Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/199/case.html
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 15:47:12
Document Index: 697098239

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 5', '§ 463', '§ 3', '§ 463', '§ 46', '§ 23', '§ 1352', '§ 21', '§ 309', '§ 34', '§ 31']

Morton v. Ruiz, (full text) :: 415 U.S. 199 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 415 › Morton v. Ruiz › Case
Respondent Ruiz and his wife, Papago Indians, left their reservation in Arizona in 1940 to live in an Indian community a few miles away, and Ruiz found employment at a nearby mine. During a prolonged strike, Ruiz applied for but was denied general assistance benefits under the Snyder Act by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) because of a provision in the BIA Manual limiting eligibility to Indians living "on reservations" (and in jurisdictions under the BIA in Alaska and Oklahoma). After unsuccessful administrative appeals, respondents instituted this purported class action, claiming, inter alia, entitlement to such general assistance as a matter of statutory interpretation. The District Court's summary judgment for petitioner was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the Manual's residency limitation was inconsistent with the broad language of the Snyder Act, that Congress intended general assistance benefits to be available to all Indians, including those in respondents' position, and that Congress' subsequent actions in appropriating funds for the BIA general assistance program did not serve to ratify the imposed limitation.
1. Congress did not intend to exclude from the BIA general assistance program these respondents, and their class, who are full-blooded, unassimilated Indians living in an Indian community near their native reservation and who maintain close economic and social ties with that reservation. Pp. 415 U. S. 212-230.
the programs were being made available to those nonassimilated Indians living near the reservation as well as to those living "on," and a fair reading of such history can lead only to the conclusion that Indians situated near the reservation, such as respondents, were covered by the authorization. Pp. 415 U. S. 213-229.
(b) The fact that Congress made appropriations during the time the "on reservations" limitation appeared in the BIA Manual does not mean that Congress implicitly ratified the BIA policy, where such limitation had not been published in the Federal Register or in the Code of Federal Regulations, and there is nothing in the legislative history to show that the limitation was brought to the appropriation subcommittees' attention, let alone to the entire Congress. But, even assuming that Congress knew of the limitation when making appropriations, there is no reason to assume that it did not equate the "on reservations" language with the "on or near" category that continuously was described as the service area. P. 415 U. S. 230.
2. Assuming, arguendo, that the Secretary rationally could limit the "on or near" appropriation to include only Indians who lived directly "on" the reservation (plus those in Alaska and Oklahoma), this has not been validly accomplished. Pp. 415 U. S. 230-238.
(a) By not publishing its general assistance eligibility requirement in the Federal Register or in the Code of Federal Regulations, the BIA has failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as to publication of substantive policies. The Secretary's conscious choice not to treat this extremely significant requirement as a legislative type rule, renders it ineffective so far as extinguishing the rights of those otherwise within the class of beneficiaries contemplated by Congress. Pp. 415 U. S. 232-236.
(b) Moreover, the BIA has failed to comply with its own internal procedures, since the "on reservations" limitation is clearly an important substantive policy within the class of directives -- those that "inform the public of privileges and benefits available" and of "eligibility requirements" -- that the BIA Manual declares are among those to be published. P. 415 U. S. 235.
when in fact, the two have been continuously equated by the BIA to Congress. Pp. 415 U. S. 236-237.
"Are general assistance benefits available only to those Indians living on reservations in the United States (or in areas regulated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska and Oklahoma), and are they thus unavailable to Indians (outside Alaska and Oklahoma) living off, although near, a reservation?"
