ilit y to tribes that would wish to take advantage of i t in pursuing the 

course of Indian Se lf-D ete rmina tion. Of course, a ll trib es may not wish to 

take advantage of th is new option in a T it le I I I of the Act. Some trib es may 

prefer the re la tively more secure co ntra ct mechanism, under which cos t overruns are allowed re gula rly, over the gra nt approach, under which, when the 

dolla rs run out, they are gone, whether or not i t is the end of the fiscal 

year or no t. Of course, tribes with adequate fin an cial and repo rting systems 

should not run into tro ub le with grants.

I believe language could be included to c la rif y section 302 (c )(6) somewhat 

as i t pertains to the Band An alysis and the cu rre nt Congressional budget process. Should a tr ib a l plan based on the cu rre nt budget level fo r, say, three 

cu rre nt Bureau programs, what happens to the allo ca tio n in the next fisc al 

year? Will i t be based on a div is io n of the gra nt amount into three arb itra ry 

parts fo r the purpose of ca lcula tin g the President's budget request? Were the 

lin e items to be maintained, th is would be no problem. However, I in te rp re t 

section 302 (a ): "a sin gle conso lida ted grant in lie u of or in ad ditio n to 

the contracts under sections 102 and 103" as allowing the p ri o rit iz a ti o n in 

use of lin e item funds to occur at the tr ib a l le vel; fo r example increasing

funds fo r Ag ric ulture Extension Services because of assignment of a lower ___

p rio rit y to Soil and Moisture Conservation-type a c ti v it ie s . I fear th at con- / 

tr a ct funds converted to grant use could be lo st along the lin e in the budget/ 

process unless proper safeguards are prescribed in the b ill. 7

I t would also be extremely he lpful to many of the tribes that our fir m has 

aided in the past, i f the b ill could contain some so lutio n fo r the dilemma 

trib es face in the approval of in d ir ect cost rates. I discussed th is problem 

in a le tt e r to OMB, a copy of which was published (on page 461) in the record 

of the hearings before the Select Committee on Indian A ffairs on the Implementa tion of Public Law 93-638, June 7 and 24, 1977.
The re ply (attached) which we rece ived from OMB said th at BI A maintained i t 

had "n ot received any correspondence on th is subje ct from trib a l governments 

or org aniza tions representing tr ib a l governments." We ourselves have writte n 

se ve ral. The le tt e r goes on to st ate that "OMB has not ye t prescribed cost 

principle s fo r Indian Trib al Governments," yet our c li e n t tr ib es are being 

req uired to sign o ff on "C e rt if ic a ti o n by Agency Government O ff ic ia l" form 

th at th e ir in direct cost proposals conform with FMC 74-4.

The fi n a l and task force repo rts o f the American Indian Po licy Review Commission repeatedly decry the lack of support fo r general costs of tr ib a l governments. Without the requirements of FMC 74-4, these costs could certain ly 

be considered in direct. Tr ibal governments are simply not the same as state or 

loc al governments, and th e ir circumstances are unique. Tribes were set up under the auspices of the Indian Reorganization Act, which make them, le gally, 

unique e n ti ti e s . Perhaps some language could be added to the b ill to make th is fa ct cle ar to OMB and In te ri o r in the negotiation of in dire ct co st rates.

O ver- all, I believ e the b ill to be a po sitiv e development, and thank you fo r 

the op po rtu nity to comment on i t .

Sinc erely,

P H illip Martin^ 

President

Enclosures
98

NATIONAL iNOtAN 6nt services, Inc.

r ' - n a w g a r a if f

APR 31978 '

Mr. Ray Bu tle r, Ac tin g Coualealc

Bureau of Indian A ff air s

1951 Co ne tltutloo Avenue, I.V .

Washington, D. C. 202*5

4

Dear Ray:

Since I le f t the p osi ti on of Tr iba l Chalrnan of th e M is siss ip pi Band of

Choctaw Indians In July , 197 5, *• have es ta blish ed Ra tio nal Indian Managenent

Ser vice , Ino . (RIMS). RIMS Is an Indian-owned aanagensnt co ns ultin g fr ln es tablish ed to pro vide tr ain in g and teoh nioa l as slstan oe se rv ic es to re oe lp lent s of

of fede ra l gra nts and co nt ra ct s ( l . e . , Coanunlty Action Ag encie s, he alth boards,

tr ib al governnents and a ss ocia ti on s, scho ol boards, e t c .) Having serv ed 18 yea rs

In tr ib a l governnent (10 ye ars as Tribal Chalrnan), I f e e l th at the knowledge and

exp erle noe gained en ab les our firm to be of gre at as sl st an oe to tr ib al governnents

In dev elopin g a vi able or ga ni sa tio n which neats the requ ire nents of fede ra l ag en ci es .

-

We have been wor king, p rl narl ly , with Indian tr ib a l goveranents throughout

the country — having su ccess fu ll y oonpleted s ix co ntr ac ts . We have v is it ed

nunerous tr ib es, se ek ing bu sin ess under P.L . 93-6 38 re qu iren en ts, and we would n t *

to rel ate to you sone of the pro bleas th at we have enoountered and nake rec oan enda tlo ns that we fe e l could be hel pfu l la lnplen en tln g th e In te nt of ee lf -d et er nla ntl on for tr ib al go verane nts. We discus sed Training and Teo hnioal Asslstan oe pro -

grans under 93-6 38 with Mr. Wayne Ch attln , of your s t a f f , during a v is it on March

There la no doubt In our nlnds th at good nanagensn t Is a najo r fa ctor la

Indian co ntr ai l of Ind ian a ffa ir s . On oar v is it s to va riou s tr ib es we find th at

■any are In need of down -to-ea rth as sl st an oe In the levs lspn en t of ha sle * n i « .

We have found th at tr ain in g o f people 2AMX le v e l has been gr eoely 1 S it in g ,

and th at without adequate teoh nioa l ass ls ta noe, tr ib es ar e pla ced la the dUean a

of wanting to gain co nt ro l of th eir In sti tu ti o n s, but no t be lag cap able. Many

firm s and the governnent I t s e l f provide as slstan oe p ie eem a l, la abort v is it s or

off -r es er va tlan tr ain in g se ssio n s, which lead s to oon fua lun , lsndoqusto In fu ses

ti o n , and Inadequate fo llow -* *. Vo bel ie ve a acr e r e a lis tic approach la to provid e long -te rn ln -d ep th , o n -e lt e as sl st aa oe to tr ib a l o f f ic ia ls , ad minist rators,

and fi so a l and progras s t a f f whloh would bo des igned on th e ir le v el end ae et th ei r

sp ecif ic needs.

We have In te re st ed se ve ra l tr ib ee who wanted to do bu sin es s with us , but the y

have not been able to u t ilis e our se rv ic es because of bu rea ucratic procedures in ­

volved in the use of tr ain in g and teoh nioa l ae elstan oe fund s. In our recent v is it s

with the Anadarko Area O ff ic e, we were lnfo rne d that th e Area Offloe was al lo ca te d

*1,058,1*98 fo r 638 gran ts fo r IT '77, of whloh 23.2**%, or $2*6,00 0, was bald back

5
99

by the Area Office for T A T/A. tfe were, also, told t hat we w ou ld h ave to go to

the Tri bes and Interest the* in o ur serv ices and t hat the tribe w ou ld make the

deci si on o n wh o they wa nted to pr ov id e such servi ces — wh ic h we did. We found

that this is not true. As as exa mpl e, we vis ited a nd set w ith offic ial s of

sev eral tribes reg arding ou r desire to provide a ssi sta noe in the dev elo pme nt of

a Com prehensive Manag eme nt Plan wh ic h w ould in clude org ani sat ional and fi n a n cial

manage me nt systems; t r a in i n g of perso nne l; and the develop men t o f an I n di rect

Cos t Pro pos al and Cost All ocation Plan, ail of the above, in ac cordance with the

requirements of P.L. 93-63 8. The Tribe was the n instructe d b y the Ar ea Office

that they wo uld have to solicit bi ds from 3 f irms for thei r review. The Tribe

ob tained the 3 bids, and submitted th em to the Are a O ffi ce — d es ignating our

firm as their choice. Although t he Tribe wanted our serv ices, the Ar ea Office

made the sel ection on the basis of lowes t bidder. We have inv ested a considerable

amount o f time and mo ney on the be li ef th at the Tribe had the right to make the

selection 'an d that the Are a Office w as there to lend their suppo rt. So, in the

fin al analysis, the Tribe doe s no t mak e the sel ection bu t has to be sat isfied with

wh om the Ar ea Offic e selects.

Afte r considerable time, we we re fortunate e nou gh to comple te one cont ract

with a T rib e in the Anadar ko Area — for the d eve lop men t o f a n Indirect Cost Proposal a nd C ost Al locat ion Plan. Al th ou gh the Trib e submit ted ou r payment vouchers

to the Ar ea Office in January, we h av e not, to this date, received th e first

dolla r for our work — we have be an inf ormed that these v oucher s ar e still in the

Area Off ice. Ano ther exam ple — in t he Aberde en Area, we c omp leted a con tract w ith

a tribe in October, 1976, and, as of t his date, we have not receiv ed fina l p ayment

for t hes e ser vices alt hou gh the Tr ib e sub mitted the v ouc her s som etime ago. The

polici es of the BIA are not co nsistent t hrough out the natio n. To r instance, working wi th 3 trib es in the Easte rn Area, the Are a Direot or has wo rk ed di rec tly with

the tribe s and supported t hen on the pro cur eme nt of T A T/A servio es acc ording to

their wis hes . This is the approa ch, I be lieve, which sho uld be instituted nat ionwide.

The pur pos e of this lette r i s to identi fy cer tain weakn ess es in the reg ula ­

tions of P.L. 93-638, and to m ake some recommend ati ons w hi ch wou ld spe ed- up the

pro ces s an d be ben efi cia l t o the tribes.

o Idea lly, the grant a nd t ec hn ic al assistance porti on of 6 38 s hould be

adm ini stered out of the Ce nt ra l O ffi ce and negoti ate d d ir ec tl y with the

tribal governments. The Ce nt ra l Office coul d e sta bli sh a gra nts man ageme nt office which wo ul d pr ov id e the follow ing functio ns: 1) grant

pro cessing; 2) cont racting; 3) T A T/A; and 5) mon ito rin g and evaluation.

Th is woul d eli minate r ed -t ap e at the Area a nd Ag en cy leve ls. Pre cedence

for granting of fund s to tr ib al g overnments has bee n set by progr ams

such as ONAP, OE, DOL, an d oth ers. If the Tribe wishes to con tra ct

BIA-opera ted programs at th e loca l leve l the Tribe could then ne got iate

through the local Agency.

o Ve r ecomm end that awardi ng of grants shou ld inolude built-in t ech nic al

assis tan oe money so t hat t he tribe can b uy T A T/ A and ut il is e the

firms that t hey wis h to use wi th ou t h avi ng to get appro val fr om every -

• bo dy i n the country. Fund s in the local budg et wo ul d e lim inate red-tape
100

and would expedite the procu reaent and paymen t for the se services. This

wou ld place more responsibility on triba l gove rnment s for the m anagement

and implementation of th ei r own affairs in acc orda nce wi th P.L. 93-63 8

and the Intent of C ong ress.

o We think that the reg ula tio ns, specifi cal ly Part 276.16, Sections C.9.

and D.6., should b e changed to a llow tribal o ffic ials to parti cipat e

ful ly in 9 3-638 and be com pensate d as adm ini stra tors of triba l governments. The eco nomy of ma ny tribes is d epe nden t u pon fede ral funds

(i.e., BIA, IHS, and tri bal ). Tribal govern ments , in man y cases, do

not have their own triba l funds to comp ensa te tribal offici als for their

duties and employment. The intent of the law was to str eng the n t ribal

governments. However, if t rib al officials are eliminat ed, by virture

of their position, it see ms that s elf -de termina tion and stre ngthe ning

of tribal governments canno t become a reali ty for the Tribes . If, how ­

ever, a tribal official mu st receive pri or appr ova l for full-tim e salar y

(as s pecified in the Fe deral R egi ste r — Part 276, Se ction C -9 -)» from

the BIA, w e r eco mme nd th at it n ot be at the Age ncy Su per int end ent or the

Are a Office level, but fr om s omeone that the Cos mls slo ner designates at

the Central Office. This wo ul d m inim iae direct cont rol of feder al

officials over local tribal officials.

o We wou ld recommend, in conne ction wit h the above, that BIA not force

the tribes to comply with the provisio ns of FMC 7**-1* (Atta chmen t 9,

Sec tio n D.6.) which place s tribal officials in the same category as

state and local o ffi cia ls (unallow able costs.) This has b een I nterprete d

und er 638 regulations; however, the language in PMC 7*+-^ has no reference to tribal councils or officials. Federal, state and local govern ­

ments are operated on f unds derive d f rom a tax-base syste m. It is true

that some tribal con stituti ons provide for the tax ati on of their constituents — this is unrea listic due to the poor e conomy and low income

of the people on t he reservati ons .

o We recomm end that the Indirect Cost Prop osa l and Cost A llo cat ion Plan

develo ped by the Tribe be sub mitted di rec tly to the app rop ria te Dep art ­

ment of the Interior's Of fice of Audit a nd Investi gati ons wit h a copy

forwarded to the appro priate A rea Office for their inf orma tion . Just

a p oin t of informati on re garding Indirect Cost Prop osal s, the various

federa l agencies (HEW, DOL, BIA, etc.) are re qui rin g that rates be

establish ed by their own ag en cy — thi s somet imes r equ ire s severa l

proposals for each tribe, the reb y crea tin g mor e e xpe nse to the Tribes.

o We would r ecomme nd that the procureme nt pro cedures a nd regu latio ns

pertain ing to T & T/A services for tribes, with pri vat e firms, be

wai vered to the extent t hat Tribes wou ld not have to fol low the bid

proces s for B IA- control led T 4 T/A servic e contracts In amounts up

to $15,000. Most t rib es do not ha ve the staff an d/o r the expertise

required to handle the bi d process, as requir ed by BIA, and generally

the need for ass istance is crucial and prevalent. We be lie ve it is in

the best interest o f the Tri be to solic it propo sals to deter mine which

firms w ould provide the ser vic es they need, and once the sele ctio n has
been made by the Trib e i t should be honored and resp ec ted by the BIA. It

is d if fic u lt fo r tr ib es and small bu sin ess concerns to go through th is

lo ng- te rn ne go tiat io n fo r se rv ic e contracts fo r such sn ail amounts.

o We would recomend th at th e Fed eral Procurement Re gulat ion s (S ec tio n

IUH-7O.6IO) per ta in in g to "Use of Indian Bus iness Concerns" in subco nt ra cting be enfor ced .

o La st, but not le a s t, we would recommend th at pr ior to the annual meeting

to con sider re vis io ns to P.L. 93- 638 , th at BIA es ta b li sh a Task Force

composed of person s knowledgeable in tr ib al government op er ations and

who have exp erie nced problems in attempting to implement th es e reg ula ­

ti ons (through T & T/A co nt ra ct s with tr ib e s), to study and as se ss th ei r

eff ecti ven ess . Any changes in the 93-638 re gu latio ns sho uld be recommended and endorsed by a majo rit y of the Tr iba l Chairmen.

