Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Red Lake Tribal Council and the Red Lake Reservation Task Force are in agreement with President Wendell Chino's remarks when he indicated that recognition of Indian tribes is basic stemming from recognition within the Constitution of the United States. Indian tribes are definitely recognized and spelled out in the document. Many people want to ignore this fact that there are over 200 tribes in America. We must stick to the Constitution. Indian tribes have been in existence before the establishment of the Constitution. We have an obligation, a Constitutional obligation, to retain the rights afforded Indian people and to protect the Indian people from any danger of this obligation being reduced or taken away. Yet Senators and Representatives have continuously enacted legislation that contain danger signals that this obligation could be taken away.

We think we should go to these Senators and Representatives and say: “Mr. America-you have this obligation with respect to Indian Tribes. Let us hang on to this obligation. This is what constituted the beginning principles in America. It is a basic principle."

Our task force is very concerned and apprehensive over the broadened definition of an Indian as prescribed in the Act and implemented in the rules and regulations. This concern is shared by many reservation-based Indians throughout the country. We believe that this is a danger signal which has the effect of legislating Indians out of existence with the support of rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretaries of the Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare.

We are in accord with respect to the general principles and provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations that expand the contracting authority of the Department of the Interior to include Indian tribes and organizations for educational services pursuant to the amendments of the Act of April 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 596), as amended, (known as the Johnson-O'Malley Act).

Our task force has been vigilant in respect to the manner in which the provisions for the establishment of parental committees are carried out. We believe that it is the right of the Indian people to be involved in the programs that affect their lives, and it is important to consult with Indian tribal representatives in developing such regulations to assure that the methods developed for carrying out the provisions of the Act are consistent with the desires and needs of the tribes affected.

We have been persistent in our efforts in requesting that the tribal governing bodies have the option to specify the school board to serve as the Indian Education Committee when the majority of the school board members are of Indian descent or the option of an organization of a governing body be designated to serve as the Indian Education Committee. We believe that these options would afford some flexibility to the diversity of Indian tribes as they enter into contracts with the Secretary of the Interior to assure that the educational needs of the Indian students who are to be beneficiaries of such contracts are met and to insure that funds expended in public school districts are in accordance with programs and plans which have been developed by the Indian tribes.

We have also been vigilant in appraising the effect of the legislated JohnsonO'Malley study and report by the Secretary of the Interior would have on the development of a more rational and equitable policy and procedure to govern the Johnson-O'Malley Act.

It is our considered judgment that the report will be unreliable and unvalidated and will exemplify another danger signal in the process of legislating Indians out of existence. We strongly feel that in a short time that the study was made, it would result in recommendations that would be based on information and other data hurriedly surveyed and gathered within the time limits. It is a tremendous task to analyze even one school district that receives federal funding from federal finance systems resulting from federal legislation involving five different acts within the report. If Indian tribes are expected to operate with the recommendation changes in various federal financing systems, they should have the opportunity for input into the report. Our concern here is to point out that Indian tribes might be legislated out of existence resulting from a report that was hurriedly made in three or four months which involves the effect that it would have on over 200 tribes.

Because of the great diversity among the school systems that Indian children attend, we are strongly concerned about the fair and equitable formula that may be designed to take into account the unique characteristics and financial needs of some school districts. We support the concept of retaining both operational

and supplemental support for those school districts that are confronted with carrying on a school program on large tax-exempt reservations. Criteria or rationale for allocating federal funds for operational costs should be related to economic conditions.

The Red Lake School District, as an independent public school district coterminous with the Red Lake Indian Reservation, is unique. A large portion of its 637,000 acres of land, held communally by the Band, is tax-exempt. School support depends almost exclusively on state and federal aids. Nearly all adults and children in the district are of Chippewa Indian ancestry. These characteristics call for a federal finance system that is sensitive and responsive to basic economic conditions so that a fair and equitable federal finance system may be designed to take into account the unique characteristics and financial needs of some school districts.

The balance of my testimony will be in answer to question number five which states: Do the regulations governing federal assistance for education (including educational services and school construction) of Indian children in public schools and in tribal or Indian operated schools deal fairly with the various types of organizations which are eligible for such assistance?

One basic criticism of the rules and regulations is that nowhere in the rules and regulations is there any indication that there is any coordination of the federal finance systems that are included in the report mandated by Congress. No one agency at the federal level seems to know or can provide information or data in regard to federal funding that indicates there is any type of coordination of federal assistance for education. It would seem that the development of a more rational and equitable allocation policy at the federal level would have to depend rather heavily on at least reasonably accurate knowledge of the present distribution of funds.