The pertinent facts are agreed upon, although, as to some, the petitioner Secretary denies knowledge but does not dispute them. App. 45-48. The respondents, Ramon Ruiz and his wife, Anita, are Papago Indians and United States citizens. In 1940, they left the Papago Reservation in Arizona [Footnote 1] to seek employment 15 miles away at the Phelps-Dodge copper mines at Ajo. Mr. Ruiz found work there, and they settled in a community at Ajo called the "Indian Village" and populated almost entirely by Papagos. [Footnote 2] Practically all the land and most of the homes in the Village are owned or rented by Phelps-Dodge. The Ruizes have lived in Ajo continuously since 1940, and have been in their present residence since 1947. A minor daughter lives with them. They speak and understand the Papago language, but only limited English. Apart from Mr. Ruiz' employment with
Phelps-Dodge, they have not been assimilated into the dominant culture, and they appear to have maintained a close tie with the nearby reservation. [Footnote 3]
In July, 1967, 27 years after the Ruizes moved to Ajo, the mine where he worked was shut down by a strike. It remained closed until the following March. While the strike was in progress, Mr. Ruiz' sole income was a $15 per week striker's benefit paid by the union. [Footnote 4] He sought welfare assistance from the State of Arizona, but this was denied because of the State's apparent policy that striking workers are not eligible for general assistance or emergency relief. [Footnote 5]
On December 11, 1967, Mr. Ruiz applied for general assistance benefits from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). He was immediately notified by letter that he was ineligible for general assistance because of the provision (in effect since 1952) in 66 Indian Affairs Manual 3.1.4 (1965) that eligibility is limited to Indians living "on reservations" and in jurisdictions under the BIA in Alaska and Oklahoma. [Footnote 6] An appeal to the Superintendent
The Snyder Act, [Footnote 7] 42 Stat. 208, 25 U.S.C. § 13, approved November 2, 1921, provides the underlying congressional
authority for most BIA activities including, in particular and importantly, the general assistance program. Prior to the Act, there was no such general authorization. As a result, appropriation requests made by the House Committee on Indian Affairs were frequently stricken on the House floor by point-of-order objections. See H.R.Rep. No. 275, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (1921); S.Rep. No. 294, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (1921); 61 Cong.Rec. 4659672 (1921). The Snyder Act was designed to remedy this situation. It is comprehensively worded for the apparent purpose of avoiding these point-of-order motions to strike. Since the passage of the Act, the BIA has presented its budget requests without further interruption of that kind, and Congress has enacted appropriation bills annually in response to the requests. The appropriation legislation at issue here, Department
This wording, except for the amount, is identical to that employed in similar legislation for prior fiscal years, [Footnote 8] and, indeed, for subsequent ones. [Footnote 9] It is to be noted that neither the language of the Snyder Act nor that of the Appropriations Act imposes any geographical limitation on the availability of general assistance benefits, and does not prescribe eligibility requirements or the details of any program. Instead, the Snyder Act states that
the BIA (under the supervision of the Secretary) "shall direct, supervise, and expend . . . for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States" for the stated purposes including, as the two purposes first described, "[g]eneral support" and "relief of distress." This is broadly phrased material, and obviously is intended to include all BIA activities. [Footnote 10]
The general assistance program is designed by the BIA to provide direct financial aid to needy Indians where other channels of relief, federal, state, and tribal, are not available. Benefits generally are paid on a scale equivalent to the State's welfare payments. Any Indian, whether living on a reservation or elsewhere, may be eligible for benefits under the various social security programs in which his State participates, and no limitation may be placed on social security benefits because of an Indian claimant's residence on a reservation. [Footnote 11]
Hearings on Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1968 before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 777-778 (1967), [Footnote 12] and Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1968, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 695 (1967). [Footnote 12a]
On the initial question, the Secretary argues, first, that the Snyder Act is merely an enabling act, with no definition of the scope of the general assistance program, that the Appropriation Act did not provide for off-reservation Indian welfare (other than in Oklahoma and Alaska), and that Congress did not intend to expand the program beyond that presented to it by the BIA request. Secondly, he points to the "on reservations" limitation in the Manual and suggests that Congress was well acquainted with that limitation, [Footnote 13] and that, by legislating in the light of the Manual's limiting provision, its appropriation amounted to a ratification of the BIA's definitive practice. He notes that, in recent years, Congress has twice rejected proposals that clearly would have provided off-reservation general assistance for Indians. [Footnote 14]
