late last night and is not able to be with us this morning, but has a statement to be inserted in the record. I should also say that Mrs. Helen Scheirbeck who is first vice president will be submitting additional testimony.

[The statement from Mrs. Scheirbeck was not received.]

Mr. TIGER. We have a combined statement from NIEA and at this point, we will discuss some of the more salient points and not get into actual reading of the testimony here. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Tiger and I am acting executive director of the National Indian Education Association. Let me introduce the other members of the panel, Dorothy Small and Leland Bordeaux.

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in these hearings and we are certain that our NIEA constituency will be most interested in the outcome of these activities today. We will discuss some of the major issues of Public Law 93-638 regulations but we would be remiss if we did not have a discussion on what these regulations will mean to our educational system in our local communities. As you might guess, we will not be discussing any of the IHS regulations since we are chiefly interested in Indian education. Let me say to begin with that it seems like the general contracting section 401 of the regulations addressing the Snyder and Johnson O'Malley Act, it would seem to us that the area directors have far too much signoff or control authority of contracting as such. We have suggestions to alleviate the problem that we see with area directors gaining too much control through these regulations.

It would seem that the central office can only review contract applications when two or more area offices have jurisdiction over a single tribe for organizations' applications. While it may be true that the Secretary of the Interior can refuse to contract for contracts detrimental to the tribe and also when trust resources are threatened, we know that recently on the northern Cheyenne reservation the subject of coal leasing almost led to disaster and this was because the leasing done at the area director level, Commissioner stepped in far too late.

We recommend that a central contracting authority for education programs be established at the central office. I think that the contracts could be awarded on a more equitable basis. It would be nearer the budget functions of the Bureau, closer cooperation could be maintained throughout all parts of Indian country because of the equal distribution of the program's funds. This is quite impossible under the present set of regulations.

I think we have grown to see that the Albuquerque Education Office has unofficially gained control of many of the BIA educational programs. The JOM signoff rests with the area director and at the same time, approval for school construction rests back with the central office. We think that this system is fragmented and does not reflect good management.

We think a central contracting authority would help alleviate this situation. We also think that an ongoing evaluation system should be set in motion in education programs and contracting. There is not adequate method for this at the present.

We recommend through regular evaluation, faulty programs at the community level would not be compounded during the course of

the contracting. Monitoring of these programs would help steer the Indian education programs in the right direction resulting in improvement of Indian education as a whole.

We think also that if contracting was done at a central office, there would be less time in getting education programs operational. Under the present regulations, I think that we can see that this is a lengthy process, particularly when the area office declines to enter into an education program or contract at the local level.

Now, Miss Small has something to say about what I mentioned earlier, the unofficial power that the Albuquerque area office has been able to garner over the past few months.

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY SMALL, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Miss SMALL. Mr. Chairman, I am really happy to be here to participate in these hearings. What Mr. Tiger said about the Albuquerque area office, we did have an experience this past fall. We had information around the first part of September that they said they were not going to fund us. Then, in our reservation, they were really upset over it because the school was not going to be funded; they were going to cut us.

Then we got hold of our resource person who started looking into this. Then we found out that the Albuquerque office and area office were the ones responsible to release our funds for JOM. At the same time, the BIA told our representative that they had to cut us down because we had a public school on our reservation. Therefore, our funds were cut down and this is what our people are concerned about. If we go through a contract with JOM fundings and they will be cutting us down and that's where the problem lies right now. In order to get moneys for our schools on the Indian reservations is what we are concerned about.

The experience we have, the area office instead of helping Indian people to educate their children, they keep fighting our tribal groups. This is where the problem lies right now so they really have a concern, if we have to go through a contract, and this is where the problem will lie with the BIA; they keep cutting the funding and this is what the problems are.

Mr. TIGER. Mr. Chairman, to continue, we have some doubts about the JOM distribution formula as in subpart C, paragraph 4, of 3.31. Although we might be technical in suggesting that, does anyone know what the mechanics are in arriving at the JOM distribution formula? We note that in the regulations it states that JOM moneys are going to be distributed among the States on a substantially equal basis.

It appears that with these statements in mind, why must JOM contractors be subject to the lengthy application process and resulting volumes of paper called for in the regulation? We think that these are unnecessary. They are simply bureaucratic roadblocks.