Another basic criticism of the regulations is that they do not disclose the extent to which school districts will be funded and what rationale governs their funding. Indian tribes should have assurance of adequate funding in their budget making and administration of an educational program which is suited to the needs and desires of the Indian people on the Indian reservations.

This concludes my testimony and I would like to reserve the privilege of adding an addendum and additional documents to this testimony.

Thank you.

[Subsequent to the hearing the following resolution was received from the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.]

RESOLUTION 126-75

Whereas, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians has always exercised, preserved and implemented the principle of self-determination by preservation of the goal of maintaining a strong position against infringement and encroachment from outside pressures, and

Whereas, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians has always attempted to act in the best interests for the members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians as evidenced in the treaty and Act of 1863 and 1889, and;

Whereas, wherein the Act of 1889 Agreement, the Red Lake Band was recognized and given special consideration by the United States Government as a special and separate entity, and;

Whereas, the Act of 1889 reveals that said reservation shall not be deprived thereof or disturbed therein except by their own consent, and;

Whereas, P.L. 93-638 does not extend self-determination in practice but is a statute which legislates much power to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and to the United States Government, and;

Whereas, P.L. 93-638 authorizes services and funds to non-federally recognized tribes, which, in effect, reduces the rights to services and funds legislated for federally recognized tribes, and;

Whereas, the Red Lake Band looks upon P.L. 93-638 as another statute in a long line of administrative and legislative action designed to effect termination of Federal responsibility by Indians themselves and thereby legislating the Indian reservations out of existence. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians goes on record that it strongly objects and opposes to those sections of P.L. 93-638 which legislates much power to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health, Education,

and Welfare, and to the United States Government, thereby defeating the outward intent and purpose of the Act and those sections which authorize services and funds to non-federally recognized tribes which, in effect, reduces the rights to limited services and funds legislated for federally recognized tribes. Be it further

Resolved, That the United States Government is hereby requested to continue to recognize the inherent sovereignty of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indans as exemplified in various agreements, statutes, policy and past decisions of the United States Government and the United States Supreme Court. Be it further

Resolved, That the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians will continue to exercise their rights in opposing any legislation that may be detrimental to the best interests of the members of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. Be it further

Resolved, That the United States Government is hereby requested to abide by and adhere to their Constitutional obligations to the reservation Indians and increase the services and funds to federally recognized tribes with aboriginal land bases; and increase the appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to effect a more proportionate share of personnel, services, and programs for Indians. Be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the Senate Full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Senate Sub-Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to be entered into the record of the testimony given by Byron L. Graves in behalf of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and the National Tribal Chairmen's Association on Octboer 20, 1975, at the Oversight Hearing on P.L. 93-638 the Secretary of Interior Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; Senator Hubert H. Humphrey; Senator Walter Mondale; Congressmen Bergland, Frazer, Quie, and Oberstar; the National Congress of American Indians; the National Tribal Chairmen's Association requesting their earnest support. For: 10; Against 0.

We do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly presented and enacted upon at the regular meeting of the Tribal Council held on Monday, November 24, 1975, with a quorum present, at the Red Lake Tribal Council Hall, Red Lake, Minnesota.

ROGER A. JOURDAIN,
Chairman.
ROYCE GRAVES, Sr.,
Secretary.

Senator ABOUREZK. The next panel of witnesses, the Alaska Federation of Natives, Carl Jack, Robert Clark, Gordon Jackson and Fred Wemark. If you would please identify yourself as you speak for the benefit of the reporter?

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I will be giving the main testimony and as questions develop, I will point out various members of the panel. My name is Robert Clark. My summary testimony

Senator ABOUREZK. Robert, I wonder if you would talk right into that mike?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CLARK, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and guests. My name is Robert Clark, acting chairman, Human Resource Board of Directors, AFN, Inc. To my immediate right is Mr. Gordon Jackson, executive vice president, Human Resource Board of Directors, to my right is Mr. Jacob B. Pompan, to my left is Mr. Carl Jack, director, Health Affairs Division, AFN, Inc., and to his left is Mr. Fredrick Wemark, contract compliance officer, Health Affairs Division, AFN, Inc.

I would like to thank the committee for permitting the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc. panel to appear before this committee to express the concerns of our constituents regarding the proposed regula

tions implementing Public Law 93-638. We believe our experience in analyzing the act and the proposed regulations will permit us to speak with some degree of authority on this subject matter.

The process employed in analyzing the proposed regulations was through a statewide conference sponsored by the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., on September 23-26, 1975, out of which was established our formal comments to the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on the proposed regulations.

