Mr. REGULA. Yes. I do have three questions.

No. 1, how many Indian children are enrolled in the federally managed programs at the present time?

Mr. BENHAM. About 50,000.

Mr. REGULA. And this 50,000 includes all schools?

How would you estimate the number enrolled in schools not operated by the Federal Government, of Indians that are members of an Indian tribe?

Mr. BENHAM. In the service population of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about another 131,000 are enrolled in the public schools and another

Mr. REGULA. When you say "public schools" are you talking about school districts that have Indian and non-Indian children?

Mr. BENHAM. Yes, sir; operated by the States and the school districts.

Mr. REGULA. Do most of those 130,000 benefit from Johnson-O'Malley funds or not?

Mr. BENHAM. About 98,000 of them are in the Johnson-O'Malley program this year.

Mr. REGULA. In other words, this would be that there would be a substantial number of Indian children, as well as non-Indian children in school districts that would apply for Johnson-O'Malley assistance; is this correct?

Mr. BENHAM. Yes, sir. This is from 5 to 18 years of age.

Mr. REGULA. Right. The contracting authority envisioned in this act would only apply to the 50,000 is that correct?

Mr. BENHAM. The Johnson-O'Malley Act would apply to the total number in the public schools.

Mr. REGULA. I understand that. But in the provisions of the bill that talk about having contracting authority for the tribes to operate schools, you are really talking in essence about the 50,000 which are in federally operated schools at the present time.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct. Title I, as I indicated earlier, speaks to the other program activities as well.

Mr. REGULA. Historically, or statistically, however, you want to state it as those in the federally operated schools.

What is the percentage of those starting out who finally graduate from high school?

Mr. BENHAM. About 7 out of 10 according to our last evaluation that was made a couple of years ago. It has varied over the years, but it was about 712 youngsters out of 10.

Mr. REGULA. Do you have any idea what the percentage of the graduating class of federally operated schools who go on to some type of higher education?

Mr. BENHAM. I can use a particular illustration. While he was in the Gallup area, Congressman Meeds had a chance to visit Wingate High School, which is a Federal school near Gallup, N. Mex. At Wingate High School about 4 years ago I was there and I asked that particular question and 90 percent of the youngsters were going to education beyond the high school level. That is, to vocational training or to higher education, and it was pretty evenly divided in that group. We have some schools, I am sure, that don't reach that high a standard, but there is tremendous emphasis in the Federal schools

put on the opportunities that youngsters have for higher education bevond the high school level.

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me expand on that if I may, Congressman. Over the last couple of years-and this can be an indicator of the number of Indian students entering college-but I believe 4 or 5 years ago the Federal Government was providing through the Bureau of Indian Affairs approximately $2 million for assistance to higher education. That now is up to $29 million and we are still trying to keep up with the needs.

So that may be a little indicator.

Mr. REGULA. Federally operated community colleges, how many are there in the reservations?

Mr. THOMPSON. I was going to answer six, but I am told they are not federally operated.

Mr. REGULA. But probably federally funded with an operation by the tribe?

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe we have six junior colleges throughout the country. I will ask Dr. Benham to answer that.

Dr. BENHAM. One tribal community college is in operation in Tsaile, Ariz. It is the Navajo Community College, which is federally funded. There are two in the Dakotas that receive some Federal help in terms of the basic operations also. And of course in the Federal endeavor there is one, but it is not a community college, but the Haskell Indian Junior College of Lawrence, Kans. The program there is made up of two parts: One is a junior college level program and the other is a vocational training part. Then the other one is the Institute of American Indian Arts at Santa Fe, which provides some 2 years of training in the art field.

Then you have the Southwestern Indian Polytechnical Institute at Albuquerque, N. Mex., which is vocational in nature.

So that is the dimensions of it.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner and gentlemen. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We would be pleased to respond to the questions when you get them to us.

Mr. MEEDS. Our next witness will be Stanley Thomas, Assistant Secretary for Human Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. Secretary, pleased to have you. You have a prepared statement that you may read into the record or summarize. STATEMENT OF HON. STANLEY B. THOMAS, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JOHN OTTINA, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; AND ROBERT HOWARD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS; AND WARREN CARDWELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROGRAM FORMULATION, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. THOMAS. I will basically summarize some portions of it. By your leave I would like to introduce on my immediate left the Commissioner of the Office of Education, Mr. Ottina, and on my immediate right, Mr. Cardwell, Director of the Division of Program Formulation, and,

finally, Robert Howard, who is Director of the Office of Native American Programs.

Both you and Commissioner Thompson described and discussed the mutual interest of Congress and the administration as it relates to self-determination so I will just read a few sentences from my remarks with respect to that.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is vitally interested in the enactment of legislation which would promote and encourage further self-determination for the Indian people to attain the ultimate goal of "Indian solutions to Indian problems."

As we advance toward self-determination, however, we must also be sensitive to the need for maintaining Federal support and concern for the Indian people. As we strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy, we must be sure not to threaten his sense of community and tribal life. That means making it clear to Indians that they can become independent without losing their unique relationship with the Federal Government and that self-determination and the assumption of control of HEW programs and services by Indian tribes represents a reinforcement rather than a termination of this unique relationship. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the record the activities of our Office of Native American Programs, the Office of Education, the Indian Health Service, which is all in the statement and proceed to discuss S. 1017.

