Opinion ID: 415735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individuals' Claims: Congressional Intent to Terminate

Text: 26 Appellants contend Congress intended to terminate general assistance in Alaska only if the State of Alaska had implemented a comparable program. Appellants base this claim on BIA regulations, 10 and on committee reports to the appropriations process indicating Alaska was implementing a comparable program and that Alaska Natives would not be without aid during the transition. 27 The district court concluded there was no contrary legislative history concerning the $4 million dollar appropriation, and therefore Congress' intent is embodied in the report of the joint conference committee. The district court also concluded: The House and Senate Joint Conference Committee report specifying the six-month limit is controlling because it expresses the precise intent of Congress and because no contrary legislative history exists. 28 The Conference Committee Report upon which the district court relied, H.R.Rep. No. 315, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (1981) states in pertinent part: 29 The managers also agree that the $4,000,000 increase in the social services program is to provide for general assistance payments for Alaska natives for a six-month period. This will allow time for the Alaska State legislature to appropriate state funds to provide these payments from that time on. If the Bureau finds that $4,000,000 is not sufficient to provide the level of payments to eligible Alaska natives during this six-month period as required based on need, the managers agree that such payments may be made from the remainder of the Bureau's social services program until state funds become available, but not beyond April 1, 1982. 30 From this report alone, the district court concluded that Congress had unconditionally terminated the general assistance program to Alaska Natives and that no appropriated funds, or any other funds, could be spent by BIA after April 1, 1982. 31 28 U.S.C. Sec. 13a (1976), see supra note 8, provides that unexpended Snyder Act appropriations shall remain available for expenditure in the succeeding fiscal year, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. The district court's conclusion that appropriated funds could not be spent after April 1, 1982 was erroneous. 32 Other committee reports and hearings before appropriation committees contain legislative history contrary to the district court's conclusion. The House Report accompanying the Appropriations Act states: 33 The recommended level of $90,104,000 for social services includes the Bureau's proposed reduction of $5.7 million, to discontinue the general assistance program for Alaska Natives in the State of Alaska. In addition, the Committee has included a further reduction of $300,000 for administrative costs related to the Alaska general assistance program. The Committee is pleased that the State of Alaska has recognized its responsibility to include Alaska Natives under its general assistance program, and has every expectation that the Alaska legislature will act expeditiously to appropriate the necessary funds before October 1, 1981.... 34 H.R.Rep. No. 163, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 38-39 (1981). 35 The Senate Report accompanying the Appropriations Act states: 36 The Committee has increased the allowance for social services by $5,700,000 to partially meet the costs of welfare assistance in Alaska. The Committee does not disagree with the premise that the State should assume these costs, but a phase out of Bureau support is required to ensure an orderly transition. The latest available figures indicate that the Bureau will spend almost $10,000,000 in fiscal year 1981 on welfare grants in Alaska. The Committee fully intends that the State absorb any fiscal year 1982 costs in excess of the $5,700,000 which has been provided. 37 S.Rep. No. 166, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 39 (1981). 38 Other reports indicate that congressional members anticipated a transition period during which the State of Alaska would implement a comparable general assistance program. 11 There were representations by the Department of Interior officials during debate that Alaska would implement a comparable program. 12 It is undisputed that Alaska did not have a comparable general assistance program as prescribed in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 20.21(c), and was not ready to implement one at the time of the termination. 13 39 Taken together these reports indicate legislative history contrary to the purported meaning of the Joint Conference Committee Report. The district court's conclusion that no contrary legislative history existed was clearly erroneous. 40 Based on its interpretation of the Appropriations Act and the legislative history, the district court concluded that the Alaska Natives had little possibility of success on the merits. We conclude that the legislative history as a whole indicates Alaska Natives have a fair chance of success on the question of whether Congress intended to terminate the general assistance program only if Alaska had a comparable program. 14 41 The Snyder Act general assistance program is for the special benefit of Indians and must be liberally construed in their favor. Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Harris, 618 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir.1980) (rejecting ratification by appropriation of challenged regulations implementing Snyder Act); Fox v. Morton, 505 F.2d 254, 255 (9th Cir.1974) (due process hearing required before termination of Snyder Act program). See also Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974) (construing Snyder Act); Vigil v. Andrus, 667 F.2d 931, 934 (10th Cir.1982) (Snyder Act program). 42 The government contends Congress intended to terminate Snyder Act general assistance in Alaska even if Alaska had no comparable program as prescribed by BIA regulations. The government has not made an adequate showing of such congressional knowledge. See Rincon Band, 618 F.2d at 573. 15 Indeed, the legislative history indicates congressional members thought a comparable program was implemented in Alaska, or if it was not, that an orderly transition would be provided. 43 The district court relied on an erroneous understanding of the applicable principles of interpreting congressional intent. The error substantially affected its determination that the plaintiffs had no chance of success on the merits. Alaska Natives demonstrated a fair chance of success on the question whether Congress intended to unconditionally terminate general assistance to Alaska. 16