A. In actual practice, general assistance clearly has not been limited to reservation Indians. Indeed, the Manual's provision, see n 6, supra, so heavily relied upon by the Secretary, itself provides that general assistance is available to nonreservation Indians in Alaska and Oklahoma. The rationale proffered for this is:
B. There was testimony in several of the hearings that the BIA, in fact, was not limiting general assistance to those within reservation boundaries and, on more than one occasion, Congress was notified that exceptions were being made where they were deemed appropriate. Notwithstanding the Manual, at least three categories of off-reservation Indians outside Alaska and Oklahoma have been treated as eligible for general assistance. The first is the Indian who relocates in the city through the BIA relocation program and who then is eligible for general assistance for the period of time required for him, under state law, to establish residence in the new location. [Footnote 15] The second evidently is the Indian from the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota who lives on trust land near but apart from that reservation. [Footnote 16] The third appears to be the Indian residing in Rapid City, South Dakota. [Footnote 17]
approximately 300,000 live on or adjacent to reservations for which the Bureau assumes some responsibility. On most of the Indian reservations, there is a surplus of population in proportion to reservation resources. Opportunities for self-support on or near these reservations are wholly inadequate, and the increasing surplus population is faced with the alternative of moving away from the reservation or remaining to live in privation or dependent, partially or wholly, upon some form of public assistance."
Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1959, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 288 (1958) (emphasis supplied). [Footnote 18]
"Miss Gifford. We estimate that the total population on or near the reservations that we serve is 380,000."
"Mr. Denton. I expect there is no way you could tell how many Indians there are off the reservations."
figure for the Indian population and subtract those that are listed as living on or near the reservations, and this gives us a figure of 172,000 off the reservations; 380,000 on or near the reservations, including Alaska."
"Mr. Officer. We are citing our figure of 380,000 to include those Indians who live in the reservation vicinity and are eligible to receive our services, as well as the Indians and other Alaska natives. The total of Alaska natives is 43,000. When we subtract that from 380,000, we have 337,000 Indians who live on or near reservations outside Alaska. Now if we are going to be concerned only with those who live on reservations, then we have that figure of 285,000, which was in our press release."
"Mr. Officer. The 380,000 are those who live on or near reservations plus the natives of Alaska."
"Mr. Officer. It is for that reason that we cite figures of Indians living on or near reservations; because we have a number of situations similar to those in Oklahoma, where you don't have a well
House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1963, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 352-354 (1962) (emphasis supplied). [Footnote 19]
"Mr. Nash. These are on or near. This would not include, for example, Indians living in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, unless they were brought there as part of our vocational training or relocation programs."
"Mr. Nash. No, sir. Our basis for providing services to an Indian is primarily on real estate. That is, we service those individuals who reside on trust or restricted land, or so close to it that the program of the reservation would be affected by services not performed for that person."
Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1965, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 227-228 (1964) (emphasis supplied). [Footnote 20]
"Mr. Nash. This is on and near. The figure on the reservation is somewhat smaller, but this is the figure which is of those who are on reservations, are living on trust lands, have titles which are alienated,
restricted against aliens, or are village communities in Alaska, Oklahoma, or are so near to reservations that they are dependent upon the facilities provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for their major community services."
"Mr. Bennett. The total Indian population under our jurisdiction at the present time is 380,000. These are on or near reservations, and comprise our service population based on the 1960 census."
Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1968, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 819 (1967) (emphasis supplied). [Footnote 21]
". . . We have a need for services for 380,000 people. This includes those who are living directly on the reservations, and those who are living very close, so that the way in which they live affects reservations programs."
House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1964, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 889 (1963) (emphasis supplied). See also Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1967, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 295-300 (1966).
"Mr. Bruce. On or near."
"Mr. Bruce. It is very difficult to define. Near reservation would be a nearby community."
"Mr. Bruce. 477,000 on or near."