We do not intend to sound as i f we have a bone to pick with the BIA or

638 , but we are concerned sinc e th e concept of 638 and the in te nt of Congress

was so ld and endorsed by the Tr ibe s throughout the cou ntr y. This was going to

be a program desig ned to le t the tr ib es pla n, develop and manage th eir own a ff a ir s.

A lso, we think th at i t i s tim e to con sider Pr esi de nt Car ter's cohmitment to

re -o rg an ise the branches of government to elimina te in eff ic ie n cy and du plication of

se rvic es. We fe e l that i t is an opportune time fo r the BIA to develop a new system

which would be resp on sive , supp ortiv e and servan t to the Tr ibe s.

We would appreci ate re ce iv in g any o o n n ta you have conoem ing the cdn tents

of th is le tte r .

Si nc er el y,

Pr esiden t’ ’

PM:wt

cc: Wayne Chattin

O ff ic e of the President

C ec il Andrus, Secre tar y of the In te ri or

James Abourezk

Sid ney Tates

James 0. Eastland

John C. Ste nnis

G. V. Montgomery

David Bowne

Jamie Whitten

Chuck Trimble, NCAI

William Toupee, KTCA
102

EXECUTIV E OF FICE OF TH E PR ESI DENT 

O F F IC E OF M A N A G E M E N T A N D '• P G E F 

w a s m i n o ' •. :> «.

August 12, 1977

Mr. Phillip Martin 

President

National Indian Ma nagement 

Services, Inc.

P. O. Box 498

Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350

Dear Mr. Martin: <

This is in reply to your letter of July 1, 1977, which 

questions whether the cost principles covering State and 

local governments in FMC 74-4 should be applied by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs to Indian Tribal Governments. *

One specific problem that you mentioned in your letter 

was the provision in the cost principles which makes 

salaries and expenses of general government unallowable.

You stated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has included 

Indian Tribal Gover nments under this provision and strict 

enforcement of this could be disastrous. We brought this 

matter to the attention of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

They contend that they have not received any correspondence 

on this subject from tribal governments or organizations 

representing tribal governments. Further, they stated that 

many tribes have been given approval to fund salaries of 

tribal officers in connection with grant projects. You may 

want to follow up with them with your specific problems.

As you probably know, OMB has not yet prescribed cost 

principles for Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Federal agencies have 

discretion as to whether they use the State and local cost 

principles. However, we believe that one uniform set of 

cost principles is needed for Indian Tribal Governments, 

and we are working toward this goal with the Federal 

agencies and other interested parties.

Based on our work to date it appears that the FMC 74-4

cost principles might be appropriate for Indian Tribal

Governments. However, before promulgating any principles

for Indian Tribal Governments, we will make a careful *
analysis of the applic abili ty of provisions such as the 

one mentioned in your letter which may make the cost of 

Indian Tribal Councils unallowable.

If there are any other parts of the FMC 74-4 cost 

principles which you feel are not applicable to Indian 

Tribal Governments please let us know.

Sincerely,

• «* Zk - * / ,

Palmer Marcantonio 

Financial Management Branch 

Budget Review Division
104

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

P o lic y R e so lu tio n N o .5

AMENDMENT ON P .L . 93-6 38

Ado pt ed Se ptem be r 2 2 , 19 77

VEHREAS: The In dia n S e lf-D e te r m in a tio n and E ducati on A s s is ta n c e Act (P .L . 9 3 -6 3 8 ) wa s pass ed by C on gr es s

fo r th e pu rp os e o f f a c i l i t a t i n g t r a n s f e r o f c o n tr o l o v er Bur eau o f In d ia n A f f a ir s and In dia n

H ea lt h S e r v ic e s to In d ia n t r i b e s and t r ib a l o r g a n iz a tio n s th ro ugh th e c o n tr a c t p r o c e ss;

WHEREAS: A c o r a llo r y p u rp ose o f P .L . 9 3 -6 3 8 wa s to b rin g ab out a b a s ic ch an ge In th e o r g a n iz a tio n and s t r u c ­

tu re o f th e Bu reau o f In d ia n A f f a ir s and In dia n H ea lt h S e r v ic e s In t h e ir r e la t io n s w it h In dia n

t r ib e s ; and

UEHREAS: O v ersi g h t h e a r in g s b e fo r e th e S en a te S e le c t Co.-nm lttee r e v e a le d th a t In d ia n t r ib e s have en counte red

s e r io u s d i f f i c u l t i e s In th e Im p le m en ta ti on o f 9 3 -6 3 8 In th e fo llo w in g a r e a s . (1 ) The p r o c e ss of

c o n tr a c tin g h as d is co u ra g ed In d ia n t r ib e s from ass um in g c o n tr o l o ver Bur ea u o f In d ia n A ffa ir s and

In d ia n H ealt h S e r v ic e s b e c a u se o f th e In o rd in a te am oun t o f b u r e a u c r a tic fo rm s and red ta pe

a s s o c ia te d w it h c o n t r a c t in g .

(2 ) The S e lf -D e te r m in a tio n A ct h a s r e s u lte d In o n ly m in im al ch an ge In th e o r g a n iz a tio n and s tr u c ­

tu r e o f th e Bu re au o f In d ia n A ff a ir s and In d ia n H ealt h S e r v ic e s b u t r a th e r , th e ch arges ar e

c o n s ta n tly made th a t th e Bur ea u o f In dia n A f f a ir s has att em p te d to make P .L . 93-6 38 si m ply

anoth er Bu reau o f In d ia n A f f a ir s prog ram.

(3 ) A c o n s is t e n t la c k o f f l e x i b i l i t y In th e ty pe o f s e r v ic e s whi ch a r e a v a ila b le fo r c o n tr a c tin g

and th e n atu re o f th e s e r v i c e s th a t a re s u b je c t to c o n tr a c ts have pro ved to be s e r io u s ly

1 Im lt ln g .

(4 ) The fu ndin g l e v e l s i d e n t i f i e d a s a v a ila b le fo r c o n tr a c tin g a re to o o f t e n l e s s th an th e Burea u

o f In dia n A f f a ir s ' own l e v e l s and t r ib e s are p e n a li z e d w it h c o s t s a s s o c ia t e d w it h c o n tr a c tin g .

WHEREAS: Am endin g P .L . 93-6 3 8 to p ro v id e f o r a sy st em o f c o n s o lid a te d b lo ck g r a n ts in l i e u o f c o n tr a c ts fo r

each in d iv id u a l Bur eau o f In d ia n A f f a ir s or In dia n H ealt h S e r v ic e pr og ra m a lo n g w it h a r e s t r ic t io n

on a d m in is tr a tiv e r ev ie w and in t e r f e r e n c e , and p r o v id in g fo r a metho d o f lump sum prepay ment to

each t r ib e a t th e b e g in n in g o f each s e r v ic e year In l i e u o f th e l e t t e r o f c r e d it reim bu rsem en t

sy st em wou ld g r e a t ly a l l e v i a t e many o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e and b u d geta ry d i f f i c u l t i e s In th e 638

c o n tr a c tin g p r o c e s s ; and

WHEREAS: I n te g r a tio n o f o th e r F ed era l D om est ic A ssis ta n c e Progr am g r a n ts w it h BIA-IH S wou ld g r e a tly exp and

In d ia n tr ib e s * a c c e s s t o v e r y h e lp f u l go ve rn men t pr og ra m s.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED th e N a tio n a l C o n g ress c a l l s upo n th e C ongre ss to e x p e d it e amendment o f P .L . 93 -6 38

t o a u th o r iz e a ch ange from a c o n tr a c tin g sy st em to c o n s o li d a te d b lo ck g r a n ts .
AMEND THE INDIAN SELF-DETER MINAT ION AND

EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT

WED NE SD AY , MA RC H 22, 1978

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on Indian Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, purs uant to notice, a t 10 a.m., in room Sy207, the Capitol, Senator James Abourezk [chairman of the committee] 

* presiding. Present: Senator Abourezk. Staff present: Alan Parker, chief counsel; K athryn Harris Tijerina, staff attorn ey; and Michael Cox, minority counsel.

Chairm an Abourezk. The hearing will be in order. The purpose of this morning’s hearing is to give testimony on S. 2460, a bill to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Earlier, on March 14, 1978, this committee heard from a panel of tribal witnesses who spoke in support of the bill and this morning we have scheduled witnesses for the administration who I understand will be speaking in opposition to the bill. Although the Indian Self-Determination Act is only 3 years old, a great deal of controversy has surrounded implementation of this law by the BIA and Indian Health Service. As we noted in last week’s hearing, this committee’s oversight essentially formed the record upon which S. 2460 is based. There is a clear need to streamline and simplify the process through which Indian tribes may atte mpt to gain some control over the delivery of Federal services on their reservations. At the same time, previous testimony before this committee under­ scored the need to free the tribes from the continuing policy, program­ matic, and excessive budgetary control exercised by BIA and IHS 

officials. The first witnesses this morning are from the Departm ent of Interior. 

v

 They are Forrest Gerard, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and George Goodwin, Deputy Assistant Secretary.

I am pleased ta welcome you.

f

STATEMENT OF FORREST GERARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR, INDIAN AFF AIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE GOODWIN , DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Mr. Gerard. Mr. Chairman, we have submitted a formal report on S. 2460 to the committee as well as a prepared statement. With your permission, what I would like to do is summarize the statement. We have George Goodwin, my deputy, as well as several others to respond to specific questions the committee may have.

(105)
106

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify today on S. 2460, which is 

intended to further facilitate the tribes’ abilities to assume control and 

management of activities currently administered under Departments 

of the Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfare.,

As a staffer from the former Senate Interior Committee working on 

the legislation that led to the enactment of the India n Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, I am aware of the congressional 

inte nt of tha t landmark legislation. Briefly, again, it provided the 

statutory right for tribes to formally assume control of programs and 

activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health 

Service.

As the committee is aware, the final rules and regulations did not 

go into effect until late 1975. So, we are really jus t into the second 

full fiscal year of Public Law 93-638. I th ink it is fair to say tha t there 

have been a lot of growing pains on the part of both the beneficiary 

tribes and certainly the agencies in trying to work out the details for 

an orderly implementation of this new policy.

As of January 18 of this year, we can point to the fact tha t we had 

about 537 Public Law 93-638 contracts for a dollar value of about 

$137 million. So, I think there is certainly evidence tha t the tribes want 

to exercise the rights under the act.

Unfortunately, we have only implemented a management information system relating to 93-638. I personally found the absence of such 

a system a very serious handicap in our efforts to evaluate the Bureau’s 

implementation of the act. We are hopeful, however, tha t this system 

will provide us with information the minute a contractor grant is 

approved through all stages of action on it.

I want to tu rn now to a new activity th at we are involved in regarding the Joint Funding and Simplification Act. We are currently working 

cooperatively with the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes of western 

Oklahoma. They are undertaking to work out packaging of programs 

utilizing the Joint Funding and Simplification Act.

Just for the record, th at act offers a procedure whereby tribal 

organizations which have several Federal agencies funding local programs may simplify their management systems such as financial, property, procurement, control, and personnel. It can also simplify the 

reporting requirements in audits, establish a common fiscal year, 

establish funding on single letters of credit, permit consolidation of 

quarterly reporting, and provide one single annual audit and a single 

annual evaluation.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is currently taking the lead in tha t 

effort with the tribe. We are also looking at the Salt River PimaMaricopa experience under the Joint Funding and Simplification Act. 

We were not the lead agency in that effort, but, if the tribe desires 

that we become so, we are willing to do it.

We believe that this new authority, coupled with the potential under 

the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, which intends to 

establish a clearer government-wide distinction between “contracts,” 

“gra nts,” and “cooperative agreements” as used by Federal agencies, 

give us the new tools that we really have not yet fully utilized, and 

offer the opportunity for tribes and the agencies to do a better job of 

consolidating their funding from several sources.
107

Under th at newer act, our authority is broadened so that, as appropriate, we may make gran ts and enter into cooperative agreements as 

well as contract with tribes.

The 0MB guidelines have not yet been fully developed to implement 

the new act. So, we are not in a position yet to fully assess its relationship to Public Law 93-638.

In conclusion, we believe we have the tools available to us that we 

have not yet fully used or are only beginning to use which can improve 

the opportunities for tribes n ot only to contract under Public Law 93- 

638, but to simplify and consolidate some of the funding from other 

sources as well.

For those reasons, and more detailed reasons set forth in our report, 

we would recommend against the enactment of S. 2460 at this time. We 

would be more than willing, of course, to report to the committee on 

our experience in the Cheyenne and Arapahoe effort as well as whatever experience we can gain from the Salt River exercise as well.

Th at concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased 

to respond to any questions.

Chairman Abourezk. Your full prepared statement, the report of 

the Department of the Interior on S. 2460, and a memorandum from 

Senator Robert C. Byrd, chairman, Senate Subcommittee on the Departme nt of the Interior and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on 

Appropriations on reprograming guidelines will be placed in the 

record.

[The material referred to follows:]
108

STATEMEN T OF FORREST GERARD, ASSI ST AN T SECRETARY O F T HE INTE RIOR 

(INDIAN AFFAIRS) BEFO RE THE SELECT CO MMI TTEE ON INDIAN A FFAIRS,

U.S. SENATE, HEA RING ON S. 2460, A BILL TO AM END THE INDIAN SELFDETERMI NAT ION AND EDUCATION ASS IS TA NC E ACT", MAR CH 22, 1978.

Mr. Chairm an and m emb ers of t he Committe e, I am pleased to testify today 

on S. 2460 which is intended to fac ilitate tribal assumpti on of contr ol 

and ope ration of cert ain activ iti es provided for India ns by the 

Dep art men ts of Interior and of Health, Education, and Welfare.

From my work with Senate Int erior Committee during the several y ear s of 

legisl ati ve activity leading to the enactment of the Indian Self - 

Det ermination and Educa tio n Ass is ta nc e Act, I am a ware of the intent of 

that land mark statute. Indian trib al governments w ere given the 

sta tutory right to assume cer tain act ivities of the Bure au of Indi an 

Af fairs and of the Indian Hea lth Service.