We would like to address another problem in the JOM regulations. We think that those members of the school board must be one-fourth degree Indian blood as is required of the students that are governed by this school board. We have one more item to address and that is

the school construction moneys, $35 million in the appropriations is woefully inadequate. The BIA now has a backlog of schools construction; $35 million simply won't do the job.

At this point, I would like Mr. Leland Bordeaux to comment on the educational portion of Public Law 93-638.

STATEMENT OF LELAND BORDEAUX, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. BORDEAUX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the issue that was brought up and what it means to those of us at the local level when we deal with any set of rules and regulations. I guess for a long time, people have been addressing the fact that there should be a central contracting office as opposed to the several offices that there are now.

For us who are trying to deal with the students, I am the superintendent of the St. Francis Indian School on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. I think there are several 60-day provisions within the rules and regulations that would leave a school up in the air for as much as half a year, 6 months, not knowing whether funds were coming in or not.

This has been typical of my experience in the administration of a school, that there is never in these Indian programs a way to know what next year's funding will be until 2 days before school starts sometimes. I think the amounts of money that are involved, and I think with the different offices, it makes competition for these funds great and I think there is always a chance that a disproportionate amount can end up in any one given area.

Again, a central office, we felt, would eliminate that.

I would like to say one final thing and I think it is attached-this was a letter written by Frank LaPointe, a cohort of mine at St. Francis Indian School. He is executive director for the school board. It has several recommendations, one of which he says possibly this committee should direct somebody to take these 58 pages of rules and regulations and reduce them to 10 within the next 10 days. I realize that is a-I shouldn't be saying that probably but that's the way it is back home.

Senator ABOUREZK. Why not?

Mr. BORDEAUX. I think that it's something like this cannot be done, I would probably recommend that this particular bill, 93-638 not be given the short title, the Indian Self-Determination Act. As such, it isn't.

Mr. TIGER. Mr. Chairman, to wind up here, we note that all of the contracting regulations also have a provision for Indian preference and I think we can recall some months ago when the Bureau of Indian Affairs squirmed under the question of preference and I think the honorable chairman was at that session some time ago. We asked them if they would establish any kind of policy on Indian preference and at that point they had not.

We wondered if at this point, the committee might find out if they have any kind of Indian preference policy at this date.

One last point, we note under the Freedom of Information Act pointed out in the regulations, they have as confidential information,

information dealing with geological and physical information regarding oil wells. I think a sentence ought to be added to add to that, surface and subsurface geological information concerning minerals and mineral deposits. I don't think anything about coal, copper, or whatever the tribes have on the reservations should be public information. I think that those kinds of things are not public information to anybody except the tribes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statements of Messrs. Ross and La Pointe follow:]

STATEMENT OF KENNETH ROSS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

The National Indian Education Association is privileged to submit the following testimony before this Committee of the Congress of the United States of America. Acting within the scope of our Association's advocacy role for American Indians, in the total realm of Education, we hereby submit the following statements for your perusal regarding the Federal Regulations relative to Public Law 93-638.

Our statements will pertain to select aspects of Public Law 93-638 and present relevant questions or concerns our association feels need to be addressed, so as to enhance the smooth implementation of this important congressional action. In general, the concepts included in this landmark legislation are of a nature which were long overdue in order to upgrade quality educational services on behalf of Indian people. Yet, there remains several unclear points which need clarification in our minds.

First of all, in the operations of providing education, it has become increasingly evident that a more definitive interpretation is needed as to the roles and responsibilities of the State and the Federal Government. Under Sub-part B— Application Process Section 403.13 the federal regulations mandate that systems applying for financial consideration under this legislation are required to validate that (i) "It cannot meet the applicable minimum State standards without such funds." This requirement for eligibility infers all educational services should be designed to comply with the State's Standards. In most state's standards, if not all, very little, if any direct input has been solicited from Indian people. More importantly is the question of legislatively imposing mandates of this nature on potential recipients which would not be able to operate, should this mandate fail to be complied with. An example of this is the public school systems whose enrollment is almost entirely American Indian, with a miniscule tax base, and further hampered by a State School Finance system which treats or equates equality with equal disbursement of funds without regard to unique district problems, such as geographic location, etc.

This mandate under supplemental programs places an undue and unfair disadvantage on State operated systems serving American Indian youth when the same requirements are not applicable to previously private schools as cited in section 403.13 (b) (2).

