Part A, section 5(a) stipulates that, whenever a district directly affected by any such contract described in the bill, where the local school board is not composed of a majority of Indians, an Indian community education committee shall be established to "participate fully in the development of, and shall have the authority to approve or disapprove programs ***" We commend you for this provision and the strength of it.

However, we have noted the absence of any provisions for any statewide Indian committees, as proposed in the original version of the bill. The functions of such a committee would be very important, particularly in part B, the development of professionals, and in part E, educational research and development. Parts B and E will take place, undoubtedly, in colleges and universities which are generally remote from Indian access. In such remote settings these institutions often take unlimited license with what they "think" is good for the Indian people.

We have supported from the outset the provisions of parts C, D, and F, but particularly the youth intern program. We are always concerned for our youth and such intern programs have been very successful in the pact.

We commend the respective committees of both Houses of Congress for their initiative embodied in S. 1017. We urge its speedy passage in the 93d Congress, subject, of course, to the satisfaction of Indian tribes and organizations.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the testimony of the National Congress of American Indians. Thank you.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Trimble. I note that throughout your testimony, particularly as pertains to the Johnson-O'Malley provisions and even the proposed changes of this legislation, somewhat the same type of apprehension which I think I have with regard to present and future administration of Johnson-O'Malley.

First, would you agree with me that had a tighter definition by the Congress in this legislation as to who is eligible for aid under JohnsonO'Malley might solve at least a substantial portion of that present problem?

Were you here when I used the illustration of the Gallup school? Mr. TRIMBLE. No, sir. I am sorry. I was not here.

Mr. MEEDS. Well, I am sure you are aware that Johnson-O'Malley funds are being used for non-Indian children.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes sir.

Mr. MEEDS. The suggestion is given that unless these programs are carried out, Indian children who would benefit from them would not benefit from them and therefore the local responsibility to Indian children is, in effect, at least watered down.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. I agree with you entirely.

Mr. MEEDS. Doesn't that come initially from the Bureau's definition of "for the benefit of Indian children" insofar as they are not as restrictive as they ought to be in defining it?

Mr. TRIMBLE. I believe that the Bureau is not. It is their job and I think that they are at the heart of much of their problem in the administration of Johnson-O'Malley funds.

Yes, sir; I do think that a tighter definition, although I believe the definition is there, that greater oversight by Congress to assure that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is living up to that definition is needed.

Mr. MEEDS. Now they tell us they are working on new guidelines for Johnson-O'Malley, but the fact is that they didn't even start thinking about this until Senator Kennedy's committee and my subcommittee began asking questions about the administration of Johnson-O'Malley. I think the NAACP, for instance, had a tremendously fine investigation of expenditure of those funds. And I don't think personally that a revision by the BIA of the Johnson-O'Malley guidelines would cure the problem. Quite frankly, I think that no change in the administration of Johnson-O'Malley will come about unless the Congress acts. Would you agree with that?

Mr. TRIMBLE. I agree with it, sir, and I believe that they are going very slow, and I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but in any kind of reform of Johnson-O'Malley, and show a hesitancy to listen to Indian people or to consult with Indian people.

Mr. MEEDS. And I think that I agree with you that it is essential here to do more than create some local advisory board which must vote on the local expenditure of Johnson-O'Malley funds. What will occur in that instance is what we saw in our studies on education where the local board was given the type of guidelines by the State superintendent of the public instruction of children, with BIA working in tandem under which it was impossible for the board to come up with anything except programs which benefited not only Indian children, but also a number of other children in the local school districts. The board's prime concern should have been for Indian children, but under the guidelines given, it was impossible for them to do otherwise.

I see you suggested a creation of a national advisory board and/or State advisory boards. I think this would be very helpful because these people would not be as subject to the dictates of a local superintendent or a local BIA Director, and it could be very helpful on a national or State level in forcing local Indian advisory groups or local Indian school boards to make some pretty tough decisions.

Mr. TRIMBLE. I think the national one is important in that I think the local communities must have some resource and they apparently aren't getting that resource under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the Department of the Interior.

Mr. MEEDS. Now I understand that your initial opposition to the provisions of a Senate bill which, very generally required local tax effort for the index to determine whether Johnson-O'Malley funds were being properly spent, was based on your feeling that it was unworkable and it might sink the entire bill, is that correct?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Not that it would sink the entire bill, but that it wouldn't work after enactment.

We have received numerous reports from the Native American Rights Fund, from Mr. Myron Jones, who is scheduled to testify today, and from people whose opinions we do respect and they were just about unanimous that they didn't feel it would work effectivelyMr. MEEDS. I am sorry, I can't hear you.

Mr. TRIMBLE. We received many reports on that provision. Our fear wasn't that it would sink the bill, but it would be unworkable after the bill was enacted. We received many reports from the Native American Rights Fund, from the organization of Mr. Myron Jones, who will testify later, and from a number of others and they were just about unanimous in their real doubts that the system would work and there would be incentives for the States to cooperate to the extent that to raise taxes is a highly political issue.

And also we believe that with proper supervision, if people lived up to the intent of Johnson-O'Malley, and certainly with the amendments that you recommended, that Johnson-O'Malley is a very good piece.

Mr. MEEDS. I think you would probably agree with me that there are, as the people from HEW have testified, programs within HEW and other agencies which lend themselves to the problems of school construction, of training professionals and paraprofessionals in Indian education, in the use of funds for relief programs and so on. However the fact is, is it not, that while authority may exist for some of, if not all, these programs it has been very sparingly used in the other departments?