In summary, the following are our major concerns on the IHS and BIA proposed regulations implementing title I of Public Law 93-638. One: Our first and foremost problem identified is the definition of "Indian Tribe" and "Tribal Organization" of the act which does not account for the unique Alaska situation. We have recommended to BIA and IHS inclusion of nonprofit regional native associations. It is the position of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc. that Congress, in its declaration of policy under Public Law 93-638, did not intend to exclude those organizations that have been contracting with IHS and BIA in the past and currently. We feel it is the oversight of Congress not to account for the unique Alaska situation. BIA has currently let a contract to study the unique Alaska situation.

Two: The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) proposed rules are without any statement of policy. A policy is meant to remind HEW employees of congressional intent in passing Public Law 93-638 and should make it clear that the purpose of the act and the intention of HEW are to further Indian self-determination. BIA has seen fit to include a meaningful statement of policy. There is no rational basis why such a statement could not be included in the HEW regulations.

Three: There are both duplication and inconsistencies between the BIA and IHS regulations. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for placing upon Indians the burden of administering contracts under a single law through the use of two separate agency regulations. It is, therefore, our recommendation that this committee support the establishment of a formal working group to develop a single regulation implementing Public Law 93-638. Pursuant to a joint meeting called by AFN, Inc., the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the National Tribal Chairman's Association (NTCA), the United Southeast Tribes (USET), the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), and the Red Lake task force met October 19, 1975, to discuss Public Law 93-638 and decided that AFN, Inc., NCAI, NTCA, USET, NIEA, and the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards (CICSB) be named as the group to work with BIA, IHS and the Civil Service Commission to come up with one regulation for Public Law 93-638. It was further decided that appropriation be made through Congress to accomplish this task with a reasonable time frame.

Four: Specific to the HEW proposed regulations dealing with "Assumption and Reassumption" of contract programs in section 36.233, HEW has introduced a new concept-suspension. It is an absolutely outrageous proposal because it is tantamount to default by termination and places an unconscionable burden upon an Indian contractor. It is, therefore, our recommendation-as explained in our formal comments to HEW-that the concept of suspension be dropped and in its place be substituted something similar to a convenience termination.

under which the contractor will be financially protected during any turbulent reassumption.

Five: Section 14H-70.611, BIA proposed regulations, and section 36.222, IHS proposed regulations, on indemnity and insurance is totally unacceptable because both agencies have unfairly placed the entire insurance burden on the contractor. The Government has required that the contractor idenmnify and hold harmless the Government against all loss, cost damages, and claim expenses of any liability whatsoever because of a wide range of liabilities. In section 102(c) and 103 (c) of the act, the two agencies require that the carrier waive soverign immunity within the limits of their policy, apparently presuming that sovereign immunity would be a bar to recovery against any claims above the limits of the policy. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the above-mentioned clauses be stricken in their entirety and rewritten in such a manner to permit the Government to absorb the costs of liabilities brought about by actions of the third parties.

Six: Section 14H-704 of BIA proposed regulations and section 36.218 of the IHS proposed regulations, "Types of Contracts," are restricted to the cost-reimbursement type. Nothing in the law restricts the type of contract a tribal organization may use. It is anachronistic and paternalistic on the part of the agencies to limit the type of contracts to cost-type contracts. We herewith recommend an entire mix of contract types to implement the act. This will serve a double purpose of making a contractor more sophisticated in the use of different types of contracts.

Seven: In order to accomplish the provisions of section 104 of Public Law 93-638, it is mandatory for Congress to appropriate funds to carry out these provisions, otherwise the act is meaningless. We are referring to the grant section. Ability to contract is contingent largely on the availability of front-end money to develop the executive branch of the tribal organization through grants.

Eight: The following sections dealing with: (a) Evaluation criteria, (b) suspension and termination of grants, (c) review, (d) waiver provisions, (e) price reduction for defective cost or pricing data, (f) amendments to regulations, (g) subcontracting, (h) eligibility and applications, (i) processing time of applications, (j) accounts, audits, and records standard clauses, (k) annual reporting,(1) unexpended funds under contracts, (m) exemption from bonds, (n) tribal appeals to proposed declinations and (o) additional proposed regulations not covered in IHS and BIA proposed regulations are herewith attached and incorporated in our formal comments to you.

Mr. Chairman, we further submit one document that is extremely important, that the regulations promulgate and consider an evolving document subject to changes as experience dictates. Our formal comments submitted to the BIA for grants and personnel are inclusive of HEW comments that have been submitted.

Another thing I would like to bring up is that, the way I view the act, in order for a gain to be made in the long run, Congress should be prepared to take a short run risk and loss with its Indian people, knowing that because of section 109 of the act, reassumption is possible. If there is gross mismanagement of that fund or if the violation of the rights, health, safety, or welfare of any person is there. This allows us to contract without fear of reassumption.

« PreviousContinue »