from that of the administration proposal. Rather than provide for outright transfer of programs to the tribes, section 102 (a) of S. 1017 directs the Secretaries of Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare to enter into contracts with tribes whereby they would plan, conduct, and administer Federal Indian programs. We believe that the concept of effectuating self-determination via contracts is reasonable and could provide desirable flexibility in attaining Indian involvement. We note that section 102 (a) allows the appropriate Secretary some discretion to decline to contract with a tribe, whereas the administration proposal would give the tribe an unqualified right to assume control of Indian programs. We believe that the procedural safeguards built into section 102 (a) will insure that it does not inhibit self-determination, and on that basis we offer no objection to the discretion it would lodge with the two Secretaries.

In our report on S. 1017, we recommend several amendments which we believe would improve the contracting provisions of title I. Perhaps the most important of these amendments centers on section 106(d).

In permitting the Secretaries to revise contracts with the consent of the tribes, this subsection envisions that some tribes may find themselves unable to carry out a program and may wish to retrocede it to the Federal Government. We prefer the more explicit administration retrocession provision to this indirect approach. We have woven our provision into the contractual method of S. 1017 as a proposed new section 109, as set out again in our report. This section would spell out that the appropriate Secretary would rescind a contract in any case where he found that a tribe was operating a program so as to endanger the health, safety, or welfare of any persons or so as to demonstrate gross fiscal negligence or mismanagement.

I might add we are primarily referring to contracts with HEW in the health field.

Title I also differs from the administration proposal in authorizing the appropriate Secretary to make grants to tribes for planning, training, and other activities as a preliminary to contracting with the tribes. In view of the fact that at present many tribes are not able to meet Federal contracting standards, we consider this authority a welcome addition to the bill. Indeed, we suggest that such authority be enlarged to aid tribal operations such as accounting systems which may not be specifically related to a given contract. In this way, the Department of the Interior would obtain something akin to the general granting authority embodied in another administration proposal, the Indian Tribal Government Grant Act, H.R. 9011.

Section 105 (a) of S. 1017 amends the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 to permit assignment of any Federal employee to Indian tribes for up to 2 years. This provision more than satisfies the parallel objective of the administration proposal, which would authorize the detail of Interior and HEW employees to tribes for up to 1 year. However, we believe that one aspect of the administration proposalthe retention of civil service benefits by Federal employees who transfer to tribal employment-should be retained. Because such a provision eliminates a major disincentive to such transfers, we believe that its presence in the bill is essential to the achievement of the purposes

of title I and would enhance the long-term success of tribally run programs.

Mr. Chairman, our legislative report on title I contains several other suggested amendments. Although we consider all of them important, it would take too much of the committee's time to discuss them all in this statement. I would propose instead to discuss the ones on which the committee prefers to focus. But I want to stress that, subject to these comments and suggestions, I strongly recommend enactment of this title. I believe that it goes a long way toward meeting the President's objective of enabling Indians to exert more control over their own lives and that its enactment will be of great benefit to the American Indian people.

With your approval, we would take questions now on title I, or would you prefer that we proceed into title II? Whatever is the pleasure of the committee, we would be pleased to follow.

Mr. MEEDS. Please continue so we will have all of your testimony first.

Mr. THOMPSON. Title II, Indian Education Assistance Act. This title consists of several parts, each dealing with a separate aspect of Indian education. I will discuss each of these parts in turn. Part A, education of Indians in public schools, would amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act to insure greater Indian involvement in the development of its programs. It should be noted that the amendments in this part are distinct from the administration's proposed amendment to that act, which would have enabled Indians to be parties to the act's education contracts. The general contracting authority provided by title I of S. 1017 makes the administration Johnson-O'Malley proposal unnecessary. This part would achieve such involvement by adding new sections 4 and 5 to the act. Briefly, these sections would: (1) require would-be contractors to submit plans to the Secretary of the Interior which showed adequate attentiveness to the educational needs of Indian children; and (2) provide that where a school board has a majority of non-Indian members, an elected "local committee" of Indian parents would have the power to disapprove Johnson-O'Malley contracts between the school district and the United States. With some technical modifications, we recommend enactment of this new section.