"Mr. Bruce. That is our total responsibility. [Footnote 22] "
Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1972, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 751-756 (1971). [Footnote 23]
Thus, the usual practice of the BIA has been to represent to Congress that "on or near" is the equivalent of "on" for purposes of welfare service eligibility, and that the successive budget requests were for a universe of Indians living "on or near," and not just for those living directly "on." In addition, the BIA has continually treated persons "off" the reservations as not "on or near." In the light of this rather consistent legislative history, it is understandable that the Secretary now argues that general assistance has not been available to those "off" the reservation. We do not accept the argument, however, that the history indicates that general assistance was thereby restricted to those within the physical boundaries. To the contrary, that history clearly shows that Congress was led to believe that the programs were being made available to those unassimilated needy Indians living near the reservation as well as to those living "on." Certainly, a fair reading of the congressional proceedings up to and including the fiscal 1968 hearing can lead only to the conclusion that Indians situated near the reservation, such as the Ruizes, were covered by the authorization. [Footnote 24]
A. Having found that the congressional appropriation was intended to cover welfare services at least to those Indians residing "on or near" the reservation, it does not necessarily follow that the Secretary is without power to create reasonable classifications and eligibility requirements in order to allocate the limited funds available to him for this purpose. See Dandridge v. Williams,
397 U. S. 471 (1070); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972). Thus, if there were only enough funds appropriated to provide meaningfully for 10,000 needy Indian beneficiaries and the entire class of eligible beneficiaries numbered 20,000, it would be incumbent upon the BIA to develop an eligibility standard to deal with this problem, and the standard, if rational and proper, might leave some of the class otherwise encompassed by the appropriation without benefits. But, in such a case, the agency must, at a minimum, let the standard be generally known, so as to assure that it is being applied consistently and so as to avoid both the reality and the appearance of arbitrary denial of benefits to potential beneficiaries.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Secretary rationally could limit the "on or near" appropriation to include only the smaller class of Indians who lived directly "on" the reservation plus those in Alaska and Oklahoma, the question that remains is whether this has been validly accomplished. The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created and funded program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress. In the area of Indian affairs, the Executive has long been empowered to promulgate rules and policies, [Footnote 25] and the power has been given explicitly to the Secretary and his delegates at the BIA. [Footnote 26]
This agency power to make rules that affect substantial individual rights and obligations carries with it the responsibility not only to remain consistent with the governing legislation, FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726 (1973); Dixon v. United States, 381 U. S. 68, 381 U. S. 74 (1965); Brannan v. Stark, 342 U. S. 451 (1952), but also to employ procedures that conform to the law. See NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U. S. 759, 394 U. S. 764 (1969) (plurality opinion). No matter how rational or consistent with congressional intent a particular decision might be, the determination of eligibility cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by the dispenser of the funds.
The Administrative Procedure Act was adopted to provide, inter alia, that administrative policies affecting individual rights and obligations be promulgated pursuant to certain stated procedures so as to avoid the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations. See generally S.Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 12-13 (1945); H.R.Rep. No.1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 21-23 (1946). That Act states in pertinent part:
Ibid. [Footnote 27]
"Code of Federal Regulations: Directives which relate to the public, including Indians, are published in the Federal Register and codified in 25 Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR). These directives inform the public of privileges and benefits available; eligibility qualifications, requirements and procedures; and of appeal rights and procedures. They are published in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the Director of the Federal Register and the Administrative Procedure Act as amended. . . . "
"Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual: Policies. procedures, and instructions which do not relate to the public but are required to govern the operations of the Bureau are published in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual."
Unlike numerous other programs authorized by the Snyder Act and funded by the annual appropriations, the BIA has chosen not to publish its eligibility requirements for general assistance in the Federal Register or in the CFR. This continues to the present time. [Footnote 28] The
Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. This is so even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required. Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363, 354 U. S. 388 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535, 359 U. S. 539-540 (1959). The BIA, by its Manual, has declared that all directives that "inform the public of privileges and benefits available" and of "eligibility requirements" are among those to be published. The requirement that, in order to receive general assistance, an Indian must reside directly "on" a reservation is clearly an important substantive policy that fits within this class of directives. Before the BIA may extinguish the entitlement of these otherwise eligible beneficiaries, it must comply, at a minimum, with its own internal procedures.