As the Committee is aware, the ini tia l regulations implementing the Act 

went into effect in December of 1975 and we are now in the second full 

fis cal year of operation under those regulations. The extensive 

con sultation process during 1975 that led to the issu ance of the 

regula tio ns, the training ses sions for BIA and tribal staffs dur ing the 

past two years, and the exp eri enc e gained by those staffs during that 

time can be expected to result in increased effi ciency and interest by 

the tribes in contracting under the Act.

Within the past few months we h av e had training sessions and have begu n 

impleme nta tio n of a manageme nt informa tio n system relating to the 

impleme nta tio n of PL 93— 638. I found the absence of such a system a
109

s e v e re h a n d ic a p in e v a lu a tin g th e B IA 's im p le m e n ta ti o n o f th e A ct. The 

sy ste m w i l l tr a c k a c o n tr a c t o r g r a n t a p p lic a tio n fr om th e ti m e o f i t s 

r e c e i p t th ro u g h a l l s ta g e s o f a c t i o n on i t .

We a r e a ls o in th e b e g in n in g s ta g e s o f a J o i n t F undin g S i m p lif ic a tio n 

A ct u n d e rta k in g w it h th e C heyen ne- A ra pah oe T rib e s o f Ok laho ma in w hi ch 

th e BIA w i l l be th e le a d F e d e r a l ag en cy in an u n d e rta k in g by th e t r i b e 

w hic h w i l l in v o lv e fu n d in g fr om s e v e r a l F e d e ra l a g e n c ie s . Su ch a j o i n t 

u n d e rta k in g i s now unde rw ay in v o lv in g th e S a lt R iv e r P im a-M ari copa 

In d ia n Co mm unity in A ri z o n a an d a lth o u g h th e BIA i s n o t now a p a r t o f 

th e S a l t R iv e r a rra n g e m e n t, we w i l l be w a tc h in g i t w it h g r e a t i n t e r e s t 

an d w i l l j o i n th e arr a n g em en t i f th e t r i b e so r e q u e s t s .

We b e lie v e t h a t th e S a lt R iv e r an d C heyen ne- A ra pah oe e x p e re ie n c e under 

th e J o i n t Fundin g S im p l if i c a t i o n A ct co u ld le a d to g r e a t l y im pr ov ed 

m ec han is m s w her eb y t r i b e s may u n d e rta k e more co m p re h en si v e p la n n in g to 

m ee t t h e i r n e e d s . In a d d i t i o n , th e t r i b e s can be e x p e c te d to b e n e f i t by 

b e t t e r c o o rd in a te d im p le m e n ta ti o n an d s im p lif ie d a d m in is tr a tio n o f t h e i r 

F e d e r a lly a id e d a c t i v i t i e s .

A r e c e n t develo pm ent t h a t may e f f e c t our im p le m e n ta ti o n o f PL 93-6 38 i s 

th e F e b ra ru y 3, 1978 en actm en t o f th e " F e d e ra l G ra n t an d C o o p e ra ti v e 

A gr ee m en t A c t" . T hat A ct in te n d s to e s t a b l is h a c l e a r e r gover nm en t wid e 

d i s t i n c t i o n bet w ee n " c o n t r a c t s " , " g r a n t s " , an d " c o o p e r a tiv e a g re e m e n ts " 

a s u se d by F e d e ra l a g e n c ie s . U nder th a t Act ou r a u t h o r i ty u n d er 

PL 93-6 38 to c o n tr a c t i s b ro a d e n e d so t h a t , as a p p r o p r i a t e , we may make

25-601 0 - 78 - 8
110

g r a n ts an d e n te r in to c o o p e r a tiv e ag re em en ts a s w e ll a s c o n tr a c t w it h 

t r i b e s . How ev er, th e OMB g u id e lin e s im ple m enti ng t h a t A ct hav e n o t bee n 

is s u e d a s y e t an d we hav e n o t a s s e s s e d th e im p act on o u r PL 93 -6 38 

c o n t r a c t i n g , in c lu d in g w hat a d v a n ta g e s o r d is a d v a n ta g e s th e r e may be 

fr om th e v ie w p o in t o f th e t r i b e s .

In s h o r t , we hav e to o l s a v a i l a b l e to us t h a t we h a v e n 't y e t use d o r a r e 

o n ly b e g in n in g to u se w hic h may a c h ie v e much o f th e b e n e f i t s in te n d e d by 

S. 2460. For t h a t re a s o n , an d th e more d e t a i l e d r e a s o n s s e t o u t in o u r 

r e p o r t , we do n o t rec om me nd e n actm en t o f S. 24 60 . I t may be t h a t th e 

t o o l s p ro v id e d to us by th e C o n g re ss a t t h i s p o in t can be im pr ov ed on 

b u t we sh o u ld f i r s t b e t t e r d e te rm in e an d u se e x i s ti n g a u t h o r i t i e s .

T h is c o n c lu d e s my p re p a re d s ta te m e n t an d I w i l l be p le a s e d to re sp o n d to 

an y q u e s tio n s th e Com m itte e may h av e.
United States Departm ent of the Interior

OFFIC E OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

MA R 2 19 78

Honorable James Abourezk 

Chairman

Senate Select Committee on 

Indian Affairs

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your req uest for the views of this Department on 

S. 2460, a bill "To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act".

We recommend against enactment of S. 2460 because most of its objectives 

can be implemented under existing law and because of specific problems 

with the bill set out below.

S. 2460 would require the Secretary of the Interior to make, upon request 

of any Indian tribe entitled to receive contracts or grants under Sections 

102, 103, or 104 of PL 93-638 (25 USC 450f, 450g, and 450h ), a single 

consolidated grant "in lieu of or in addition to contracts under sections 

102 and 103" of PL 93-638. Before any tribe would be eligible for a 

consolidated grant, it must have submitted to the Secretary a plan setting 

forth a comprehensive description of wha t is to be carried out or provided 

under the grant.

The Secretary’s review of the proposed plan is to include determinations 

on whether -

(A) the service to be rendered to the Indian beneficiaries 

of the program or function involved will be adequate;

(B) adequate protection o f trust resources is assured;

(C) the proposed project or function can be properly 

completed or maintained.

The Secretary would be preclude d from disapproving a pla n "because of the 

percentage of funds devoted to a particular program, project, function, 

activity, or service."
Further, the Secretary's evaluation of the plan would be on the basis of 

"whether approval of the plan would constitute a failure as trustee to 

uphold the rights of the beneficiaries, and not whether the tribal policies 

reflected in the plan are consistent with the judgment of the reviewing 

official or officials."

As introduced, section 304(c) would have dealt with the applicability of 

GAO and other audit requirements in section 5(b) of PL 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 

450c(b) to the grants under the new title III. However, we have been 

advised by the Committee's staff that the subsection should be corrected 

to read as follows:

"(c) The provisions of section 5(d) shall not be applicable 

. to any financial assistance provided pursuant to this title."

Section 5(d) of PL 93-638 provides:

"Any funds paid to a financial assistance recipient [under the

Act] and not expended or used for the purposes for which paid 

shall be repaid to the Teas ury of the United States."

Administrative Alternatives

Much of what S. 2460 is intended to accomplish can be done without further 

legislative authority.

There is nothing to prevent the use of a single contract to cover all or 

several BIA funded activities contracted to a tribal organization under 

P.L. 93-638. Indeed, such consolidated contracts are now in use although 

we do not now require the use of consolidated contracts. We intend to 

implement such a requirement for instances where tribal organizations 

request consolidated BIA contracts. Such contracts include appropriate 

provisions and funding levels for the activities involved.

We should note at this point that section 7(a) of the "Federal Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977" (P.L. 95-224) provides that "each 

executive agency authorized by law to enter into contracts, grant or 

cooperative agreements, or similar arrangements is authorized and directed 

to enter into and use type of contracts, grant agreements, or cooperative 

agreements as required by this Act." Sections 4, 5, and 6 of that Act 

describe in general terms the circumstances under which contracts, grant 

agreements, or cooperative agreements are to be used. Section 9 authorizes 

the Office of Management and Budget to issue "supplementary interpretative 

guidelines" to promote consistency in implementation of the Act.

The 0MB guidelines have not been issued as yet and we have not determined 

the implications of the application of PL 95-224 to PL 93-638. It may be 

that the use of grant agreements and cooperative agreements would be of 

benefit.
113

Thus under current law, we not only can provide for the use of consolidation BIA contracts but authority also exists for adding the use of grants 

agreements and cooperative agreements if they are found to be more appropriate than contracts.

One aspect of the consolidation intended under S. 2460 would require some 

congressional action. Neither the BIA nor the tribal contractors may use 

funds under one appropriation for the purposes of another appropriation. 

However, practically all of the B IA programs and activities (other than 

construction) are included in a single appropriation item entitled 

"Operation of Indian Programs”. Therefore, there is no statutory bar to 

the shifting of funds among the several activities and subactivities of 

that appropriation item which include:

Education:

School Operations

Johnson O'Malley Educational Assistance 

Continuing Education

Indian Services:

Tribal Government Services 

• Social Services

Law Enforcement 

Housing

Self-Determination Services 

Navajo-Hopi Settlement Progra m

Economic Development and Employment Programs:

Business Enterprise Development 

Employment Development

Road Maintenance

Natural Resources Development:

Forestry and Agriculture

Minerals, Mining, Irrigation and Power

Trust Responsibilities:

Indian Rights Protection

Real Estate and Financial Trust Services

General Management and Facilities Operations:

Management and Administration 

Program Support Services 

Facilities Management

However, we consider ourselves b ound by the Guidelines of the Appropriations 

Committees as to shifts of funds bet ween activities. Enclosed is a copy 

of the August 1, 1977 joint letter from the Chairman of the House and Senate 

Appropriation Subcommittees on the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies setting out their current guidelines regarding reprograming of 

funds within appropriation items.

3
We propose to request that the above Appropriations Subcommittees modify 

their reprograming guidelines to permit on a demonstration basis the 

shifting of funds among Operation of Indian Program activities under 

contracts with several tribes. The extent of such shifting of funds to be 

allowed and the number of tribes to be given such flexibility would of 

course be subject to negotia tion with the Subcommittees.

In addition, our regulations governing P.L. 93-638 could be revised (after 

the consultation procedure prescribed in section 107 of that Act (25 O.S.C. 

45OK)) to provide for long ter m planning by the tribes of the programs 

they no w are operating under contract or plan to assume operation of in 

the future. We strongly belie ve that long-term planning should be an 

integral part of the budget proces s and to the greatest extent feasible 

the BIA and the tribes should adhere to such plans, thus insuring 

financial integrity.

Section 106(c) of P.L. 93-638 now permits contracts for periods of up to 

3 years, subject to the av ailability of appropriations during each fiscal 

year of the contract term. This latter restriction is necessary to avoid 

the necessity of obligating more than one year's expenses out of a single 

year's appropriation.

Section 104(a) of PL 93-638 now authorizes grants which can provide the 

technical assistance which the section 302(b) proposed in S. 2460 would 

provide for under contracts. Section 104(a) provides for grants to tribal 

organizations under which they may obtain their own technical assistance 

without the need of requesting the BIA to contract with a third party to 

provide the assistance to the tribal organization.

Section 102 of PL 93-638 now limits the Secretary's authority to decline 

to enter into requested contracts based on substantially the same criteria 

as set out in the section 302(c) proposed in S. 2460. Section 102 of PL 

638, like the proposed section 302(c), also requires the statement of the 

Secretary's objections in writting within 60 days, the provision of 

technical assistance to aid in overcoming the objections, and the granting 

of an opportunity for a hearing.

Additional Comments

The proposed new findings whi ch S. 2460 would add to PL 93-638 do not 

indicate a key aspect of the poli cy underlying that Act. Indian tribal 

governing bodies are given a statutory right to contract if they so choose. 

There is no suggestion that tribes must so contract; they are free to 

decide not to contract. Any suggestion that might be interpreted as 

requiring tribes to contract would probably be self defeating as well as 

inconsistent with a policy of tribal self-determination. For this reason 

we believe that the language in paragraph (1) beginning on page 1, line 

7 of S. 2460 misstates the po licy of PL 93-638 by not stating that the
option is with the tribes rather than implying that contracting is the 

objective without regard to the rights of the tribes. A similar problem 

exists with the portion of paragraph (2) on page 2, lines 3 thru 5.

We do not know what "priorities and policies" are meant by the sentence 

beginning on page 2, line 7. Since the following sentence (beginning on 

line 9) refers to problems wi th "the narrow parameters of the current 

programs and budget allocations of the agencies", it is not clear whether 

the earlier reference to "priorities and policies" identified by the 

agencies is a separate pr oble m and, if so, what specific examples there 

may be and whether administrative action could resolve the problem.

In order to make the BIA's budget process more responsive to and reflective 

of tribal decisions, priorities and policies, we are developing a new 

budget planning procedure. Tribal comments on the proposed procedure 

have been received and Interior Department review of the proposal is 

underway.

The final sentence in paragra ph (2) on page 2, lines 13 thru 16, states 

that -

"Duplication of effort, excessive paperwork, and inhibitions 

against long-term pla nning inherent in the contracting process 

have seriously undercut the intended tribal control".

The above quoted sentence wo uld seem to suggest that the specified 

problems are "inherent in the contracting process" but would be avoided 

in a granting process. We do not believe that simple change in terminology 

alone would result in any significant changes. Indeed, section 106(a) of 

PL 93-638 now authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (and of HEW) to 

"waive any provisions of such contracting laws or regulations which he 

determines are not appropriate for the purposes of the contract involved 

or inconsistent with the provis ions of this Act." No similar authority 

exists as to laws or regulations relating to grants or grant agreements.

It follows that with the wa iver authorization, it is possible for our PL 

638 contracting process and requirements to be more desirable for tribal 

organizations than a grant process.

We agree that duplication, excess paperwork, and inhibitions against long 

term planning may be inherent in the fact that tribes receive contracts 

and grants from a number of Federal agencies and programs, each with its 

own set of statutory and regulato ry requirements and its own administrative 

structure and staff which must be dealt with by the tribes. However, we
are hopeful that tribal experiences under the Joint Funding Simplification 

Act (88 Stat. 1604; 42 U.S. 4251 et seq.) will lead to a minimizing of 

such problems. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Ariz.) is 

involved in a joint funding effort under that Act and, although no BIA 

funds are involved, we expect that the tr ibe’s evaluation of that effort 

and any recommendations they may have could lead to simplification and 

better coordination of tribal programs generally. The BIA is the lead 

Federal Agency in a planned joint funding effort with the CheyenneArapaho Tribes of Oklahoma. As with Salt River, the evaluation and 

recommendations of the tribes could lead to improvements in Federal 

funding arrangements for tribes generally.