We recommend against enactment of a proposed new section 7 which would authorize the appropriation of no more than $65 million for purposes of the Johnson-O'Malley Act during fiscal 1975 and 1976. We would also recommend against enactment of section 203 of part A, which would require this Department to submit an education report to the Congress. This section is unnecessary, we feel, as we have ample authority to prepare such a report and we are currently doing so, with the report to be submitted to the committee by October 1, 1974.

Part B of title II would authorize financial assistance to universities and other institutions for the purpose of improving the qualifications of persons engaged in Indian education. We recommend against enactment of this part because it duplicates, we feel, existing authority under the Snyder Act. We defer to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as to whether part B also duplicates some of its authority.

Part C would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to embark on a program of school construction for the education of Indians in public schools. We recommend against the involvement of this Department in such construction, which is a function of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. As to other aspects of part C, we defer to the Department of HEW.

Part D would establish an intern program to provide career-related summer employment for Indian youth. Since there is authority for such a program under the Snyder Act, we recommend against enactment of this part. Under our current authority we had some 1,600 Indian youths as full or part-time intern-employees during fiscal year 1973.

Part E would authorize grants and contracts with appropriate institutions for research and development in the field of Indian education. Since it would duplicate Snyder Act authority, we recommend against enactment of this part. We currently expend approximately $300,000 per year on such activities.

Part F would direct the Secretary of the Interior to present to the 94th Congress various programs and analyses concerning the education of Indian people. The development of such programs is a continuing responsibility of ours, and we would draw upon such reports as the committee may request.

Part G contains general provisions applicable to the entire title. Generally, we have no objection to these provisions. However, we recommend that one of them, section 218, not be enacted as passed by the Senate. This section would direct the Secretary to provide funds to tribes which control previously private schools. We believe that this authority should be discretionary and recommend that section 218 be amended accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Am I speaking loudly enough so that everybody can hear me in this rather large room here? Mr. Commissioner, I am struck by the beginning of your statement where you say, "contains the essential authority which the administration has long sought to implement its philosophy of Indian selfdetermination."

I don't say this for you to take personally, but I must say I have been a little bit concerned about continual statements from spokesmen from the administration, including the President himself, in talking about the long-sought programs of the administration to carry out the process of self-determination. I think there has been some delay in Congress, but I would like to point out to you that it seems rather unbecoming to me to hear you complain about these "long-sought programs" when you have, in effect, contributed to that problem yourself.

For instance, we just this morning received a report from both BIA and/or the Department of the Interior on the bill before us. Now that is just this morning. It is the usual practice of the Congress to await the furnishing of reports by the affected departments or agencies before proceeding with hearings. It appears that if we had waited for you to furnish us the report on this, we would have probably still been waiting to have had these hearings. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. To the latter point, Mr. Chairman, if I may comment? Undoubtedly there is an apology due to the committee for the lateness of the report. We did make extra efforts over the weekend to get them around to the subcommittee staff. We are well familiar with the requirements of getting reports to the Hill prior to the hearing. We ask your indulgence on this particular matter in this particular case. The responsibility rests here with our staff.

Second, I think the statement is generally phrased. "Long-sought to implement its philosophy of Indian self-determination" speaks in general to the President's pending legislation to implement his July 1970 message to the Congress and the American Indian people.

We want, of course, as we testified before, to support that message. We are pleased with recent congressional action to pass some of the legislation. Indeed, S. 1017 embodies three of the President's initiatives here and we are pleased with that. I think we are also saying that we want to get this enlightened legislation passed through the Congress, of course with your blessing and concurrence and help, as soon as possible.

So it is not a criticism, I don't feel, of the committee or of the Congress. It is just a reaffirmation of our support for a goal, I think, that we are all working for.

