STATEMENT OF JERRY C. STRAUS

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS BRIEFING

FOR CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ON

"INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE FEDERAL-TRIBAL RELATIONSHIP"--

THE NIXON MESSAGE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Congressional staff members, I feel deeply honored to appear before you today to participate in this briefing on the Nixon Indian policy and to help commemorate its enduring vitality. Because of my representation of the Taos Pueblo of New Mexico in its efforts to secure restoration of its sacred Blue Lake lands, which President Nixon supported in his historic message to Congress on July 8, 1970, I was privileged to work with other members of this panel in the development of some aspects of that policy.

I have been representing American Indian tribes in Washington, D.C., for more than 35 years. During this period I have witnessed many initiatives by the Congress and Executive Branch to improve the lot of the tribes and to protect Indian rights. To my mind the Nixon Indian policy and its implementation under Presidents Nixon and Ford was far and away the most significant governmental initiative in Indian affairs during this period.

To put the Nixon message into proper perspective, I would like to briefly recap the history of federal Indian policy. The special relationship between American Indian tribes and the federal government has its roots in the early history of the United States. When Europeans came to the New World, they found a continent populated by many sovereign tribes, all organized in a variety of governmental forms adopted to their needs and circumstances. When the Constitution was adopted the special status of Indian Tribes was confirmed in what is known as the Indian Commerce Clause, which gave the Congress plenary power in the conduct of Indian Affairs, recognizing that regulation of Indian Affairs could not be left to the states.

In the early nineteenth century, as white settlement increasingly encroached on tribal lands, the federal courts were called on to define the nature of tribes in the federal system. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cherokee Nation cases when he defined the status of tribes as "Domestic dependent nations" -- a concept that is still valid today.

While the Supreme Court in the Cherokee Nation cases in the 1830's recognized the sovereignty of tribes, Congress and the Executive Branch were of the contrary opinion that the existence of sovereign nations within the states of the Union was inconsistent with state sovereignty and national policy. Under the removal policy of President Andrew Jackson, Congress gave tribes the choice of emigrating beyond the Mississippi or losing their sovereign status. Under the removal policy, many tribes, most notably substantial portions of the "Five Civilized Tribes," -- the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Cherokees, and Seminoles -- were forcibly removed beyond the Mississippi to fend for themselves in a new and hostile environment.

As the United States expanded westward during the mid-nineteenth century, it became impossible to continue to resettle Indian tribes to the west of the white settlement. Thus, the reservation policy was begun. Under this policy, the federal government purported to recognize the sovereignty of tribes within a reservation with clearly defined boundaries surrounded by white settlement, usually in a treaty which provided for a large cession of tribal land. In most cases, however, the government worked in a variety of ways to subvert tribal government and reduce Indian people to a state of dependency and utter poverty.

Despite the promises of the treaties, it was not long before the white settlement encroached upon the reservations originally established. Tribes resorted to force to protect their remaining territory, leading inevitably to defeat at the hands of the U.S. Army and a process of drastic reduction of tribal territory through a succession of treaties, agreements, statutes, and executive orders. At the same time, many tribal economies collapsed due to the disappearance of the buffalo herds and depletion of other game. Destitute and powerless, the Indians became dependent upon federal assistance to survive. many proud Indian Nations ceased, in effect, to be self-governing, as the resident Indian Agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs exercised near-total control of the reservation. And yet, most tribes -- in one form or another -- managed to preserve some sort of tribal identity.

From the last quarter of 19th century forward, Indian policy has shifted like the violent swings of a pendulum.

During the period stretching from the 1870's to the 1920's, the tribes -- under a policy of forced assimilation -- were to be made a part of the mainstream. One fundamental change was that in 1871 Congress ended the practice of dealing with tribes as sovereigns by treaty. From that point forward, agreements with tribes were to be simply agreements. A variety of other measures were instituted:

• Allotting tribal land under the General Allotment Act and similar statutes. (The chief effect of this was to reduce Indian landholding from 140,000,000 acres to 50,000,000, since individuals lost their allotments through a variety of transactions.)

• The Major Crimes Act of 1885, which ended tribal power to try tribal members for major crimes.
• Stamping out tribal tradition, religion and language through outright prohibition of these activities.

The net effect of all this was disastrous to the tribes. By the turn of the century it was clear that the attempts at assimilation had left the tribes in a dependent state with little or no hope for the future.

Major change began with publication of the Merriam Report in 1928. This report condemned policies of the past, which had subjugated many tribes, and recommended encouraging Indian use of Indian lands and strengthening Indian community life and culture. These principles of modern Indian policy greatly influenced John Collier, who was appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1933 by President Roosevelt. Under Collier's guidance, the erosion of the tribal land base was halted by ending the allotment process. The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) additionally strengthened tribal government by encouraging tribes to establish or re-establish strong tribal governments. John Collier recognized that the social and economic problems that had made Indians the most disadvantaged of all our citizens could not be solved without strengthening or creating tribal governments.