The Secretary has presented no reason why the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act could not or should not have been met. Cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 332 U. S. 202 (1947). The BIA itself has not attempted to defend its rule as a valid exercise of its "legislative power," but, rather, depends on the argument that Congress itself has not appropriated funds for
The overriding duty of our Federal Government to deal fairly with Indians wherever located has been recognized by this Court on many occasions. See, e.g., Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 316 U. S. 296 (1942); Board of County Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705 (1943). Particularly here, where the BIA has continually represented to Congress, when seeking funds, that Indians living near reservations are within the service area, it is essential that the legitimate expectation of these needy Indians not be extinguished by what amounts to an unpublished ad hoc determination of the agency that was not promulgated in accordance with its own procedures, to say nothing of those of the Administrative Procedure Act. The denial of benefits to these respondents under such circumstances is inconsistent with "the distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people." Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. at 316 U. S. 296; see Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U. S. 1 (1956). Before benefits may be denied to these otherwise entitled Indians, the BIA must first promulgate eligibility requirements according to established procedures.
B. Even assuming the lack of binding effect of the BIA policy, the Secretary argues that the residential restriction in the Manual is a longstanding interpretation of the Snyder Act by the agency best suited to do this, and that deference is due its interpretation. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 401 U. S. 433-434 (1971).
We have recognized previously that the weight of an administrative interpretation will depend, among other things, upon "its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements" of an agency. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 323 U. S. 140 (1944). See generally 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §§ 5.03-5.06 (1958 ed. and Supp. 1970). In this instance, the BIA's somewhat inconsistent posture belies its present assertion. In order for an agency interpretation to be granted deference, it must be consistent with the congressional purpose. Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U. S. 86 (1973); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 395 U. S. 381 (1969). It is evident to us that Congress did not itself intend to limit its authorization to only those Indians directly on, in contrast to those "near," the reservation, and that, therefore, the BIA's interpretation must fail.
The Papago Indian Reservation was established by Executive Orders Nos. 2300 and 2524, S.Doc. No. 53, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 1008 and 1005, promulgated January 14, 1916, and February 1, 1917, respectively. Later adjustments therein appear to have been effected by the Act of June 28, 1926, 44 Stat. 775; by the Act of Feb. 21, 1931, 46 Stat. 1202; by the Act of July 28, 1937, 50 Stat. 536, 25 U.S.C. §§ 463a-463c; and by the Act of June 13, 1939, 53 Stat. 819. See also the Act of June 18, 1934, § 3, 48 Stat. 984; the Act of May 27, 1955, 69 Stat. 67; and 25 U.S.C. § 463. See Papago Tribe v. United States, 19 Ind.Cl.Comm'n 394, 433-434 (1968).
Ajo is located within the borders of the Papago aboriginal tribal land. The Indian Claims Commission has found that this land was taken from the Papagos by the United States. Id. at 422-423, 426.
Mr. Ruiz so stated at the hearing referred to, infra before the BIA Area Director. App. 11, 16. Mrs. Ruiz at the same hearing stated that she worked about eight hours a week for $1 an hour. App. 19.
See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 46-233.A.4 (Supp. 1971-1972) reflecting the amendment by Laws 1962, c. 117, § 23. See also Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365 (1971).
"3.1 General Assistance."
".1 Purpose. The purpose of the general assistance program is to provide necessary financial assistance to needy Indian families and persons living on reservations under the jurisdiction of this Bureau and in jurisdictions under the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska and Oklahoma."
".4 Eligibility Conditions."
"A. Residence. Eligibility for general assistance is limited to Indians living on reservations and in jurisdictions under the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska and Oklahoma."
See, for example, the Appropriations Act for fiscal 1967, Pub.L. 89-435, 80 Stat. 170, 171 (1966); the Act for fiscal 1966, Pub.L. 89-52, 79 Stat. 174, 175 (1965); and the Act for fiscal 1965, Pub.L. 88-356, 78 Stat. 273, 274 (1964).
