This is not acceptable documentation. to locate every figure and quote.

Readers should be able

Part IV.B.

Availability of Capital

This section is limited to a discussion of trust funds, which for the record, are not invested in Indian reservations, but in the non-Indian banking sector. No explanation is offered for this phenomenon. Other sources of Indian capital such as federal loans and grants are not discussed. No evaluation is made of the Indian Finance Act of 1974. These were treated in TF #7 Final Report. No estimate is made of Indian financing needs. The recommendations are confusing. For example, the Commission first recommends that "the current 4% simple interest rate should be increased to a 6% compound interest rate and then also says "investigate the advantages and disadvantages of establishing either a floating interest rate geared to average market yield or a floor rate with small penalty charges for Indian trust monies."

Part III.C. Minerals

The minerals section is very weak because it contains so little quantitative evidence. There is a wealth of collected data on the Navajo and Crow experiences. The Chapter mentions joint ventures and service contracts as alternatives to royalty agreements but does not explain them or give their advantages and disadvantages. How can they be recommended without spelling out their probable impact? This section makes too little use of the paper American Indian Mineral Agreements: Literature Search and Reform Proposals especially prepared for the Commission. Where it does use this material, it is not footnoted.

The manpower section discusses how technical experts may be developed within the Indian community. It contains many interesting suggestions. However, skilled labor is also needed. There should be an evaluation of past and present manpower training programs such as AVT, OJT, CETA, and Indian Action teams. These were evaluated in TF #7 Final Report.

This section should probably be renamed "Fiscal Powers." The contribution of fiscal policy to economic development should be made explicit.

Infrastructure ?

A factor long recognized as necessary for development is social overhead capital or transport, power, water and communications systems. There is no analysis of the federal government's unsuccessful attempt to provide this essential factor. Again this was dealt with in TF #7 Final Report. Lack of infrastructure deters investment, particularly in the commercial and manufacturing sectors which are extremely underdeveloped on Indian reservations. As a result most reservation economies have very low multipliers, a fact documented by three excellent studies, two of which are in the Commission files.

Indian housing ?

There is no detailed discussion of Indian housing anywhere in the report even though TF #6 and 7 were requested by you to study this issue. The report they produced had summary of the latest housing statistics as well as a thorough discussion of the issues. At least these could have been utilized even if the Commission disagreed with the TF's recommendations.

In addition to the two instances already cited, the Water section is without a single footnote. It quotes William Veeder without giving the exact source.

Forraine T. Ruffing

Lorraine T. Ruffing
Assistant Professor

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Traper

Ronald Trosper

Assistant Professor

University of Washington
Seattle

Rural Alaska

Community Action Program, Inc.

RESOLUTION #77-13

ENTITLED:

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

REQUESTING THE AIPRC TO CONSIDER THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC NEEDS
OF VILLAGE ALASKANS

the American Indian Policy Review Committee was established
recommend policy options for the federal government to
positively assist the Indian and Alaska Native peoples, and

the AIPRC has essentially completed its work, recommending
major revisions in the existing system of federal assistance,
and

the work of the AIPRC essentially concerned itself with the
federal role in assisting with the implementing of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and

a volume of data pertaining to the Health, Social, and Economic
status of Alaskan Natives was developed in the federal "2-C"
study, but was apparently not considered to be relevant to
the AIPRC, or its work in Alaska; now therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Executive Committee of the Rural Alaska Community
Action Program urges the AIPRC to review the status of the
Health and Welfare of Alaska Natives, as presented in the
"2-C" study, and to append to their findings policy recommen-
dations for federal policy which would positively impact on
those concerns.

Adopted at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of
Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. on April 21, 1977, in Anchorage
Alaska.

11302 East Riverside Drive
Bothell, Wa. 98011

March 19, 1977

American Indian Policy Review Commission

Washington D.C. 20515

Gentlemen:

I am a non-indian property owner owning property on an
Indian Reservation.

I can't believe the article in the Seattle Times 3/16/77 on your recommendations to Congress. Is this really true?

The Government gave us the right to buy our property on the reservation with our hard earned money. The Government gives us the right to pay taxes on this property. Why, are you taking our rights to use and enjoy this property away from us?

For the past 7 years, the Indians have been harassing and threatening all of us non-indian property owners to the extent that we are afraid to use our property. We were sure that legislation was being worked on to stop this.

I can't believe the Government (or the Constitution of the U.S.) would willfully give one American group the power to control and hurt another like this.

It appears the Government is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to integrate the Negroes and segregate the Indians. Why can't we do away with the reservations and all be Americans with equal rights.

Please, can you give me any information, so I may understand what you are trying to do to us and accomplish by this kind of recommendation to Congress.

Respectfully yours,

Lue A. Seil