The next major chapter of federal Indian policy was the temporary setback of the Termination period of the 1950's and 1960's. From 1954 to 1962, Congress voted to terminate federal supervision of over 100 tribes. Termination legislation typically ended the special relationship between the federal government and the Indian tribe concerned, and discontinued federal programs for that tribe. It imposed state authority over former reservation land, subjected the land to state taxation, and either sold tribal land and distributed the proceeds among tribal members or placed the land in a private trust. Tribal treaty rights were abrogated or curtailed. Finally, tribal government was effectively ended on most terminated reservations, although terminated tribes continued to exist for some purposes.

It is shocking to recall that Termination failed in every instance in which it was tried. Contrary to the claims of the terminationists, the ending of special federal status for various tribes and the destruction of their governments did not solve any problems. While the tribes had to comply with all the strictures of state law with no tribal government to assist on the former reservations of terminated tribes, there was nothing to replace the federal support that had ended. In the end, forced assimilation of tribes into the mainstream proved no more workable in the 20th century than it had been in the 19th.

When President Nixon sent his historic message to Congress in July of 1970, there were powerful voices in the Congress and country at large that still advocated the policy of forced Termination. Undeterred by the tragic consequences that befell every tribe that had its special federal status and rights terminated, Senators and Congressmen and others of both political parties still believed that the United States should get out of what they called "the Indian business." The proponents of forced Termination wanted to end special tribal rights and federal protection and leave Indian tribes to fend for themselves despite their demonstrated inability to survive without federal protection.

In his message to Congress, President Nixon rejected the policy of forced Termination as both morally wrong and ineffective. He strongly affirmed that the special relationship between Indian tribes and the United States was based upon solemn commitments that the federal government had made to tribes during the course of our history and could not be unilaterally ended. He stated that to"...terminate this relationship would be no more appropriate than to terminate the citizenship rights of any other American." He pointed out that in the instances where Termination had been tried, the results were harmful and did not achieve the intended result.

As a direct result of President Nixon's policy, Congress enacted the Menominee Restoration Act in 1973, restoring the federal rights of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin. Chairman Apesanahkwat of that Tribe is here to tell you the history of that Termination -- how the Menominee Tribe, once one of the most prosperous and advanced tribes in the nation, was plunged into poverty and social disorder by the enactment of the Menominee Termination Act of 1954. Today, as a result of the reversal of Termination ' sparked by President Nixon's message, the Menominee Tribe has regained most, but not all, of what was lost during the Termination period. President Nixon's policy on Termination, which led to the restoration of the Menominee Tribe and other tribes that had been terminated, was an important reaffirmation of the federal government's commitment to preserve the special status of Indian Tribes and protect their rights.

But President Nixon went beyond the Point of rejecting the Policy of forced Termination. "He proposed a bold new program which was designed to "break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions. He proposed a legislative initiative, which was ultimately enacted as the Indian Self-Determination Act, under which Indian tribes would be given the right to contract with the federal government to carry out the various programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The goal of this initiative was to end the dependence of tribes on the federal bureaucracy and allow Indians to become "independent of federal control without being cut off from federal concern and federal support."

The Self-Determination Act and its progeny have empowered tribes in many ways and caused a sea change in the world of Indian affairs. As intended, the role of the federal bureaucracy has greatly diminished in the years since the Nixon message. As intended, the power and authority of tribal government has grown and taken over functions formerly performed by the federal bureaucrats. As intended, policies and decisions by the federal government with respect to Indian affairs and the carrying out of those policies and decisions, are, more than ever before, determined by Indian tribes. Today, 50 percent of BIA programs and 38 percent of IHS programs are operated by tribes.

In addition to the proposal for "Self-Determination, there are other aspects of the Nixon Indian policy that are of enduring importance. In announcing Support for the efforts of the Taos Pueblo to obtain restoration of its sacred Blue Lake lands, and then actively lobbying on behalf of the Pueblo to secure enactment of the necessary legislation, President Nixon signaled a new commitment by the federal government to redress ancient injustices suffered by tribes, including the restoration of land in special cases. To Indian tribes throughout the country, the restoration of the sacred Blue Lake lands, was an act of symbolic importance far beyond the particular facts of the land restoration that was made.

The proposal for establishing the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs demonstrated a commitment to give Indians a more powerful voice in the federal bureaucracy. The result of having this new position, while by no means curing all that was wrong in the functions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has, in fact, accomplished what President Nixon intended.

The proposal for the establishment of an Indian Trust Counsel Authority was designed to provide independent government counsel, outside the Department of Justice, in situations where there was a conflict between tribal interests, where the government had a trust responsibility, and the perceived national interest. while this proposal was never enacted, it did result in a heightened awareness of the need for government attorneys to be aware of potential conflicts of interest and some positive remedies, such as providing funds for tribes to represent their own interests in cases where the federal government had a conflict of interest and the more recent establishment of the Office of Tribal Justice in the Department of Justice.