At least to some significant extent, the "excessively long delays in 

receiving contract approvals" referred to in paragraph (3) on page 2, 

lines 17 and 18, have been the result of the newness of the PL 93-638 

contracting process and the unfamiliarity of the BIA and tribal staffs 

with that process. Significant continuing improvement can be expected 

as experience is gained by both BIA and tribal staffs.

It is true that some tribal contract proposals have not been entered into 

because they called for more funds than could be made available. Approval 

of such requests but wi th a reduced funding level is not usually possible 

because the inadequate level of funding would result in inadequate service 

or activity levels which would require a finding that the revised proposal 

violates one or more of the three declination criteria set out in section 

102(a) of PL 93-638.

The sentence beginning on page 2, line 21 of S. 2460 refers to problems 

with "the agencies' reimbursement vouchers system of payments". The 

Treasury Department's report to the Committee on S. 2460 states the 

Administration's position on the advancement of Federal funds to tribal and 

other contractors and grant recipients. We shall endeavor to aid tribal 

organizations in planning and scheduling their cash disbursements in a 

manner which will be compatable with the Federal system and the needs of 

the tribal organizations. New funding procedures for the BIA and the 

tribal organizations are in preparation with a completion scheduled by 

the end of April.

Section 301(a) on page 3 of the bill provides that any "Indian tribe or 

tribal organization entitled, under this Act !i.e., PL 93-6381, to enter 

into contracts * * * " which suggests that the consolidated grants only 

a PPiy in the case of BIA and Indian Health Service administered funds. 

However, section 303 (page 8) states that all programs, projects, functions 

activities, or services which the Departments of Interior and HEW 

"are authorized to pe rfor m for Indians" may be included. We believe the 

former interpretation is more logical at this point in time than an attempt 

to extend the proposed consolidated grant system to include programs and
agencies not even subject to the Title I of PL 638 contracting requirements and authorizations. However, we defer to HEW for any discussion of 

the problems involved with inclusion of HEW components other than the 

Indian Health Service.

Section 301 would not only have the BIA acting on tribal plans relating to 

activities within BIA areas of responsibilities and administering grants 

of funds appropriated to the B IA but also on plans relating to health 

activities and administering funds justified by and appropriated for 

administration by the Indian Health Service. We do not believe that such 

an arrangement would be desirable from either the viewpoint of the tribes 

or of the Federal Government. It is bound to be cumbersome and could 

lead to duplication of efforts by the redevelopment of health related 

activities within the BIA while the primary Federal responsibility and 

expertise relating to Indian heal th are in the Indian Health Service.

As indicated above, we of course believe that long-term planning by tribes 

could be of great benefit. However, we note that section 302 lacks any 

mention o f social _gr. economic goals for such tribal plans. In addition, 

planning periods of less than 1 year are authorized but we believe that 

such short planning periods are not feasible.

The last sentence of section 302(b), on page 5, lines 7 thru 13 would 

direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide "whatever assistance and 

expertise" is needed to "implement" a tribe's plan with respect to equipment, adequately trained personnel, and other necessary components. The 

provision may be subject to an interpretation which would require the 

Secretary to furnish equipment and staff to a tribal organization when 

the funding 'und'Cr'The grant includes funds for such equipment and staff. 

Section 102(b)(2) of PL 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 1 450f(b)) provides a better way 

of stating the intended requirement. v, ,

Paragraph (4) on page 6, lines 11 thru 13, of S. 2460 would preclude the 

Secretary from disapproving any tribal plan "because of the percentage of 

funds devoted to a particular program, project, function, activity, or 

service." Although it is not clear, we assume that this provision is not 

intended to override or limit the Secretary's responsibility for the 

determinations required under paragr aph (1) on page 5, lines 14 thru 21.

We have a similar concern with the portion of paragraph (5) on page 6, 

lines 22 thru 24, which we believe is intended to only preclude disapproval 

actions based on judgements not essential to sound determinations under 

the aforementioned paragraph (1).

Paragraph (6) on page 6, line 25 thru page 7, line 4, of the bill differs 

from a similar provision in section 106(h) of PL 93-638 (25 U.S.C. 450j 

(h)) in that the Secretary apparen tly would not be authorized to approve 

a tribal plan if it requires funding in excess of the amount that would
have been provided for BlA's operation of the program or activity involved 

even if it were possible to make the additional amount of funds available 

from savings within budgeted totals or by altering agency priorities.

The Administration strongly objects to the bill's requirement that 

specific budget materials accompany the President's budget request, as 

is required in section 302. The Administration cannot support a require-! 

ment in law to provide specific materials that are not generally applic- / 

able to all agencies' budgets. However, if this type of information is / 

requested following the transmittal of the President's budget, the /

information may be provided in accord with current practice.

s I

For the foregoing reasons, including the availability of existing authorities, we do not recommend enactment of S. 2460.

The Office of Management & Budget has advised that there is no objection 

to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration s program.

Assistant secretary

Enclosures
C O M M IT ! I.C A P P ii o rn iA T iO N S

W a s h i n g t o n . O .C . 2 0 5 io

August 1, 1977

0b3 Honorable Ce cil D. Andrus 

Se cretary

Department of the In te ri o r 

Washington, D. C. 2021)0

Dear Secre tary Andrus: ,

Reprogi -an mi ng gu id el in es fo r age ncies funded und er th e Department o f th e In te ri or and Related Agencies Ap pro priations Act have been developed and revise d from time to tim e over a perio d of many yea rs . During th at same period the budget st ru ctu re s of many ag encie s have changed, and new agencie s have been cr ea te d. 'The Committees ar e aware th a t some confusion ha s developed among ag encie s over the ap pl ic at io n o f ex is ti n g gu idelines and th at changing co nd ition s re qu ire a st an da rd iz at io n and updating o f 

th es e gu idelines.

Accordingly, th e Committees have de ve lope d't he at ta ch ed gu idelines fo r reprogramming proc edures, designe d to apply uniformly to a ll af fe ct ed ag en cies. Unless sp ec if ic exception s ar e sp el le d ou t in the Committees1

re p o rt s, a ll agenc ies w il l be expected to comply with th e gui de line s.

These gu idelines sh a ll be ef fe ct iv e immediately fo r any re pr og raming prop osals not alr eady pending be fore the Committees and sh all apply fo r the 

fo ur th qu ar te r o f FY 1977 with reg ard to re po rt in g proc ed ures.

In ad ditio n to prov id ing uniform, up- to -d at e proc ed ur es, i t is exp ected the att ac he d guid el in es , part ic ula rl y the pr ov isio ns of paragraph 3a, w il l str eaml ine and measurably improve and fa c ilita te reprogramming ac tions. Tne Ceran ittees wish to str e ss, however, th a t the major in te n t of th e gu idelines is to insu re th a t any si gnif ic ant de pa rtur e from approved program al lo ca tion s w ill be sub mitted fo r Committee rev iew . I f any doubt shou ld ari se over whether a funding sh if t re qu ires Committee review and 

ap prov al, the pro posal should be sub mitted to the Per m itte es .

Chairman, House Suocamnlttee 

. on the Department of 

In te ri o r and Relate d 

Agencies

.CbaJr.r.-jn, Senate Sub/c< 

V on th e Department c£- 

In te rio r and Related 

Agencies crcnvtD 

IHHIilCa UDT. 

nnict Of L’Oi'CfT
120

• )k>use C or n. itte e on /.npio pri at lo ns

* Sen at e Coc .i'iittce on App ro pr ia tion s •

Subcommittees on th e Depar'ummnt o f In te rio r and Rot at ed Agencie s 

il^pro^ra'mmlng Proc edures

D ef in it io n — "Reprogramming", as de fi ned in th es e pro ce dur es , in cl ud es 

th e re a ll o c a ti o n o f fund s fr o n one budg et a c tiv ity to an oth er . In 

ca se s where e it h e r Committee re p o rt dis pla ys an a ll o c a ti o n o f an 

ap pro pri at io n below th e a c tiv ity le v e l, th a t fin e r le v e l o f d e ta il 

sh a ll be th e b a sis fo r rep rog ram ming. For constr u cti o n ac co unts , a 

rep)•ograr.ining c o n s ti tu te s th e re a ll o c a ti o n o f fund s fr o n one 

co nst ru ct io n p ro je c t id e n tifie d in th e ju s tif ic a tio n s to an oth er . A 

repro gram ming sh a ll a ls o c o n s is t o f any oth er s ig n if ic a n t dep ar tu re 

fl'cm th e program desc ri b ed in th e ag en cy ’s bu dg et ju s tif ic a tio n s . 

C ri te ri a fo r reprog ram ming —•

a. Any p ro je c t o r a c tiv ity which nay be def err ed th ro ug h re pro gra m in g 

sh a ll no t l a t e r be ac co mplishe d by means o f fu rth e r reprogram ming; b u t, 

in st ea d, fund s sh ou ld again be soug ht fo r th e d efe rr ed p ro je c t o r 

a c ti v it y throug h re g u la r ap p ro p ri ati o n pro ce ss es .

b . A re pro gra ’-ming sh ou ld be made on ly when an un fo re se en s it u a ti o n 

a ris e s ; and th en on ly i f postp onem ent o f th e p ro je c t o r th e a c tiv it y 

u n ti l th e nex t ap p ro p ri ati o n yea r would re s u lt in a c tu a l le s s o r damage, 

l-fere convenien ce o r d e s ir e shou ld not be fa c to rs fo r consi der at io n.

c.Reprogramming sh ou ld not be employed to i n i t i a t e new program s or 

to change a ll o c a ti o n s s p e c if ic a ll y de nie d, li m ited o r in cr ea se d by 

th e Cong ress in th e Ac t o r th e re p o rt ; In ca se s where un fo rese en 

ev en ts o r co ndit io ns a re deemed to re q u ir e suc h ch an ge s, pr opo sa ls 

sh a ll be su bm itted in ad vance to th e Committee, reg ard le ss o f amounts 

invo lved , and be fu lly ’ex pl ai ne d and ju s tif ie d .’ '

Re porting and ap pro val pr oc ed ur es —■

/ a . Any prop osed rep rog ram ming must be su bm itt ed to th e Committee in

• wri ting p rio r to im ple m/ entation i f i t exceed s f?5O,OO3 an nu al ly or 

re su lt s in an in cre ase o r de cr ea se o f more th an 10? an nu al ly in 

af fe ct ed program s.

b. Al l re pio gra nn in gs s h a ll be re port ed to th e Co-.ndttee q u art erl y and 

sh a ll in cl ude cu m ul at iv e to t a l s .

c. Any s ig n if ic a n t s h i f t s o f fu nd ing aron g o b je ct c la s s ific a tio n s sh ou t 

als o be re port ed to th e Committees in a tim ely ipanner.
121

-2 -

<3. Repa'Ogranmins pro posa ls su bm itte d to . t h e Oor .nitt ee fo r p rio r 

ap pr ov al sh a ll be co ns id er ed ap prov ed a f te r 30 cal en dar ca ys i f th e 

Co niaitte e ha s posed no o b je cti o n , However, ag en ci es w il l be ex pe cted 

to ex tend th e ap pr ov al dead li ne i f sp e c if ic a ll y re ques te d by e ith e r 

Cofr.n itte e.

A dm in is trat iv eO ver hea d Acc oun ts

1. Fo r a l l appro pri ati ons whe re c o sts o f overh ead a d m in is tr ati v e ex pe ns es 

are fun ded in p a rt from "a ss es sm en ts " o f vari ous bu dg et a c tiv itie s 

w it hin an ao p ro p ri ati o n , th e as se ss m en ts s h a ll be snox n in ju s tiiic a tio n s 

under th e dis cuss io n o f ad m in is tr ati v e ex penses (a s i s th e ca se w ith th e

* Bureau o f Mi nes).

• • ‘ Co nting ency Accounts

* 1. Fo r a l l appro pri ati ons where as se ss m en ts are ra oe a g ain st vari o u s bu dg et

a c tiv itie s or a ll o c a ti o n s fo r co n ti n g en cie s, th e Committee ex pec ts a 

f u ll ex p la nati on, se p ara te from th e ju s tif ic a tio n s . The expla nat io n 

sh a ll show th e amount o f th e ass ess m ent, th e a c tiv itie s a ssessed , and 

th e pu rp os e o f th e fun d. The Cor.rrsittee ex pe ct s an nu al re p o rt s ea ch 

year d e ta ili n g th e use o f tlr es e fu nds. In no ca se s s h a ll suc h a fund 

be used to fi nan ce p ro je c ts and a c t i v it i e s di sa pp ro ve d o r li m it e d by 

C o n fe ss o r to fina nc e new pe rm an en t p o sit io n s o r to finan ce program s 

o r a c tiv itie s th a t co uld be" fore se en and in cl ud ed in th e normal bu dg et 

review pro cess . Con ting enc y fu nd s s h a ll not be used to i n i t i a t e new 

prog rams. -
122

QIC nifcb 4r){c i{c s .-Senate

COMMITTE E ON APPR OP RIATIONS

W a s h in g t o n . D .C . 20 510

dimecto* August 1 f 2.977

Subc onmlttee on th e Department of th e In te ri o r 

and Re lat ed Agencies

MEMORANDUM

TO : Heads o f Re lat ed Agencies 

SUBJ: Reprogranming Gu ide line s

Re pro gra min g gu id el in es fo r ag en cie s funde d und er th e Department 

of the In te ri o r and Re lat ed Agencies Ap pro pri ation s Act have been developed 

and re vi se d from tim e to time ov er a pe rio d of many yea rs . During th a t 

same pe rio d th e bud get st ru ct u re s o f many age nc ies have chang ed, and new 

age ncie s have been cr ea te d. The Can mitt ees ar e aware th a t some con fus ion 

has develo ped among ag en cie s ove r th e ap pli ca ti on o f e x is ti n g gu id el in es 

and th at changing co nd iti on s re qu ire a st an da rd iz at io n and updat ing of 

th es e gu id el in es .

Acc ord ing ly, th e Committees have deve lope d th e at ta ch ed gu id el in es 

fo r reprog ranming pr oc ed ur es , des igned to app ly unifo rmly to a l l af fe ct ed 

ag en cie s. Unles s sp e c if ic ex ce pti on s ar e sp el le d ou t in th e Conr nlttee s' 

re p o rt s, a l l ag en cie s w il l be exp ect ed to comply wi th th e gu id el in es .

These guid el in es sh a ll be e ff e c ti v e imm edia tely fo r any reprog ranm ing 

pro po sal s no t al re ad y pend ing be fo re th e Conrnl ttees and sh a ll app ly fo r th e 

fo ur th q uar te r o f FY 19 77 wi th re ga rd to re port in g pr oc ed ures.