Title I of the bill contains provisions designed to further the control exercised by Indians over programs currently operated by the Federal Government. Sections 102 and 103 direct the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and Interior upon the request of any Indian tribe, to enter into contracts with any tribal organization whereby they would plan, conduct and administer Federal Indian programs. While we prefer legislation proposed by the administration as more comprehensive than S. 1017, we endorse any legislation which effectively promotes Indian self-determination. Therefore, we recommend enactment of title I.

We note that some revisions have been made in this title since Under Secretary Carlucci testified before the Senate subcommittee on an earlier version of S. 1017 in June of last year. For example, the current legislation directs rather than authorizes the respective Secretaries to contract with tribal organizations. Additionally, safeguards have been built into sections 102 and 103 to assure properly administered and operated programs.

While we find these revisions to be positive steps toward selfdetermination, we would like to propose some technical changes and will forward them to the committee by letter in the near future.

Section 104 authorizes the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and Interior, upon request of tribal organizations, to make grants to tribes for planning, training, evaluation, and other activities designed to make it possible for such tribal organizations to enter into contracts as provided in sections 102 and 103. We would recommend that this section be clarified to limit the Secretary's role to Indian Health activities, which is the intent of this section."

In conclusion, title I of S. 1017, as revised, has been strengthened considerably over the 1973 version of the bill and contains useful authority for advancing Indian self-determination.

Title II contains provisions affecting the education for Indians. There already exists at this time various authorities under which Indian education is provided, which are themselves duplicative and overlapping. Indeed, we are presently joining the Department of the Interior in a joint study mandated by the Congress to examine closely the various Indian education programs now underway. Our study results, which will be completed by September 30, 1974, will include legislative proposals, if any are needed, designed to remove the existing duplication. We feel that it would be highly undesirable at this time to create new authorities for Indian education which would cause even more duplication as title II would do. Therefore, we recommend that the Congress defer action on title II until such time as we have completed our study and can make recommendations to the Congress. Duplication of present HEW authority exists in parts B and C of title II. Part B would authorize financial assistance to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations or agencies, and Indian tribes and organizations to provide fellowships to carry out programs and projects to improve qualifications of educational personnel serving Indians. Authority for such assistance already exists under section 810 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which has a section specifically on preparation of teachers of Indian children. Additional authority exists under the career opportunities program [Public Law 90-35 Education Professions Development Act, as amended]. Part C authorized Federal assistance in the construction, acquisition, and renovation of school facilities in public school systems which serve Indians on or near Indian reservations. Authority for such school construction presently exists under Public Law 81-815. In fiscal year 1973 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare received $15 million for such efforts. In fiscal year 1974 this Department received $30 million, an increase of 100 percent. Approximately $4.8 million in fiscal year 1973 was obligated for construction of facilities to meet the needs of Indian children. Of the $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 1974, reportedly one-third is obligated to Indian programs, more than double the amount in 1973.

We believe that responsibility for school construction should not be divided further between two agencies of the Federal Government, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Such division of responsibility for construction of non-Federal facilities would fragment authority and create confusion among Indian people.

We hope that the Congress will avoid this additional duplication. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to your questions.

I hope you will permit me to call on my colleagues if necessary. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First lets broadly define the areas of concern under this legislation. My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that this legislation applies to HEW insofar as it applies to Indian health?

Mr. THOMAS. Title I certainly in terms of contracting for services is specifically germane to the Indian Health Service. In title II, however, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of instances in which initia

tives would be undertaken which do duplicate some of our existing authorities.

Mr. MEEDS. Is it your understanding that those additional functions in title II would be administered by HEW or by BIA?

Mr. THOMAS. It is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that those would be initiated primarily under BIA.

Mr. MEEDS. And it is your contention that some of these programs which are carried out either by HEW or some other department of Government?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And as you may recall from my testimony, I suggest a deferral of the enactment of title II because, as you are aware, the Department of HEW in consultation with BIA and the Department of the Interior, is analyzing what already are duplicative statutory authorities and are preparing a report to Congress by October 1, which we think will help clarify some of those problems that already exist.

Mr. MEEDS. As you are aware, I am sure, Mr. Secretary, there are some internal problems in the U.S. House of Representatives which several years ago prevented us from taking a comprehensive look at the field of Indian education and specifically I refer to the inability in the House to have joint referral to committees. As a consequence, in addressing the question of Indian education we on the Education and Labor Committee were only able to address it from the standpoint of the public schools and were not able to combine it with legislation addressing the problem of Indian education in BIA operated schools and schools operated on Indian reservations by Indians.

But you think that perhaps we ought to defer not only until that study is completed which you recommended, but until the House gets itself in order so that it can make a comprehensive review of that matter?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am extraordinarily reluctant to provide advice to the House in terms of its organizational structure but I can tell you, we do believe that the results of our study will be very helpful both for the executive as well as the legislative branches. Mr. MEEDS. In any event your joint study is not recognizing the jurisdictional lines, is it? I assume it will be a comprehensive study of total problems of Indian education?

Mr. THOMAS. Well, it will be addressing the issue primarily of existing statutory duplication of authorities which provide for services that are being provided to Indian children and the Indian people. I should note that it is a congressionally mandated study and I think that therefore you all obviously will be interested in its consequences and results. Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. No questions.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from the Virgin Islands.

Mr. DE LUGO. No questions.

Mr. MEEDS. Unless there is objection, counsel will submit to the Department of HEW the same questions which we are submitting to the BIA, recognizing that some will not be as applicable to you as they are to the BIA.

Mr. THOMAS. We would be delighted to respond to those, Mr. Chairman.