Mr. TRIMBLE. That is precisely it, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. For instance, in Public Law 815, construction of school facilities for Indian use has been very minimal. And I think the testimony here was that there was somewhat over $400 million in requests compared to the less than $25 million expenditure in the last fiscal year. Anyway, that gives you some indication of the failure of the Department to use the authority they have here.

If we could, in some way, get the departments to utilize more of the authority they already have, I assume you would be in favor of that happening; but would you prefer that over passage of this legislation, which then might face the same kind of problems?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well

Mr. MEEDS. This is with regard to title II and those portions dealing with the Johnson-O'Malley Act.

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, there are tremendous presumptions in the statements that both Commissioner Thompson and his staff and Secretary Thomas referred to in the duplication of effort end of it.

Those presumptions are that Indian people are being served adequately to the full authority of the bill. That is simply not true.

And as long as that happens, I think perhaps we should support legislation and hope for enactment of legislation that would assure greater services to the people.

Mr. MEEDS. All right. Just one final question. Section 4 defines "Indian" to be "a person who is a member of an Indian tribe."

Do you think that is a sufficient definition of the word "Indian" for the purposes of this act?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I think that is contention on section 4 (b) which states "Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of the status of Indians."

I currently concur with that and I am reflecting the standing attitude in regard to this of the National Congress of American Indians. Mr. MEEDS. But under that definition or even the combination of definitions, aren't there a great number of Indian children who would be excluded from consideration under Johnson-O'Malley?

Mr. TRIMBLE. You mean those not adjacent to reservations and various others like those people in the urban communities and various others?

Mr. MEEDS. Well, even if the Department broadens their scope, as they tell us they are going to, how could it include a significant number of Indian children in for instance the Los Angeles school system who might not maintain any affinity to an Indian tribe as defined in section 4 (b)?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, the only way I can answer that is that the National Congress of American Indians does feel very strongly about the condition, about the situation of off-reservation Indian people particularly those far from the Indian reservations, but we do recognize that there is a problem, and the tribes have explained this problem over and over, of dilution of funds and authorities. And unless we can get assurance that budgets will be increased, that program authority will be increased and everything else so as not to threaten the already limited funds that federally recognized tribes now have access to, I think that we really can't support something like that. However, we will support and we will work with Congress in an attempt to devise programs for our people.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from the Virgin Islands.

Mr. DE LUGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you, Mr. Trimble, for your excellent statement. I think you have been a very fine witness. I was interested in your statement on page 4 in which you note the absence of any provisions for any statewide Indian committees as proposed in the original version of the bill and you point out that this committee, or at least these types of committees, in your judgment, the statewide committees are particularly important in relating to part B, the development of professionals, and part E, educational research and development and you further point out that parts B and E will take place undoubtedly in colleges and universities which are generally remote from Indian access. In such remote settings, these institutions often take unlimited license with what they think is good for the Indian people.

Would you expand on that?

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. I think Indian people have been faced with this for a long time. There are many Indian experts, as opposed to expert Indians, let us say, who understand the "Indian people" and who devise programs for Indian people without good consultation with the Indian communities and the Indian people then are stuck with these programs.

And the colleges also I think really benefit and perhaps exploit these programs of tremendously high overhead. And I think that both of these situations could be monitored by a representative committee of Indian people to assure a certain amount of uniformity and coordination because there are many school districts on reservations where one reservation could be affected by another school district.

And in light of this I feel that there should be that coordination amongst them for programs that will benefit the entire statewide group.

Mr. DE LUGO. I think that is a good point. I see I am acting chairman for a moment. I will defer to my colleague from California.

Ms. BURKE. I am sorry. I didn't have an opportunity to hear all of your testimony. I have had a chance however, to read your statement, Mr. Trimble, and at this time I have no questions. I want to commend you on the preparation of the excellent statement you presented to us. Mr. TRIMBLE. Thank you.

Mr. DE LUGO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Trimble.

At this time we are going to adjourn until 2 o'clock this afternoon. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same afternoon.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. MEEDS. The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will be in further session for the taking of testimony on S. 1017 and related matters.

Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Myron Jones of Indian Education Training, Inc., in Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Please come forward, Myron. Good to see you again and good to have you before this committee.

I see you have a prepared statement. You may read it or summarize it.

STATEMENT OF MYRON JONES, INDIAN EDUCATION TRAINING, INC., ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.

Mr. JONES. All right. I would like to just read small parts of it and summarize it.

Chairman Meeds and members of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee, my name is Myron Jones. I'm a Tuscarora Indian and the director of Indian Education Training, Inc., located in Albuquerque, N. Mex. I thank you for the invitation to testify before this subcommittee. I would like to focus all my testimony on those issues raised by this legislation S. 1017-that would affect the Johnson-O'Malley Act, that is, title II, part A.

I would like to do this not because I am not concerned about other parts of the bill but because it is the Johnson-O'Malley Act I really feel comfortable with.

You may remember, Congressman Meeds, more than 2 years ago I testified before your Education Subcommittee in Gallup and I want to give a progress report since then. I wanted to start out with a couple of things that I think are good news and then get to the bad news. The good news is that since that time-first, let me give you some background. At the time, there were tribal contracts in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Since then there have been tribal contracts in Minnesota, one in New Mexico for the Pueblos and Apaches, and probably one next fall for the Navajos also. I guess there is an actual contract in Alaska, the Johnson-O'Malley contract with the Alaska Federation of Natives. There are contracts in Minnesota and