In ad di ti on to pr ov idi ng un ifo rm , up -t o- da te pr oc ed ur es , i t is 

expe cted th e at ta ch ed gu id el in es , p a rt ic u la rl y th e pr ov is io ns o f par agr aph 

3a , w il l str ea m lin e and mea surab ly improve and f a c i li t a t e repro granm ing 

ac ti o n s. The Conrn lttees wish to s tr e s s , however, th a t th e major in te n t 

o f the gu id el in es i s to In su re th a t any si g n if ic a n t de pa rtu re from approv ed 

program al lo c at io n s w il l be sub mit ted fo r Committee rev iew . I f any doubt 

shou ld a ri s e ove r wh eth er a fun ding s h if t re quir es Conm ittee revie w and 

ap prov al, th e pr op os al sho uld be sub mi tted to th e Q^n mit tee s.

A 1

S/dney R. Y^t es / j

Chairman, House SSubqcrrmittee 

on the Departm ent o f 

In te ri o r and Re lat ed 

Agencies

Robe rt C. Byrd

Chairman, Sen ate Subcommittee 

on th e Department of 

In te ri o r and Rel ate d 

Agencies

Attachment
123

House Conmittee on Appropriations 

Senate Cormlttee on Appropriations 

Subcommittees on the Department of In te rior and Related Agencies 

Reprogramming Procedures

1. Defini tion — "Reprograming", as defined in these procedures , includes the realloca tio n of funds from one budget ac tivi ty to ano ther. In cases where ei th er Conmittee rep ort displays an allo ca tio n of an appropr iatio n below the acti vit y le ve l, th at fine r le ve l of de ta il sh all be the basis for reprog ram ing . For const ruc tion accounts, a reprograming co ns titu tes the realloca tio n of funds from one construction projec t id en tifi ed in the ju st if ic ati ons to another. A reprograrming sh al l also co nsist of any oth er sign ific an t depa rture from the program d escribed in the agency's budget Ju st if ic ati ons.

2. Cr ite ria for reprograrming —

a. Any projec t or acti vit y which may be deferred through repr ogra ming sh all not la te r be accomplished by means of fu rthe r rep rog ram ing ; but, ins tea d, funds should aga in be sought'for the deferred pr oj ec t or 

ac tivi ty through regu lar appro priation processes.

b. A reprograrming should be made only when an unforeseen situ at io n ar ises ; and then only i f postponement of the projec t or the ac tivi ty until the next appro pri ation year would r esu lt in ac tual los s or damage, '■fere convenience or de sire should not be factors fo r consideration.

c. Reprograrming should not be employed to in it ia te new programs or to change a llo ca tio ns sp ec ific al ly denied, lim ited or incr eased by the Congress in the Act or the repo rt. In cases where unforeseen events or conditio ns are deemed to require such changes, proposals sh all be submitted in advance to the Conmittee, reg ard less of amounts 

involved, and be fu lly explained and j u st if ie d .

3. Reporting and approval procedures —

a. Any proposed reprogramming must be submitted to the Conmittee in writing pr io r to Implementation i f i t exceeds $250,000 a nnua lly or resu lts in an incr eas e or decre ase of more than 10% annu ally in 

affected programs.

b. All reprograrmings sh al l be reported to the Conmittee qu art erl y and 

sh all include cumulative to ta ls .

c. Any sign ifi ca nt sh if ts of funding among o bject cl as si fi ca tion s should 

als o be reporte d to the Carmittees in a timely manner.
d. Reprogramming pr op osals sub mitted to the Committee fo r pri or 

approva l sh all be consi dered approved a fte r 30 ca lend ar days i f the 

Committee has posed no ob je ct io n. However, agencie s w il l be expected 

to extend the ap proval de adlin e i f sp ecif ic all y re qu ested by eit h er 

Comnittee.

Ad ministrativ e Overhead Accounts

For a ll ap pr op ria tio ns where co sts of overhead ad m in is trat iv e expenses 

are funded in part from "ass essments" of va rio us budget a c ti v it ie s 

withi n an ap pr op riat io n, the asse ssm ents sh all be shown in ju sti fi c ati o n s 

under the di sc us sion of ad m in istrativ e expenses (as is the case with the 

Bureau of Mines).

Contingency Accounts

For a ll ap pr op riat io ns where assessments are made ag ains t vario us budget 

a c ti v it ie s or all o cati o n s fo r co ntinge nc ies, th e Comnittee exp ects a

fu ll ex plan atio n, se pa ra te from the ju sti fic a ti o n s. Hie expla nat ion 

sh all show the amount of the ass ess me nt, the a c tiv it ie s assessed , and 

the purpose of th e fund. The Comnittee expects annua l re po rts each 

year deta il in g th e use of these funds. In no ca ses sh all such a fund 

be used to fin ance pro je ct s and a c ti v it ie s disapp rov ed or lim ite d by 

Congress or to fina nc e new permanent posi tions o r to financ e programs 

or a c ti v it ie s th a t could be foreseen and inc lude d in the normal budget 

review pr oc es s. Contingency funds sh all not be used to in it ia te new 

programs.

August 1, 1977
125

Chairman Abourezk. So, your position is that you are against S. 

2460?

Mr. Gerard. That is correct, based on the authorities that we now 

possess.

Chairman Abourezk. What do you see as the objective of Public 

Law 638? What do you think is the central objective of th at law?

Mr. Gerard. I have always felt, Mr. Chairman, the central objec­ tive of P.L. 93-638 was to provide another option for a tribal govern­ ment to become active participa nts in the delivery of services which are primarily government services to their constituents or the members 

of the tribe.

Chairm an Abourezk. You do not believe that the central purpose, 

then, was assumption of control by the tribes over their own destiny?

Mr. Gerard. Certainly, yes. That is implied in exercising tha t option. They do assume control and management and with no loss of funding if the agency had continued to operate the program.

Chairm an Abourezk. So, what you are saying is, even though you 

agree that the present form of Public Law 93-638 is not working, you thin k it might be allowed to work if the Dep artm ent is allowed to have its way to use whatever existing authority m ight be there?

Mr. Gerard. Mr. Chairm an, I believe that 638 contains many good provisions. I have talked to a number of people who have looked at the act in relation to the rules and regulations. They are satisfied that the rules are compatible with the act. I believe tha t our fundamental problem has been the manner in which it has been implemented. I would concede that it involves attitude s of employees up and down the line. I think, as the new policy centers within the Department, we have a responsibility to 

deal with those matters. So, in answer to your question, I think we would like to continue to use 638 in relation to these other newer authorities that we have just 

cited in our statement.

Chairman Abourezk. You do agree with the tribes who have 

testified before this committee tha t the central purpose of turning over control to the tribes has not been accomplished through 93-638?

Mr. Gerard. I do not thin k it has been fully accomplished. I have not had an opportunity to study tha t testimony in detail. But I think there is evidence tha t it has not occurred in all instances.

Chairman Abourezk. I think, from the people we have talked to, 

it has not occurred in very many instances where the tribes have really assumed control over their own affairs despite the figure you cite of 537 contracts and $137 million in Public Law 93-638 contracts. The complaints by the tribes th at we have heard—and we think that is probably a cross-section—indicate th at the long delays, the citing of lack of funds by the agency when the tribes do attem pt to contract, the effort to frustrate the purpose of 93-638 on the part of the bureauc­ racy, has made it virtually more of a failure than it is a success. My question is: If you say you have the existing authority to provide bloc grants, as we have tried to cite in this amendment to 638, and that you don’t need this legislation, you already have the authority, you really should not object to the passage of the legis­ lation if the authority is there and if you intend to use th at authority. Would you care to comment on that? Why you think the legislation

25-601 0 - 78 -9
126

should not be passed if you do not object to the objective of the legislation?

Mr. Gerard. Basically, the administration—we take the posture 

that, with the authorities there, it is a matter of policy setting and 

implementation. I believe there are some other provisions of the 

legislation that the administration would probably take exception to. 

For example, I understand—and I have not had an opportunity to 

read their report fully—the Treasury Department may have some 

problems with the bill as drafted.

Chairman Abourezk. Would you tell me what legislative authority 

exists for the granting of bloc grants as is set out in S. 2460? Would 

you cite the authority?

Mr. Goodwin. I do not thin k that we are saying that there is any 

authority for bloc grants, Mr. Chairman. What we are saying is tha t 

there is authority for single agency grants or contracts of making a 

single contract or grant for all of the bureau’s programs; for instance, 

rather tha n-----

Chairm an Abourezk. Wha t does that mean? I do n ot follow you.

Mr. Goodwin. Rather th an making a number of grants or contracts 

as presently exist in some Bureau offices, rather tha n have the tribe go 

directly to the Bureau and ask for 10 contracts or grants, the authority 

is there now for the tribes to come to the Bureau and ask for one single 

contract or grant.

Chairman Abourezk. And the authority is there for the Bureau 

to provide tha t grant?

Mr. Goodwin. There is some question as to how far the regulations 

will allow us to go on that.

Chairm an Abourezk. How far will the law allow you to go?

Mr. Goodwin. Our preliminary indications in law are tha t we see 

a broad er interpretation in the law than there is in the regulations.

Chairman Abourezk. Wha t does th at mean?

Mr. Goodwin. We think that the regulations are pre tty narrowly 

defined as to what can be contracted versus what can be granted.

Chairman Abourezk. When you say there is a broader area in the 

law than there is in the regulations, what do you mean “broader area”?

Mr. Goodwin. We think th at the people who were involved in the 

history of the law intended to allow more granting authority than 

there presently exists in the Bureau.

Chairman Abourezk. Would you cite the exact section you believe 

allows t ha t grant authority?

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Chairman, under section 104(a) of Public Law 

93-638: “The Secretary of Interior is authorized upon request of any 

Indian tribe to contract with or make a grant or grants to any tribal 

organization”—and it lists the types of grants th at can be made.

Chairm an Abourezk. Con tract with or make grants?

Mr. Goodwin. Yes.

Chairman Abourezk. Have you made any such bloc grants pursuant to or similar to the provisions of this amendment?

Mr. Goodwin. No; we have not.

Chairm an Abourezk. Have you told the tribes th at that is available 

to them?

Mr. Goodwin. No; we have not.

Chairman Abourezk. You haven’t?

Mr. Goodwin. No.
127

The regulations as curre ntly exist say specifically what kind of 

grants can be made. Chairma n Abourezk. I wonder if I might ask you again to address the question. If you believe you have the autho rity, what harm can there be in passing the amendm ent giving the autho rity?

Eith er one of you can respond.

Mr. Gerard. Mr. Chairm an, we would have to take the position again tha t, as a matter of policy with the stat uto ry auth ority already in place, enactment of tne bill would certainly be a duplication. I thin k the problem up to this point, as we have readily conceded, is t ha t we have not made full use of the authorities th at are in place. Moreover, the more recent act has not yet been fully implemented because th e Office of Management and Budget is still in th e process of

drafting the guidelines. Chairm an Abourezk. Well, even if i t is a duplication—let’s assume that it is, although I do no t accept that argument—then passage of the bill cannot yeally har m anything; can it? It will not be a harmful 

amendment; will it?

Mr. Gerard. If Congress takes that position and determines th at it wants to move the legislation forward, certainly we would have to analyze it in relation to the other statu tes once it came out in final 

form. Chairm an Abourezk. I wonder if you would respond to my question. It cannot be a harmful amendm ent—can it—if it is merely duplication of already existing law?

Mr. Gerard. If we agree th at it is a duplication, then certainly it 

would no t be harmful.

Chairm an Abourezk. Tha nk you very much. I do not have any more questions of this panel. I appreciate your 

appearance. Thank you. We have some technical written questions that we would like to 

submit.

Mr. Gerard. We would be glad to respond. [The questions and answers referred to follow:]

129

United States Department o f the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D C. 20240

JUN 1 2 1978

Honor abl e James A bou rez k 

Chairman, Select Com mit tee on 

Indian Affairs

Uni ted States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We regret the delay in r esponding to your Mar ch 31 l etter setting out 

fur ther questions to be ans wered for the recor d of y our March 22 h ear ing 

on S. 2460, a bill to a mend the Indian S elf -De termination and Educat ion 

Assis tan ce Act.

The questions and our answers are as follows:

1. Q. "In the Departmental report you indi cate the Burea u 

is presently us ing consolidated contracts; how many such 

contracts h ave you ent ere d into and w ith wh ich tribes?"

A. We have e ntered into 44 contracts wit h 39 tribes, 

wi th each such contract enc ompassing m ore than one program.

The tribes and the num ber of such c ontracts wi th e ach are 

as follows:

1. Sant ee Sioux Trib e of Nebr aska - 2

2. Ramah Navajo - 1

3. Ute Mo unt ain - 3

4. Lag una Pue blo - 2

5. Flathead - 1

6. Nort hern Che yen ne - 1

7. Crow - 1

8. Tli nge t-Haida Ce nt ra l Council - 1

9. Met lakatla - 2

10. T anana Chiefs C onfe re nc e - 1

11. C ook Inlet Native Assoc iat ion - 1

12. Inupiat Community - 1

13. Associ ati on of V il la ge Council P residents - 1

14. M aun elu k - 1

15. Onei da Tri be of Wis co ns in - 1

16. Min nesota Chippewa - 1

17. Sault Ste. Marie - 1
130

18 . Na vajo - 1

19 . Q uin ault - 1

20 . Sh osho ne-B annock - 1

21 . Hoh - 1

22 . Lunnni - 1

23 . Makah - 1

24 . N is q u all y - 1

25 . Muc klesho ot - 1

26 . Nooks ack - 1

27 . P o in t- N o-P oin t T re a ty C ounci l - 1

28 . Puyal lu p - 1

29 . Q u ll eu te - 1

30 . Skagit Sy ste m C oop era ti v e - 1

31 . Sq ua xin Isla n d T rib a l C ou nc il - 1

32 . S ti ll a q u am is h - 1

33 . Suqua mis h - 1

34 . T u la li p - 1 *

35 . Warm Spri ngs - 1

36 . U m ati ll a - 1

37 . Cr eek N at io n o f Oklahoma - 1

38 . Se minole (F lo rid a ) - 2 »

39 . Miccosukee - 1

2. Q. "Would you d e sc rib e how th e B ur ea u’ s c o n so li d a te d 

c o n tr a c t works?"

A. B rie fly , th e c o n tr a c t ha s a common fa ce page, common 

g e n era l term s and c o n d it io n s and a se p a ra te d e s c rip tio n of 

th e re quir em ents fo r eac h pr og ram co ve re d un de r th e c o n tr a c t.

A ll prog rams may be in clu d ed in th e c o n tr a c t fro m i t s s t a r t 

o r new pr og rams ca n be ad de d by m o d if ic ati o n as th e y come 

a lo n g .