Within the purview of legal authority rests a very pertinent question. The Constitution of the United States does not specifically address education as a federal responsibility. The primary case where the Federal Government does have a direct educational obligation is in certain treaties with Indian Tribes. Recognizing this, it seems realistic to assume that Education is a reserved power unto State and local government. If a State does not mandate Educational Standards it is conceivable that this authority is then vested in the next tier of the governmental structure, the local school board. In this situation, should a local school board formally move to adopt a concrete set of standards, i.e. North Central Accreditation Standards, as that particular school's educational standards, what impact will this fact make on eligibility determination?

Under Section 403.13 (iii) the requirment to demonstrate that, "It has fully utilized all other sources of financial aid, including all forms of State aid and Public Law 874 payments. The State aid contribution per pupil must be at least equal to the State Average," places further repercussions on State Governments if interpreted literally. To illustrate this point, every state which does not mandate through their State legislature a maximum levy for support of education would have to pass such a law or levy, and the increased tax rate might create a financial crisis for private business. Furthermore, every applicant would have to annually prove that they had written a project and submitted

the same for funding under all avenues of financial assistance, and further show verification of all applications which were not approved for funding. This in itself could be a very laborious undertaking given all of the various titles under the Vocational Education, Elementary and Secondary, and National Defense Education Acts just to illustrate a few.

In addition, the question could be raised as to how will "previously private schools," determine their full per capita cost as it appears under Section 403.13(c).

The mandated requirements under Section 403.18 will have a marked impact on those school systems making application under this law. The specificity included in the regulations, while much needed for educational and fiscal accountability, will create a magnitude of paperwork which may inundate school systems. This additional workload may and probably will adversely affect all schools involved due to the generally small administrative staffs in most Indian schools, The time involved in preparing proposals, conducting educational needs assessment, establishing behavioral and programmatic objectives, monitoring and evaluating these functions will mean additional man hours or organizational restructuring of present staffing.

These actions and exerted efforts on the part of concerned Indian parents, school boards, Indian Parent committee members, students and school administrators can be virtually negated by appropriation of insufficient funds to meet the educational needs as previously determined. This process of substantiating need and equating need to the dollars which are required in the appropriation is one, if not the most, crucial element in the entire process. The frustration of laboriously jumping all the required hurdles only to find in the end that there is insufficient funds is understood only too well in Indian country. It is time for change.

One final consideration under Part 403-Educational Contracts under JohnsonO'Malley Act which we would like to have clarified in under Section 403.32, Pro Rata Requirement. As yet, we have been unable to ascertain specifically an established guideline as to what will be considered as a percentage or quota as applied to "where the participation of non-eligible students is so incidental as to be deminimus." Is this to be left to the discretion of the Area Director or his designee? If so, a diversity may arise from the more liberal to the more conservative area. We recommend that a general guide as to this element be adopted by policy within the Bureau of Indian Affairs but further suggest that the percentage not be less than 90 percent of the total individuals participating in the program or specific project component.

The second facet of our testimony addresses Part 407, School Construction Contracts for Public Schools.

Public Law 81-874 prioritization determinations do not take into account the number of direct beneficiaries who are American Indian under the guidelines of Public Law 93-638. It is a concept which should be applicable in determining the project highest on the priority list on the basis of a commitment to fund list. If this were integrated into the funding criteria it would enhance the ultimate intent of the legislation by placing the funds on a priority basis where the majority of Indian students would be the beneficiaries.

The National Indian Education Association announces its willingness to assist the Office of Education and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to review and refine these operational procedures.

STATEMENT OF FRANK LAPOINTE, MEMBER OF THE ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE

Senator Abourezk and Subcommittee Members: My name is Frank LaPointe, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

This statement is being sent via the U.S. Mail but I hope it will be accepted along with other specific recommendations that must be taken seriously if P. L. 93-638 is to mean anything to the grassroots Indian people.

My plea to you, Mr. Chairman, is that your Subcommittee take a larger view of these proposed rules and regulations. Please give the Indian people something to celebrate during the Bicentennial-less government red tape for the Red people.

I would like to quote from an editorial in the Rapid City Journal on August 23, 1975. Although I don't always agree with its editorials, this one hit the nail on the head:

"Big government is unequipped to take into account unique factors involved in transactions between 50 states, 30,000 locations, and 200 million citizens. As each