I have not been authorized by any organizations or tribes to make definite legislative recommendations. I would like to present three fundamental principles incorporated into these regulations:

(1) Indian entitlement-It is recommended that since there are presently several Federal laws that represent public school entitlements (Public Law 874, Public Law 815, ESEA Title I, which applies to the overwhelming majority of Indian students, and Title IV, Part A), Johnson-O'Malley should be defined and administered as an Indian entitlement for all Federal Indians from birth through the completion of high school. Funding should be based on a per capita formula that would reflect either the State or national education costs, whichever is higher. Local school committees should all be eligible for contracts and they should be allowed to spend their entitlement wherever they wish-public schools, BIA schools, mission schools, independent contract schools, pre-school programs, Headstart, Homestart, etc. Only when there is a local option as to where the money will go will there be any kind of real Indian control and responsibility. An Indian entitlement formula would eliminate another serious Johnson-O'Malley problem: a random and inexplicable distribution of funds. Recent research by our organization has shown national funding ranging from $1,075 in Alaska to $74 in Nevada (Exhibit C). Within the States, it is equally ridiculous. Arizona has distributions ranging from $709.64 per student to $44.44 per student (Exhibit D). In addition, there are thousands of students, 5,258 in Arizona alone who receives no Johnson-O'Malley funding (E). This is not because the students have no needs, but because their districts will not raise taxes to meet the State-wide average. (NOTE: Although this is a condition of funding in Arizona, districts in neighboring New Mexico can and do have the lowest tax levies in the State and still receive Johnson-O'Malley funding.)

(2) The "Red Regulations" deal with another question that should be a part of any new legislation. They provide a real monitoring force the clearly-stated Indian right to spend the money where it seems most beneficial to do so. Those educational institutions that produce will receive continued and maybe additional funding.

Those educational institutions that do not produce can be turned off. It is very frustrating to Indian parents and education committee members, particularly those who are most active to discover again and again that although they believe they have finally accumulated some power on their committee, they still rank second to all public school boards when push comes to shove. Many Bureau officials would try to reassure us on this point by saying, “Maybe push should never come to shove." Maybe it shouldn't. And maybe there shouldn't be hurricanes and tidal waves. The fact is there will be conflicts of interest. And they needn't be detrimental to a public school; they can be a positive force for change. I don't see why negotiation and conflict cannot be a legimate part of a school's educational process.

It is a great irony that the Bureau of Indian Affairs frequently claims entitlement right to maintain a public school sanctity that many public school officials no longer try to justify. Appendix F contains a letter from the New Mexico State Superintendent of Schools who agrees with us on two crucial points: a) Public schools should receive Johnson-O'Malley funds only if they deliver; b) Public schools are one educational source; they are not the only source, nor should they be.

When Johnson-O'Malley is talked about, the Bureau believes only in public schools as legitimate places of learning. Clearly they don't really believe that. If they did, they would be busy dismantling the Bureau's own educational system rather than expanding it.

(3) There is another major reform issue which is handled by the "Red Regs" and should be a part of legislative reform, and that is the language that protects against supplanting. Over the years, the general BIA position has been, "Whether or not funds should be supplementary in a predominately non-Indian school district, clearly it shouldn't be an issue when there is an overwhelmingly Indian school with an Indian-controlled board." This position sometimes works very well with Indian-controlled boards. The question is posed that this way: "Would you rather use the money for supplementary purposes only, or would

you rather use it as you wish without any restrictions?" They invariably answer that they would prefer to have no limitations. This is misleading, though, because the whole issue of supplanting has been successfully bypassed. A crucial question must always be: To what extent are Johnson-O'Malley funds being used to do what has to be done without Johnson-O'Malley?

In the Natonabah case in New Mexico, it was ruled that schools not only had to meet minimum standards, they had to provide assurance of comparability between Indian and non-Indian students before any JOM funds could be used. That question always has to be looked at. To what extent are State funds being supplanted? Local funds? Other Federal funds? Two years ago the State Department of Education in Arizona held a press conference announcing that it would have to close 15 public school districts unless it received an additional $1.1 million to Johnson O'Malley funds. (Appendix G). Apart from the fact that the article is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who knows about Indian status on taxes and Public Law 874, it presents an absurd situation. Try to imagine the same State's Department threatening to close say 15 suburban school districts unless it received a relatively scanty $1.5 million. What is also interesting in terms of Federal funds supplanting Federal funds is that while holding this press conference, the State of Arizona was using the simplest and least rewarding possible formula for Public Law 874 funds. They still use the easiest and least advantageous formula-average of all elementary schools in the Stateaverage of all high schools in the State.

These questions all have to be considered in new Johnson-O'Malley regulations and in any new legislation. Those of us who have been working on the new regulations will continue to push as hard as we can for these essential administrative changes. And we will push above all for the two most basic points: Indian entitlement-Indian fiscal and administrative control.

Thank you.