3. Q. "Would you p ro v id e th e Co mm itte e w it h c o p ie s of 

th e s e c o n so li d a te d c o n tr a c ts ? "

A. C op ie s o f th o se fro m th e P o rt la n d Area ha ve be en 

pro vid ed to th e Com m itt ee ’ s s t a f f and we ha ve be en advis ed 

th a t th e o th e rs a re n o t nee ded. However, th e o th e r co p ie s 

a re a v a ila b le upo n re q u e s t.

4 . Q. "Has th e use o f a c o n so li d a te d c o n tr a c t r e s u lte d in 

a more str eam li n ed a p p lic a tio n pro cess ?"

A. I t i s r e a l ly to o e a r ly to sa y a s only a few o f th e 

Are a O ffic e s ha ve moved in t h is d ir e c tio n . Also i t s p o te n tia l 

f o r in c re a s in g e f f ic ie n c y de pe nd s to a g re a t e x te n t on th e 

t r i b e s . I f a l l pr og ra m s to be in clu d ed in th e c o n tr a c t are in clu d ed in th e i n i t i a l a p p li c a tio n an d a re th e re fo re re vi ew ed «

c o n c u rre n tl y , th e p ro c e ss sh ould move f a s t e r . However, i f th e 

pr og ram s are su bm it te d s e p a ra te ly th e p o te n tia l sa v in g s i s 

la r g e ly , alt h o u g h n o t e n ti r e l y , l o s t .
5. Q. "You indicat e in your repor t that you pl an to request 

a modification o f the Ap prop riation Co mm it te e’s re prog ramming 

guid elin es to permit a shifting of funds among operatio n of 

Indian p rog ram activities; what are the goals and objectives 

of your demons tra tio n projects?"

A. The goals and obje ctiv es of the d emonstration would be 

to pr ovid e tribal governments w ith greater flexibi lity in the 

admi nistration of programs and services for their members and 

with great er abi lity to meeti ng changin g prio rities due to 

changing conditions.

Conside rati on Is also being given to a FY 1980 B IA budget 

and app roprition stru ctur e wh ich wou ld facilitate such 

shifts with out the nee d for a rep rogramming request.

6. Q. "Wou ld you descr ibe the n ew fu ndin g procedure you plan 

to implem ent at the end of April as noted on page 6 of the 

departme ntal report? "

A. The proced ure s consist of instruc tion s for cash 

advan ces or lett er-of-credit advances. Whe n the annual 

advance to a recipient organiz atio n is less than $120,000 or 

when there is not an expected cont inuing r elationship between 

the BIA a nd the recip ient orga nization of at least one year, 

advances are to be made by direct Trea sury che ck scheduled 

through the BIA. Wh en the BIA has, or expects to have a 

cont inuing r ela tionship with the recipi ent org anization for at 

least a ye ar inv olving advances aggr egating at least $120,000 

annually, adv ances will be made by the Tre asury Regio nal Disbursing Office S ystem of Ad vancing by letter-of-credit. In 

either case, the recip ient orga niza tion can obt ain advance 

funding for imme diate disb ursi ng needs. We wil l forward a 

copy of the n ew pro pos ed proce dure s as soon as they are 

available.

7. Q. "Please cit e what statuto ry o r regula tor y authority 

exists to achi eve wh ic h specific obje ctives of S. 2460?"

A. The F ederal Grant and Cooperativ e Agreement Act (PL 

95-224) and the J oint Funding Simp lification Act (42 U.S.C. 

4251). The Trea sur y Fiscal Requ irem ents Manual, Vol. 1,

Part 6, part 2000, provide s regu lation and gui dance for 

advance payment s to grantees and contractors.

On M ay 19, 1978, the Office of Mana gement and Budget published 

for comment their pro posed "Guidance" for "Imp lementation of 

Federal Grant and Coop erative Agree ment Act of 1977 (P.L. 95- 

224)". A cop y of that publ icat ion is enclosed for your information.
132

8 . Q. " I d e n ti fy which r e g u la tio n s you a re c o n sid e rin g mo dify in g to more c lo s e ly co nf or m w it h th e purp ose of S. 24 60?"

A. At t h is tim e we can n o t id e n tif y s p e c if ic re g u la ti o n s 

t h a t may ne ed to be m o d if ie d . We p la n a c o o p era ti v e e f f o r t 

w it h th e Ch eyenne-A rap aho T rib e in re g ard to a j o in t fu ndin g 

p ro p o sa l th ey ha ve su b m it te d . One purp ose of t h is e f f o r t i s 

to id e n tif y any r e g u la ti o n s th a t may i n h ib i t o r p re v en t i n ­

c lu s io n o f P.L . 93 -638 c o n tr a c ts in j o in t fu ndin g p r o je c ts .

9. Q. "On th e b a s is of in fo rm a ti o n a v a ila b le to th e BIA, 

ha ve att em p ts to apply th e J o in t S im p li fic a ti o n Act to an 

In d ia n T ri b e be en shown to be p r a c tic a l o r fu n c ti o n a l."

A. At th is p o in t th e re i s in s u f f ic ie n t evid ence on which 

to b ase a co n clu si o n . We do b e li e v e th a t th e J o in t Fu nd ing 

S im p li fic a tio n Ac t i s p o t e n t i a l l y b e n e f ic ia l and i t i s fo r 

t h i s re aso n th a t we a re i n su p p o rt of th e Ch eyenne -A rapaho 

T r ib e ’s e f f o r t .

10. Q. "Would you p e rso n n a ll y recommend a P r e s id e n tia l v eto 

o f th e p ro v is io n to ap pe nd th e T ri b e by ne ed s ass ess m ent to 

th e P r e s id e n t’s budget re q u e st? "

A. No, but I b e li e v e t h a t o ur an sw er to q u e sti o n 12 

be lo w p ro v id es a re aso n a b le a lt e r n a t iv e .

11. Q. "What i s yo ur vie w o f th e m erit of basi n g th e BIA 

budget on an ass es sm en t o f t r i b a l ne ed s? "

A. We a re endea vori ng to a ssu re th a t th e BIA 's budget 

i s ba se d on an as se ss m ent o f t r i b a l ne ed s and t r i b a l d e te r ­

m in ati o n s of p r i o r i t i e s .

12 . Q. "On th e l a s t pa ge o f te sti m ony you s ta te d t h a t th e 

A d m in is tr a ti o n o b je c ts as a m a tt e r of law to p ro v id in g 

s p e c if ic m a te ri a l not g e n e ra ll y a p p li c a b le to a l l ag en cy 

b u d g e ts . What do you u n d ers ta n d to be th e u n d erl y in g 

re aso n fo r t h is o b je c ti o n i f Con gr es s makes th e d e te rm in a ti o n 

t h a t i t ne ed s to know more about a s p e c if ic a re a o f th e 

P r e s id e n t's bu dget ?"

A. The o b je c ti o n i s to th e in fo rm ati o n hav in g to 

accomp any and be p a rt o f th e P r e s id e n t’ s b udget. The re i s no 

o b je c tio n to th e Dep artm en t p ro v id in g su ch in fo rm a ti o n su bse ­

quent to su bm is si on o f th e P r e s id e n t’s budget.
133

13. Q. "If you intend to conti nue to follo w the practic e of 

refu sing to con tract bec aus e of insuffici ent funds, as page 

6 indicates, do you hav e any obj ecti on to am ending the same 

appea l prov isions for such refusal as for the three proper 

declina tion crite ria? "

A. Such a r evi sion of the regu latio ns is be ing considered.

Sincerely,

25-601 0 - 78 - 10
134

[Subsequent to the hearing the following letter was received from 

the Office of Management and Bu dget:]

EXECUTI VE OFFIC E OF THE PRESID ENT 

O FFIC E OF M A N A G E M E N T AND BU DG ET

W A S H IN G T O N . D C . 20 503

MAR 2 7 1578

Honorable James Abourezk 

Chairman, Select Committee on 

Indian Affairs

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This is in response to your request of Febru ary 8, 

1978, for the views of this Office on S. 2460, a bill 

"To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act."

We share the views expressed by the Departments of 

the Interior and Health, Education, and Wel fare during 

their testimony on S. 2460. Also, in its report to 

you dated March 22, 1978, the Department of the 

Interior detailed its reasons for opposing the enactment of S. 2460. We conc ur with the views expressed 

by the two departments and, accordingly, recommend 

against enactment of S. 2460.

Sincerely

Assistant Director for 

Legislative Reference
135

Chairman Abourezk. The second group of witnesses is the Dep artment of Health, Education, and Welfare: Emery Johnson, Director of 

the Indian Health Service.

Mr. Johnson, welcome to the hearing.

Your prepared statement will be inserted.

[Mr. Johnson’s prepared statement follows:]
136

STATEMENT

BY

EMERY JOH NSO N, M .D .

DIR ECTOR

INDIAN HEALTH SERV ICE

PU BL IC HEALTH SERV ICE

DEPARTMENT OF HEA LTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IND IAN AFF AI RS

UNITE D STA TES SENATE

MARCH 2 2 , 1978
137

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to 

discuss this proposed amendment to the Indian Self-Determination

and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638. As we understand S. 2460,

it would establish an additional option available to the Indian

I

tribes by which they could elect to receive a single consolidated

i

grant for all or any part of programs fundable by contracts under

Sections 102 and 103 of P.L. 93-638.

As we have consistently stated, the Indian Health Service fully

supports Indian manning and management of IHS program activities

when, where and to such extents as the law allows and the tribes

may wish. We, therefore, support in principal, proposals that

would give greater flexibility and additional options to the Indian

tribes in their determination of how best to plan, organize, operate

and evaluate their health services.

We support the concept in S.2460 that would give the tribes the

alternative of receiving a consolidated grant. It is our view,

however, that the Indian Health Service already has the authorization

for such a consolidated approach under P.L. 93-638 since a tribe

could, if it so chose, request a contract for all health services

currently provided to it by the Indian Health Service. In any event,

the recently-enacted Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of

1977, P.L. 95-224, as eventually implemented, may cause those

contracts to be replaced by grants or cooperative agreements. Our
138

-2-

grant a uthor ity under Sectio n 104(b) of P.L. 93-638 is a lso broad

eno ugh to acco mplish mos t of the goal s of S.24 60 except that its

use, unl ike 638 contracting, is discretionary.

Ano the r pos itive aspect of this pro pos al is the impetus it wo uld

give to long range tribal plan ning. The comprehensive nat ure of

such pl annin g could bring to tribal g overnance the same reco gnition

and n eed to deal with the o rde rin g of scarce resources betwe en

con fli cti ng needs as the r ecent Congres sio nal Bu dge t and Impoundment

Contro l A ct of 1974, P.L. 93-344, bro ught to the C ongres s itself.

I shoul d like, at this time, to p oint out that the Sec ret ary of

Health, Educ ation, and We lfa re is alr eady encoura ging such planning

in the healt h field t hrough our p rogram of affording eac h tribe the

opportu nit y to develop tribal spec ific hea lth plans. Thi s p rog ram

is pa rt of the implementation of the India n Health C are Impr ovement

Act, P.L. 94-437. These tribal specific h eal th plans will, to a 

gre at extent, be the basis upon which the S ecre tary will, in 1980,

report co Con gre ss his rec omm endation concerning any additional

aut hor izati ons needed to ac hie ve the pur pos es of P.L. 94-437. We

a

are p leased to report that m os t tribes have t aken this opport uni ty

and are d evelop ing tribal specif ic hea lth plans. This pur pos e

r

aside, however, we are confident that these triba l specific heal th

pla ns will prove to be of gr eat val ue in mee ting the h eal th needs

of the indi vidual tribes and in enab ling them to deter min e their

hea lth pr ior iti es and w hat asp ect s they w ish to takeover unde r P.L. 93-638.
139

-3-

There are a number of problems with S.2460 as currently written.

The first of these deals with financial accountability. As I

understand the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would be authorized

to make grants of funds appropriated to the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare (DHEW) . Though the responsibility for

justifying and answering to Congress for the use of these funds

would remain with DHEW we would appear to have no defined role in 

either the planning or in the execution stage. In the Department's

view it would be preferable to assure that financial accountability 

be in the same hands as the granting authority even if this meant

transferring an appropriation amount from DHEW to the Department of

the Interior sufficient to cover the grants made by the Secretary

of the Interior for purposes which are the responsibility of DHEW.

The second and more important problem I see with the current proposal

has to do with the responsibility of the Department, acting through

the Indian Health Service, to raise the health status of Indians

and Alaska Native by assuring that health services are available at

the necessary quantitative and qualitiative levels. The bill

provides that the Secretary of the Interior will make the grant and

need only consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and

Welfare. The Secretary of the Interior has sole responsibility for

approving the plan upon which any grant is based. Finally, as I

indicated above, DHEW has no role in the execution of the grant.

Yet, I think it is fair to say that it is within DHEW where is

found the largest available resource of experienced people, trained 

and skilled in determining the efficacy of both proposed and operating

health programs.
140

I am concerned that neither the plan nor the grant need reflect an

adequate review by health professionals. Without a requirement for such

a review, I do not see how the Secretary of the Interior can properly

determine either that "... the service to be rendered to the Indian

beneficiaries of the particular program or function planned [in this

case health] will be adequate ..." or that "... the proposed project or

I

function in the plan can be properly completed or maintained by the

plan..."— both of which are requirements of the bill.

The same concern with how the government will assure fulfillment of its

responsibilities to the Indians and Alaska Natives exists with the

provisions covering operation of the programs covered by the consolidated

grant. It appears that the intent of section 304 is that the tribes

shall determine the priorities as long as the total spent is within

the grant amount. This would weaken the planning function since funds

could be transferred from one project to another without any concurrence

by the granting agency. Again, how does this allow either the Secretary 

of the Interior to assure that the beneficiaries will receive adequate 

services or that the project or function can be properly completed or 

maintained or allow the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to 

carry out his responsibilities. It is possible that the intent of the

proposal was to allow shifting of funds between categories within an

overall program area (e.g., shifting funds from immunization to health 

education within the overall health program) but this is not clear.
T h e re a r e a nu mbe r o f a m b ig u itie s i n th e p r o p o s a l t h a t need c l a r i f i c a t i o n .

F o r e x a m p le , s e c tio n 30 3 s t a t e s t h a t a l l p ro g ra m s w hic h DHEW i s a u th o r iz e d 

t o p e rfo rm f o r In d ia n s may b e in c lu d e d i n th e p la n . I as su m e t h i s 

in c lu d e s p ro g ra m s ru n by s u c h D e p a rtm e n ta l o r g a n iz a tio n s a s th e A d m in is tra tio n 

f o r N a tiv e A m eri cans a s w e ll a s i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t s b e n e f i t t i n g In d ia n s 

fu n d e d u n d e r any o f th e v a r io u s p ro g ra m s a d m in is te r e d by th e D e p a rtm e n t.