See the Appropriations Act for fiscal 1969, Pub.L. 90-425, 82 Stat. 425, 427 (1968); the Act for fiscal 1970, Pub.L. 91-98, 83 Stat. 147, 148 (1969); the Act for fiscal 1971, Pub.L. 91-361, 84 Stat. 669, 670 (1970); the Act for fiscal 1972, Pub.L. 92-76, 85 Stat. 229, 230 (1971); the Act for fiscal 1973, Pub.L. 92-369, 86 Stat. 508, 509 (1972); and the Act for fiscal 1974, Pub.L. 93-120, 87 Stat. 429, 430-431 (1973).
See, for example, 42 U.S.C. § 1352(b)(2). An Indian thus is entitled to social security and state welfare benefits equally with other citizens of the State. State ex rel. Williams v. Kamp, 106 Mont. 444, 449, 78 P.2d 585, 587 (1938); U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Federal Indian Law 287, 516 (1958); Wolf, n 10, supra at 599.
[Footnote 12a]
The BIA's limitation in practice surfaced at many hearings. See, for example, the testimony of Assistant Commissioner Gifford in 1959:
"I believe the question comes up concerning Indians living off the reservation and who are in need not for these categories but for other types of assistance. In many cases, the States and counties say that those Indians ought to be the responsibility of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; that they do not have sufficient funds to take care of them. We have never included in our request for welfare appropriations funds to take care of the needs of those Indians living off the reservation."
House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1960, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 801 (1959) (emphasis supplied). See also Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1959, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 291 (1958); Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1952, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 372 (1951); Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1950, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 592 (1949); Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1948, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 598-599 (1947); Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1942, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 160-162, 465-466 (1941).
The bills referred to were H.R. 9621, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962), and H.R. 6279, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963). Each provided that benefits would be available to all Indians in certain named States, and that the Government would reimburse the State for a percentage of the latter's contribution under the several categorical assistance programs. The failure of these bills can be ascribed just as easily, of course, to the rather arbitrary selection of States, to the specific percentage designated, or to a reluctance to provide for all Indians (rural or urban, assimilated or nonassimilated), as to the increase over the lesser group then being serviced. See United States v. Wise, 370 U. S. 405, 370 U. S. 411 (1962); Order of Railway Conductors v. Swan, 329 U. S. 520, 329 U. S. 529 (1947).
See, for example, Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1967, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 302 (1966) (statement of Commissioner Nash); Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1959, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 293 (1958) (statement of Deputy Commissioner Greenwood).
Identical language, apart from the population figures, appeared in later BIA budget requests. See, for example, House Hearings, Fiscal Year 1962, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 116 (1961).
"We have a need for services for 380,000 people . This includes those who are living directly on the reservations, and those who are living very close, so that the way in which they live affects reservations programs. They move back and forth, et cetera. We call this our 'Federal service to Indian population,' and it is larger this year than last."
"We are a modern service bureau, serving about 380,000 Indian persons and Alaska natives who live on or near reservations in 25 States. The services we perform are basically of three types."
"We are a modern service Bureau, serving as many as 400,000 Indians and Alaskan natives who live on or near reservations -- people who find themselves isolated from the mainstream of American life -- existing in poverty. In keeping with the general governmental policy of attacking the causes of poverty and the lack of salable skills, the objective of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is to coordinate Federal programs and programs of State and local agencies which will improve educational, economic, social and political opportunities of Indians."
"Population data"
Senate Hearings, Fiscal Year 1972, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 752-753 (1971). See n 3, supra.
"The court of appeals has held in this case that Indian welfare benefits administered by the Department of the Interior under the Snyder Act of 1921, 25 U.S.C. 13, must be provided not only to Indians living on or near reservations, as has been the practice of the Department of the Interior for many years, but must also be made available to Indians residing anywhere in the country."
H.R.Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1966). See S.Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1965); S.Rep. No. 1219, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1964).
25 CFR § 21.1 (1973). But see 25 U.S.C. § 309 and 25 CFR § 34.3, where vocational training for adult Indians is also made available
(Emphasis supplied.) See also 25 CFR § 31.1.