Mr. MEEDS. It then is incumbent on both the Congress and the administration to move forward aggressively and progressively in these areas, which we all agree are essential to Indian self-determination. That obligation doesn't end with just giving speeches. It requires hearings and reports and committee sessions and markups and passage by the Congress. Would you agree with that?

Mr. THOMPSON. I would concur.

Mr. MEEDS. And the administration's obligation doesn't cease after it gives a speech. It is essential to keep working and to get these reports up here so that we in Congress can pursue these matters.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we are fully cognizant of that, and I think our effort, our good faith, is evident in working with the Congress to see some of these things that we all want passed.

Mr. MEEDS. Very well. I hope we understand each other on that point.

Now you have experts from the various areas here, and please feel free to call upon them for any help you may be wanting in answering questions.

I note in the definition section, section 4, on page 4 of the bill, it states: "Indian means a person who is a member of an Indian tribe." In interpreting this as part of the proposed changes in the JohnsonO'Malley section, do you intend that the responsibility of the BIA through Johnson-O'Malley shall extend to districts which are not in close proximity to, or on, Indian reservations?

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe as far as the operation of the JohnsonO'Malley program currently, we are providing assistance to those public school districts that are not necessarily on or near Indian reservations. So this would not be any major policy change.

Mr. MEEDS. Well, I recall a recent communication with BIA about the Bellingham, Washington School District located within 20 miles of the Lummi Reservation. The argument was made it wasn't in close enough proximity to the Lummi Reservation. I think we finally re

solved that and got that Johnson-O'Malley aid, but can you name any school districts which are not within, say 40 or 50 miles of Indian reservations, in which Johnson-O'Malley funds are being expended? Mr. THOMPSON. For a specific answer, I would like to refer to Dr. Benham.

Dr. BENHAM. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Regula, the Commissioner was pointing out that we are currently considering changes in the Johnson-O'Malley regulations. And the service population now served through Johnson-O'Malley is "on or near" and we are considering the option of perhaps going beyond that.

At the present time by virtue of a court case we are engaged in defining what constitutes "near," which we find is no small matter using your case an an illustration. But to answer your question specifically, Congressman Meeds, it is "on or near," and the problem is then what constitutes "near."

Mr. MEEDS. In this instance, I think we have here a perfect illustration of the failure of Congress to move. Johnson-O'Malley was enacted in 1936 and hasn't been amended since. The BIA has run it by administrative regulation during that total period of time and we in the Congress have known that you were interpreting it to be "on or near" Indian reservations, when the law clearly says "Indians" and it doesn't say anything about "on or near Indian reservations". Here you see a very substantial shortcoming of the Congress itself. And I think that in the bill before us, the Congress has got to take some kind of legislative action with regard to the interpretation of the obligation set forth in the Johnson-O'Malley Act of 1936.

If we simply enact this legislation as it currently is written and turn it back over to you, it seems to me that again it is not going to be interpreted in a manner that some of us might feel necessary to encompass all or at least a larger majority of Indians.

Could you give us some idea of the kinds of guidelines you are considering implementing with regard to expenditures under JohnsonO'Malley?

Mr. REESER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify one point before you go on with that. The Johnson-O'Malley Act does not have any definition of "Indian" in it. The S. 1017 section 4 (c) definition would not become a part of the Johnson-O'Malley Act. The section 4 (c) definition would only apply to the new programs under S. 1017. It would not become a part of the Johnson-O'Malley Act because of the part A changes in the Johnson-O'Malley Act.

Mr. MEEDS. I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. It says, "For the purposes of this act" and that means the entire bill. If it were to be interpreted just for the first portion of it, it would say "title." So under the terminology of S. 1017, "Indian" means "a person who is a member of an Indian tribe" for all purposes of the entire act. That is my interpretation. Now, if you disagree with me, you

better let me know.

Mr. REESER. Well then, would that mean that that definition would also apply to the sections of the Johnson-O'Malley Act that are not touched by 1017?

Mr. MEEDS. No, no. Just for the purposes of this act.

Mr. REESER. Of the proposed sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the JohnsonO'Malley Act?