S e c tio n 30 1 se em s to i n d i c a t e t h a t th e c o n s o lid a te d g r a n t c o u ld c o v e r 

o n ly p r o j e c t s fu n d a b le u n d e r S e c tio n s 10 2 an d 103 o f P .L . 9 3 -6 3 8 . I f 

th e i n t e n t i s t h a t th e c o n s o li d a te d g r a n t may in c lu d e an y an d a l l D e p a rtm e n ta l 

p ro g ra m s , t h e r e a re a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p ro b le m s w hic h w i l l have t o b e a d d re s s e d 

by th o s e r e s p o n s ib le f o r th e i n d i v i d u a l D e p art m en t p ro g ra m s.

I

Th e p ro b le m s , ac com panyin g th e e a r l y s ta g e s i n th e im p le m e n ta ti o n an d 

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f P .L . 9 3 -6 38 h a v e to a g r e a t e x t e n t b een a l l e v i a t e d .

T h is p r o c e s s c o n tin u e s a n d , h o p e f u l l y , w i l l b e a id e d a s a r e s u l t o f th e 

F e d e r a l G ra n t and C o o p e ra tiv e A gre em ent A ct o f 1977, w hic h I m e n ti o n e d 

e a r l i e r . Th e b a s ic p u rp o s e o f t h i s a c t i s t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b etw ee n

F e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and F e d e r a l p ro c u re m e n t a c t i v i t i e s .

Our e x p e r ie n c e h a s show n t h a t th e la c k o f a c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n 

b e tw ee n F e d e r a l p ro c u re m e n t an d P .L . 93-6 38 c o n t r a c t s w ith t r i b e s h a v e , 

i n f a c t , c a u s e d some p ro b le m s o f th e k in d s p e ll e d o u t in th e " F in d in g

an d P u rp o se " o f P .L . 9 5 -2 2 4 .
142

P.L. 93-638 has been law for only slightly more than three years and has

been funded for less than a year and a half. I do not think this is 

sufficient time to conclude that the intent of Congress has been 

frustrated because there has been no meaningful transfer of control of

basic Government services to the tribes. There have, of course, been

problems. But I believe that the Indian people are the ones to decide

i

to what extent they wish to use P.L. 93-638. The Indian Self-Determination

Act is new to the Indian community and generally they have chosen to 

approach it cautiously. Many appear to consider it a termination

policy in the guise of self-determination. Their caution should not be 

combined with our problems in implementing a new, far reaching,law to 

declare that the law is ineffective or its purpose has been frustrated.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy

to answer any questions you or the members of the Committee may have.
143

STATEMENT OF EMERY JOHNSON, M.D., DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH 

SERVICE, PUBLIC HEA LTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 

EDUCATION, AND WEL FAR E

Dr. J ohnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We basically support in principle the bill before you, any proposal th at would give greater flexibility and additional options to the 

tribes. I would like to point out tha t we in the Indian Health Service already have the authority to give both bloc contracts and bloc grants. Our section 104 of Public Law 93-638 is a little different from the Bureau’s. I t provides that we can give bloc grants for operations. So, we do not see that as adding any new auth ority to what we 

already have.

Chairman Abourezk. Then you agree with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Assistant Secretary tha t this amendment certainly would not be harmful for legislative purposes?

Dr. J ohnson. The amendment tha t provides for bloc grants in and of itself is not harmful. I think there are certain aspects of it th at give us some concern. I would like to address my remarks to 

those. First, I would like to po int out the concept in the bill for long-range tribal planning is, again, something tha t we would endorse. I would like to point out again tha t the Secretary of HEW has, in fact, imple­ mented an option for the tribes to do this kind of planning in terms of his implementation plan for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. In the implementation plan tha t was sent to the Congress last September the Secretary outlined the option for the tribes to engage in the basic health planning process. At this point, most tribes have picked up on that . So, we will have tribal health plans a little more than a year from now, if everything goes on schedule. Each tribe that has chosen to do so will in fact have a comprehensive health plan. That will be available to the Secretary. It is our understanding that the Department will plan to use th at as the basis of the Secretary’s report to the Congress tha t is required by 437. So, for the first time, t le Congress will have available to it a tribe-by-tribe health plan developed by the tribes. I would point out that there is no requirement tha t tribes plan. This is clearly their option to plan, but they have been given tha t opportunity. For the most part, they have very gladly accepted it. With those two things, we feel that this act is quite consistent 

with what we have in mind. We do have, however, a couple of problems with the law as now written and an area in which we see some ambiguity in the law t hat gives the Department some concern. The first problem that we see with the law as written is th at dealing with fiscal accountability. As the law is written, it would give the Secretary of Interior the authority to give the bloc grant with only a requirement tha t there be consultation with the Secretary of HEW .

The Department finds th at tha t is difficult to go along with in the sense that the Secretary of HEW would be held accountable for the appropriation. Yet, he would have no access to either the giving of the grant or the monitoring of the grant.
144

The suggestion for the Department in the bill would be that, when 

the Secretary of the Interior gave such a grant for health programs, 

for example, or any activity tha t was covered under HEW ’s appropriation, tha t amount of funds would be transferred to the Secretary 

of the Interior so tha t the accountability for those funds would rest 

with the agent that is in charge of the grant.

The second basic problem that we see with the bill really follows, 

in a sense, from tha t same concern. There is nothing in the bill that 

seems to require tha t there be any health review or consideration of 

the tribal plans-----

Chairman Abourezk. By the Indian Health Service.

Dr. J ohnson. Or by the Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare.

Chairman Abourezk. When it deals with health-----

Dr. J ohnson. That is correct.

The same thing would be true—going back to what I will mention 

about what is actually encompassed by this act. The Department 

would have the same problem if other departmental programs th at 

were enacted under other statutes were also included in this bloc grant. 

There is no way for the Departmen t to maintain its accountability-----

Chairman Abourezk. I just have to say that I sort of see your 

point. But the reason for this particular procedure is to avoid having 

the tribes go to two different agencies. It is slow enough to go to one 

agency, but to have to go to two is crushing; it is almost impossible.

We would be happy to work with you on trying to give the am ount 

of accountability tha t is needed to HEW and BIA without slowing the 

process down.

Dr. J ohnson. There are mechanisms, Mr. Chairman, through 

which th at could be accomplished.

Chairman Abourezk. Would it be all right if we had the legislative 

staff work with you then?

Dr. J ohnson. We would be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

The final point that I would like to make is that the Department is 

unsure as to what is actually covered under this law. Section 303 

state s tha t all programs which HEW is authorized to perform for 

Indians may be included in the plan.

Our reading of that would be tha t any program funded by the 

Department tha t provides services to Indians, regardless under what 

statute, would be subject. This would include not only the administration on Native Americans but perhaps welfare programs, Head 

Sta rt, whatever it might be, where the recipients were Indian groups.

Tha t gives the Dep artm ent considerable concern in the administrative process by which that might be carried out and the potential 

jurisdictional problems with other statutes and other committees.

On the other hand, section 301 of this bill suggests tha t these 

consolidated grants would only cover projects fundable by sections 

102 and 103 of Public Law 93-638, which is the Indian Health Service 

as far as the Department is concerned.

If the latter is correct, then the Dep artm ent’s problems are considered reduced. If it is the former, then the Department, again, has 

a good bit of concern about the accountability and the jurisdictional 

problems that that would provide.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
145

Chairman Abourezk. Do I understand, Dr. Johnson, tha t you support the bill with those amendments tha t we have talked about, if 

the amendments could be worked to your satisfaction? The IHS could 

support the bill?

Dr. J ohnson. Yes. We see nothing inconsistent in the bill with what 

basically we already have the authority to do. It does add one more 

flexibility to the tribe.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we ought to be very careful in looking at the 

accountability. Under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 

there are very specific congressional mandates tha t are identified in 

terms of scope of health service, quality, and so forth.

If it were the will of the Congress to provide funding, irrespective of 

how the money was appropriated or for whatever purpose—and this is 

another part of the bill that gives us some concern, the statement in 

there that the grantee may change his plan without, apparently, any 

contact with the granting agent—one could see the potential then that 

money which would be appropriated for health could end up not providing health services at all but providing something entirely different.

I think, if one wants to do t ha t and if that is the inte nt of the act, 

then it seems to me tha t one might look at something even simpler, 

and that is to simply go to a revenue sharing program in which tnere 

really needs to be no Federal intervention whatever. T hat would carry 

out that inten t of the act.

On the other hand, if there is still an intent that certain other 

statutes and Federal responsibility to be carried out—for example, a 

responsibility for health of Indian people—then I think we have to 

sort through this act and look at it a little bit differently.

Chairman Abourezk. I want to ask a question on a different subject 

if I might.

You and I talked earlier a bout the private health contracting tha t 

some of the tribes have done with hospitals and medical centers and so 

on around the country. The last time I talked to you, I think the Indian 

Health Service was behind some $1.5 million in payments to these 

private hospitals. Some of them, incidentally, in South Dakota have 

called me directly and complained about it. I think tha t is about half 

of the national debt out in South Dakota.

Dr. J ohnson. I wish it was. [Laughter.]

Chairman Abourezk. Have you been able to work out any way to 

pay these hospitals what is owed to them?

Dr. J ohnson. The Dep artm ent testified about a week ago before 

the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that there were 

certain potential administrative funds available that, given authorization by the Congress, could be spent for tha t purpose.

That is a little bit beyond m y understanding of where they are—the 

so-called M accounts that the Department has.

Chairman Abourezk. It needs congressional authorization?

Dr. J ohnson. Yes. It needs congressional authority in an appropriation act which permits us to spend money. It is basically 

prior year money. It must be released by the Congress before it 

could be spent for tha t purpose.

[Material received from Indian Health Service follows:]
146

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARI 1

 • ' 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

. HEALTH SERVICES A DMINISTRATION

R O C K V IL L E . M A R Y LA N D 20 85 2

IN D IA N H EA LTH SE RV IC E

Apr il 14, 1978

The H onorable James Abourezk 

Chairman, Senate Sel ect Co mmittee

on Indian Affa irs 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The information on S. 2460 req ues ted in your letter of M ar ch 31, 1978

follows:

Quest ion No. 1:

Please specify by w ha t me chan is ms the Tribe could obt ain a single 

grant for its BIA & IHS pr ograms using only on e app lic ati on procedure, 

one accounting p roc edu re and o ne eva luatiQn report wit hout vi ola ting 

the IHS accountability?

Answer No. 1:

To our knowledge, the on ly a uth ori ty w hich could be u sed to e nabl e 

a tribe to obtain join t fun ding for b oth its Indian Healt h Service 

and Bureau of Indian Af fair s progra ms is the J oin t Fu nding Sim pli ­

fic ation Act of 1974, P.L. 93-510. This act permits a wide range 

of administrative arr angements aimed at enab ling an applicant for 

Fed era l assistance to be tter u til ize and coor dinate reso urc es from a 

number of programs. The Ac t per mits such things as: uni for m 

pro visions for financial admi nistration, and timing of Fed era l pay ­

ments; establish men t of joint man age men t funds for a project; single 

agency admi nistration and projec t supervision of a mul ti- age ncy 

funded project; and the creation of joint or common applica tio n 

rev iew and processing.

The Indian tribes are covere d b y P.L. 93-510. The Indi an Hea lth 

Service, however, has ha d ve ry little expe rience with P.L. 93-510.

I understand that several tribes in Okl aho ma are con sidering apply ing 

for a joint funding gra nt to cov er prog rams funded b y the Indian

r
Health Se rvice and the Bu rea u of Indian Affairs. In addition, the 

Salt Rive r Tribe has been u til izi ng joint funding pro ced ure s for 

several year s now— init iall y und er OMB Circular All l and now u nder 

P.L. 93-510. The Indian Heal th S ervi ce has had little d irect involve ­

ment, but there is an alc oho lis m component to the joint f unding 

pro ject a nd this comp onent is one o f the projec ts bein g transferre d 

from the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Me ntal Health Admin ist rat ion to the 

Indian Hea lth Service. The Adminis tra tio n for N ativ e Amer ica ns has 

had c onsiderable input into the project. It is my un der standing that 

the Depart men t of Health, Education, and Welfare is the lead agency 

in the Sal t River Project w hich is under the ov eral l pur vi ew of the 

Indian comm ittee of the We st er n Fede ral Re gion al Council. Though 

limited, there does appe ar to be some exper ienc e to dr aw upon.

Que sti on No. 2:

Sinc e b oth BIA and IHS m us t chan ge its 638 regulat ions due to

P.L. 95-224 , do y ou inte nd to wo rk wit h the BIA to ac hiev e ident ical

proced ure s and subs tant iall y the same regulations?

a. If the answer to 2 is yes, what pro blems might you 

encount er from HE W re gulations?

b. If the answer to 2 is no, specif y pr actical or legal 

reasons why you should not have iden tica l pr ocedures 

and subs tant iall y the same regu lations?

Answer No. 2:

The Fed era l Grant and C oop era tiv e Agr eement Act of 1977, P.L. 95-224, 

aut horizes the Director of the O ffic e of Manageme nt and Bud get to 

issue inte rpretative guid elines for the implementa tion of this act.

Ther e are no p rovisio ns in the act itself that w oul d require the P.L. 

93-638 regu lations to be revised. Until the Offic e of Management and 

Budget gu idelines are issued, we can not determi ne which, if any, 

Depart men tal regulatio ns mig ht hav e to be revis ed or to what e xten t 

they m ig ht hav e to be revised. Sho uld any P.L. 93-638 regulations 

require substantiv e revision, we w ill strive to have b oth the regulations 

and the p roc edures ma tch those of the Bureau o f Indian Affa irs to the 

gre ate st ext ent possible.

Que stion No. 3;

In you r testimo ny on pa ge 5, you me ntion that the pr oblems accompan ying the earl y stages in the impl emen tation and admini str ati on of 

P.L. 93-638 have to a g reat ext ent be en alleviated. Please identif y 

the pr obl ems y ou are referri ng to, and w hich have been all eviated?
148

Answer No. 3:

The p rob lem s referre d to in my ope nin g statement involves those normal 

to the be gin nin g of a new program effort . These involved such things as 

publis hin g the regulations, training staff, estab lish ing gra nt and 

contrac t c apab ility, prov iding inf orm ation to the Indian peopl e on the 

new law an d defining the heal th d eli very system s involved. In addi tio n 

to esta blishing the machinery with wh ic h to imple ment the Act, there 

were ma ny legal questions that h ad to be addre ssed by the H EW O ffice of 

General Couns el of HEW and this p ro cess too is proc eeding smoothly. 

Question No. 4:

On page 2, you speak of "Tribal specif ic health plans." How do such 

plans com pare with the comprehensive Tribal plan and needs ass essment 

as set for th in S. 2460?

Answer No. 4:

Section 701 of the Indian Health Car e Improve ment Act, P.L. 94-437 

requ ires the Secreta ry of Health, Edu cation and Welf are to re por t to 

Congres s con cerning any addi tion al auth orizations for fiscal y ear s 1981 

through 1984. In order to obt ain tha t da ta nece ssar y for this report, 

and as par t of the imple ment atio n p la n for P.L. 94-437, it was decided 

to of fer eac h tribe the oppo rtunity to de velop tribal speci fic hea lth 

plan s (TSAD) It should be n oted that this system includes urban specific 

health pla ns since the report req uir ed by section 701 must c ove r all 

programs aut horized under P.L. 94-437.

The forma t for deve loping Trib al Specif ic Heal th Plans for FY 1981 - 

1984 includes the: (1) scope of the Plan, (2) desc ript ive dat a on the 

service area, (3) demograp hic and hea lth data, (4) total health ne eds 

for the tribe, (5) heal th resources curr ently available, (6) unmet 

needs, and (7) appro ach and pl an for ov erco ming the unmet health needs.

The pla ns dev eloped under S. 2460 m ay c over "any, some, or all "programs 

covered by S. 2460. It wou ld therefore, be p oss ible for an S. 2460 plan 

to be wid er or narrower in scope tha n a TSHP. The S. 2460 pla n could 

cover u p to 10 years while the TSHP would intially cover o nly 4 years.

The S. 2460 pl an covers function pe rformed by the tribe or for the tribe 

under the cons olidated grant. The TSHP deal s with the total hea lth needs 

and all hea lth resources available to m ee t these needs. The S. 2460 

pla n woul d be an intricate part of a g ran t request. TSHP is not a 

req ues t for specific funding, but ra ther part of a system to both 

assess tota l heal th needs and to de velop justi fica tion for bu dget 

aut hor izations and appr opri atio ns to me et unm et needs.
149

Question No. 5:

Please de scribe the mec han ism s wi th whic h you are m onito rin g the d elivery of a ne w training and tec hnical a ssis tanc e funds appr opriated 

unde r the auth orit y of P.L. 93- 638 to the Tribes.

Ans wer No. 5:

XHS mo nit ors the deliv ery of trai ning and techn ical assist anc e funds 

pro vid ed unde r P.L. 93-638 throu gh the (TRAIS) information system.

The s yst em has been pr ogr amm ed to acce pt quar terly rep orts from the 

Are a and Pro gram Offices, and p rod uce s a c onso lidated rep ort for three 

types of techn ical assistance, five types of suppl iers from w hom such 

tech nica l assis tanc e is acqu ired , six specific IHS activities whi ch 

gen era te and provide the tec hnical assistance, and the costs obligated 

for eac h categor y d uring the curre nt repo rtin g period.

This system pro vide s m anagement pers onnel in the Headqua rte rs an overview 

of wha t is required and p rovided, as well as a n awareness of funds being 

exp ended and residual funding bal anc es for future tech nica l assista nce 

requirem ents . A copy of the m andato ry qua rterly report is enclo sed 

for y our information. (Enclosure No. 1)

Que stion No. 6;

Are a ny P.L. 93-638 training and techni cal assi stance monies now being 

used direct ly or indi rect ly for IHS salaries, travel support, employee 

conferenc es, or other over head expendi ture s?

Ans wer N o . 6:

Such f unds are used to meet t rib al requests for techn ical ass istance and 

training and to improv e IHS admini str ati on of programs that are under 

tribal mana gemen t. These m onies ma y provide additio nal IHS P.L. 93-638 

cap abilities for training and tech nical assi stan ce ope rations by IHS 

staff.

Que sti on No. 7:

Wha t trainin g and techn ical assis tan ce monie s unde r 'Category B' were 

all ocated to the Navajo Are a Off ic e in FY78? Wer e they to b e used in 

con jun ction wit h the Na vajo T ribe' s heal th cont ract s? What speci fic 

acti vities were these funds use d for? Why did the Navajo Tri be's health 

pro grams not receive any C ategory C funds for FY 78? Which ot her h ealth 

contrac ts rece ived no Cat ego ry C funds in FY78? How muc h Cat egory D and 

E funds wer e allocated to the Nav aj o Area Off ice for FY78 N ava jo Tribal 

Hea lth contr acts ? What specifi c acti vities were these funds used for?

25-601 0 - 78 - 11
150

An sw er No . 7:

A. What t r a i n i n g an d t e c h n ic a l a s s i s t a n c e m onie s u n d e r C a te g o ry B

w er e a l l o c a t e d to th e N av aj o A re a O f fic e i n FY78?

In FY 78 , $123,0 00 was a l l o c a t e d to th e N av aj o A re a. As o f th e 

en d o f th e 3rd q u a r t e r , $1 1 8 ,3 5 2 was u n o b lig a te d an d $ 4 ,6 4 7 .5 0 

h as b e e n o b lig a te d f o r s p e c i a l a c t i v i t i e s .

B- We re th e y to be u se d in c o n ju n c tio n w it h th e N av aj o T r i b e 's

h e a l t h c o n tr a c ts ?

Y es , th e s p e c i f i c u se o f th e s e fu n d s a r e l i s t e d i n th e n e x t 

q u e s tio n .

C. What s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s w er e th e s e fu n d s u se d f o r ?

Th ey a r e u se d f o r th e it e m s d is c u s s e d i n Q u e sti o n #6 on th e 

N avajo R e s e rv a tio n th e s e fu n d s w ere u se d : (1) to d e v e lo p IHS 

s t a f f c a p a b i l i t i e s t o m eet N av ajo t r i b a l r e q u e s ts f o r te c h n i c a l 

a s s i s t a n c e an d t r a i n i n g , (2) t o im pro ve IHS a d m in is tr a tio n o f 

p ro g ra m s t h a t a r e u n d er N avajo t r i b a l m an ag em en t, (3) t o p r o v id e 

t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e ( in c lu d in g t r a i n in g ) to th e N av aj o t r i b e 

in t h e i r p r e p a r a tio n f o r p ro g ra m m an ag em en t, an d (4) to p ro v id e 

a d d i t i o n a l P .L . 93-6 38 s u p p o r t f o r pro gra m o p e r a tio n by IHS 

s t a f f n o t o th e rw is e a v a i l a b l e .

D. Why d id th e N av aj o T r i b e 's h e a l t h pro g ra m s n o t r e c e iv e an y

C a te g o ry C fu n d s f o r FY 78.

C a te g o ry C, I n d i r e c t A d m in is tr a tiv e C o s t, fu n d s w er e o n ly 

d i s t r i b u t e d to A re as an d P ro g ra m s t h a t had un m et n eed s f o r th e s e 

ty p e o f fu n d s an d to th o s e A re a and Pro gra m s who co u ld n o t fu nd 

t h e i r unm et i n d i r e c t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t n eed s o u t o f e x i s t i n g 

f u n d s . Th e N av aj o A re a was a b l e to fu nd a l l I n d i r e c t A d m in is tr a tiv e 

C o s ts o u t o f i t s e x i s ti n g fu n d s w hic h e lim in a te d th e nee d to 

o b l i g a t e C a te g o ry C fu n d s to th e N av aj o A re a in FY78.

E. Which o th e r h e a lth c o n t r a c t s r e c e iv e d no C a te g o ry C fu n d s i n FY78?

Th e l i s t o f su ch c o n t r a c t s i s d is p la y e d i n E n c lo s u re No. 2 .

(S ee E n c lo s u re # 2 ).

F . How mu ch C a te g o ry D an d E fu n d s w ere a l l o c a t e d to th e N avajo

A re a O f f ic e o f FY78 N av aj o t r i b a l h e a l t h c o n t r a c t s ?

In FY78 $104,0 00 ($ 93,0 00 an d $ 1 0 ,9 0 0 m a n d a to rie s ) o f C a te g o ry D 

fu n d s , P e rs o n n e l S u p p o rt, w er e a l l o c a t e d to th e N av aj o A re a .

T h ere w er e $117,0 00 o f C a te g o ry E, N o n -re o c c u rin g , fu n d s a l l o c a t e d .

f
151

G. What specific acti vities w ere these funds used for:

Category E funds are dis tri but ed as non- recurring amounts to 

assi st IHS in di rect suppo rt of impl emen tation of P.L. 93-638 

progr am and projects.

We appreci ate the cl ari fic ati on in your letter that other HEW 

progra ms are not inte nded to be wit hin the purv iew of S. 2460. We 

assume that the language in the bill will be amended to reflect 

this positi on.

Tha nk you for your con tinued interest in the heal th of Indian people 

Sho uld you need addi tion al information, we will be happy to oblige.

Enc losures
152

ENCLOS UR E 1

' SUBJECT: P.L. 93-638 TECH NICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITY REPORT (QUARTERLY) FY7I

DUE DATE IN I.H.S. HEADQUARTERS: APR 6 1978 t

2ND - 3RD - NTH QUARTER (CIRCLE ONE)

I. BUDGET ALLOCATION (IN DOLLARS FOR FY-78)

II. AMOUNT OBLIGATED

A. TYPE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

1. PRE-CONTRACTUAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE L

2. CONTRACT SUPPORT $

3. ALL OTHER TEC HNICAL SUPPORT

B. TYPE OF SUPPLIERS

1. INDIAN $

2. NON-INDIAN 1

-

3. GOVERNMENT i

A. INTERNAL 1

•5. OTHER L

C. ACTIVITY

1. MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH PROGRAMS $

2. STAFFING $

3. PLANNING L

A. DEVELOPMENTAL .ACTIVITIES $

5. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

I

6. OTHER $

D. TOTAL OBLIGATED THIS QUARTER $

E. BALANCE $

J.H.S. HQ. CONTACT: E. F. MOON AA3-520A
153

Enclosure #2

7E. ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA Albu querque____________

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

Is le ta Pue blo $10,588

San ta Cla ra $38,169

Eight Northern In dian Pu eblos $90,034

Ute Mou ntain Ute $38,403

South ern Ute Tr ibe $36,519

Ute Mou ntain Ute Tr ibe $62,525

Sanat Cla ra Pueblo $55,803

Zuni Pueblo $146,308

Six San doval Indian Pue blo s $237,973

Pue blo of Laguna $167,016

Zuni Pueblo $49,000

Zuni Pueblo $37,017
154

7E . ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA_______ B e m id ji __________________

CONTRACTOR

M enom in ee

S to c k b r id g e -M u n s e e

M i l l e L a c s

F o n d d u L ac

M i l l e L a c s

L e e c h L ak e

G ra n d P o r t a g e

U p p e r S io u x

L o w er S io u x

P r a i r i e I s l a n d

S h a k o p e e

W h ite E a r t h

M in n e s o ta S io u x I n t e r - T r i b a l

RECEIVE

AMOUNT

$ 1 ,2 0 9 ,0 0 0

$ 2 7 2 ,7 7 4

$ 2 0 8 ,3 1 5

A

$ 1 8 ,9 4 3

$ 2 8 ,4 1 4

$ 1 5 1 ,6 5 4

$ 9 ,4 5 5

$ 9 ,4 8 7

$ 9 ,4 6 1

$ 9 ,4 3 9

$ 9 ,4 6 1

$ 1 1 9 ,7 3 6

' $ 9 ,4 6 1
155

7E. ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

ARE A Portland

CONTRACTOR AMOUN T

Squaxin Island $48,883

Nooksack $24,148

Puget Sound Health Board $52,759

Puyallup $52,207

Lummi $36,674

Lummi $29,253
156

7E . ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT REC EIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA S a c ra m e n to

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

T r i - C o u n t y I n d i a n H e a l t h P r o j e c t , I n c .

C a l i f o r n i a T r i b a l C h a ir m a n s A s s o c i a t i o n

I n d i a n H e a l t h C o u n c il , I n c .

M od oc I n d i a n H e a lth P r o j e c t
157

7E. ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT CATEGORY C FUNDS

RECEIVE

AREA Tucson

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

All Papago Tribal Healt h Contracts
158

7E. ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA Oklahoma •

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma $25,000
159

7 E . ATTA CHME NT

HEA LTH CO NT RA CT S THA T DID NOT R ECEIV E 

CAT EGO RY C FUNDS

AREA B e m i d j i '___________________

CONTRACTOR

R e d C l i f f

M i c h i g a n I n d i a n H e a l t h B o a r d

AMOUNT

$ 2 8 , 3 7 6

$ 2 0 , 1 6 7
160

7E . ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA Billings

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

F la th e a d T r ib a l H e a lth B oard $ 7 3 ,2 9 2

Roc ky Boy H e a lth B oar d $ 4 1 ,1 6 0

F la th e a d T r ib a l H e a lth B oard $ 3 0 ,0 0 0

R oc ky Boy H e a lt h B oard $ 1 8 ,0 0 0

Roc ky Boy H e a lth B oar d $ 5 0 ,0 0 0

N o rth e rn Che ye nn e B oard o f H e a lth $ 5 0 ,0 0 0

B la c k f e e t T r ib a l H e a lth D e p art m en t $ 5 0 ,0 0 0

B la c k f e e t T r ib a l C o u n c il $ 4 6 ,2 5 5
161

7E. ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA Alaska /

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

North Slope Borough $417,173
162

7E. . ATTACHMENT

HEALT H CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA U S E T

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

County of St . Regis Mohawk $760,000

Seneca Nation of Indians $87,775
163

7 E . ATTACHMENT

HEALTH CONTRACTS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE 

CATEGORY C FUNDS

AREA Ph oe ni x

CONTRACTOR AMOUNT

R al ph E. S c is sio n s $16,5 00.0 0

Ho pi T rib a l Counc il $19,0 80.0 0

Hop i T rib a l C ounc il $ 9 ,6 0 0 .0 0

G il a R iv er In dia n Comn unity $20,5 83.7 2

Qu ech an T ri b e $14,1 45.0 0

San C a rl o s Apache T ri b e $73,2 46.2 2
164

Chairman Abourezk. I have no more questions.

Mr. Gerard. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just make one 

more additional point?

Chairman Abourezk. Yes.

Mr. Gerard. Dr. Johnson has expressed HEW ’s concern that 

the bill as drafted woiild authorize the Department of Interior to 

really assume the lead in the health area, which we all know statutorily 

they are charged with administering.

Our exploration of the Joint Funding and Simplification Act 

reveals that, even though v

 Interior or BI A might be designated as 

the lead agency, this would not relieve the other participating 

agencies in the funding process of their ongoing monitoring ana 

evaluations responsibilities.

We would be more than willing to continue to work with your 

staff, as we develop the Cheyenne and Arapahoe proposals.

But I think this distinction ought to go on the record.

Chairman Abourezk. Thank you very much.

We have no more witnesses scheduled this morning. We appreciate 

the appearance of all witnesses.

The hearings are adjourned.

[Whereupon, a t 10:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

O