In discussing the details of the Nixon message, it is important not to lose sight of its overall importance. For a conservative President to break so sharply with the past and propose the far reaching reforms he did in the conduct of Indian affairs gave powerful support to the efforts of tribes to protect and enhance their sovereignty and their special status under American law. While others could and did have different views on the appropriate solution to the problems addressed, the Nixon message made it impossible to defend the status quo in Indian affairs and heightened public awareness of the plight of American Indian tribes. The Nixon message and the efforts to implement its proposals gave important new hope and power to Indian tribes. Despite recent efforts in Congress to strip tribes of their rights and despite the passage of years, the beneficial effect of the Nixon message still endures.

##

The questions we should be asking are these: Why should Indian self-determination retain a central place in relations between American Indians and federal, state, and local governments, despite the many inconveniences it entails? Why shouldn't Native Americans be expected to assimilate like other immigrants?

To answer these questions, it is not enough to talk about injustices by European settlers against Indians-- though there were plenty of those-- because, beyond debates about right and wrong, there was something inevitable about the way in which Indian culture receded in the face of the European advance. For Tocqueville, it was this element of inevitability that made the Indians' plight so heartbreaking.

But we must remember certain things: First, that American Indians came close to disappearing altogether by the start of the 20th century, from a combination of indefensible U.S. government policies and the unintended consequences of those policies. Second, that the Indians nevertheless clung to survival in the rocky deserts to which they had been exiled. Third, that what enabled them to survive was a sense of identity inextricably connected with ideas about their relationship with sovereign tribal communities. Fourth, that beginning in the 1970's, these convictions about the nature of Indian identity found a hospitable political climate and produced something new in the history of U.S.-Indian relations, which was federal support for Indian self-determination. And finally, that this support has produced, for the first time since the start of their decline, the beginnings - just the beginnings-- of an upturn in the Indians' fortunes.

It is that fragile renaissance, born of self-determination, that we must protect.

Bradley Patterson

REMARKS AT SENATE INDIAN AFFAIRS BRIEFING

January 11, 1999

Room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 10:00 am

My name is Bradley Patterson; I was the Executive Assistant to the Hon. Leonard Garment at the White House during the period Fall 1969 to December 1974. Leonard spent a good slice of his time on Native American issues, and I spent 85% of mine on them. Later President Ford designated me as the White House Coordinator for issues affecting Native Americans.

Leonard has emphasized the priority which the Nixon administration gave to the policy of tribal self-determination. I will briefly supplement his remarks by describing how it was our White House staff which played a crucial role in effectuating that priority.

We began by opening the White House doors -- not just to government officers, but to people from outside the government. In came Alvin Josephy, the historian, with a proposal to revitalize and reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In came Edgar Cahn, an old friend of Leonard's, asking him to galvanize the new Nixon administration to make a completely fresh start for Indians. In came Oklahoma Indian Judge Charles Lohah, leading a group of Indian activists like La Donna Harris, Ernie Stevens, Sandy McNabb, Rose Crow-Flies-High and Laura Bergt, whose voices had not been listened to before. We joined with Bob Robertson of the Vice President's staff in having this group meet with the Vice President. Their voices were new, and they were persuasive.

When John Ehrlichman circulated a memorandum asking for ideas for the Nixon legislative program for 1970, we immediately wrote him back: the President should propose a new policy for Native Americans. Within days came the assignment: you, as staff, develop one.

The four of us -- Leonard and I, Bob Robertson and Bobbie Kilberg - - worked as a team. Bob organized field hearings to gather advice from tribal leaders themselves, especially about how to encourage reservation economic development.

Another voice was heard -- an angry one -- from whistle blower and BIA lawyer Bill Veeder. Bill was apoplectic about what he was convinced was the "irreparable injury" being inflicted on Indian land and water rights. I invited Bill Veeder into the White House, asked him "Tell us about this! Give us facts and cases." He did - - and it was Bill Veeder who helped hatch the idea of an Indian Trust Counsel authority, to ensure that in court cases the federal government -- the trustee of Indian rights -would always submit a brief as trustee.

When our policy development work was finished, a final memorandum was prepared for Ehrlichman and the President. All with smooth sailing? Oh no! A senior OMB official stormed into Leonard's office, our self-determination draft in his hand; "You can't be serious!" he chided. (In those days OMB apparently felt that Indian tribal governments were but a troublesome excrescence in the American federal system -- should be tucked under State jurisdiction.) But we were determined to put forward this new policy, and the President approved the substance of our findings and recommendations.

Still more staff effort, however, was needed: Lee Huebner of the speech writing staff f came to our off ice, drank in the results of our seven months of research and came up with an excellent first draft of a message. Leonard and Pat Moynihan and others improved it still further -- and you have its eloquent text in the material before you.

In December of 1970 the first of the legislative issues in that Message ripened here on the Hill: restoring the sacred Blue Lake lands to the Taos Pueblo. Again we turned to outside allies: Jerry Straus, who is right here, Senator Fred Harris and his indefatigable wife LaDonna Harris. Other allies were Barry Goldwater, Chuck Percy, Lloyd Meeds. Our Indian policy was bipartisan from its very beginnings -- and should continue to be.

Throughout those five years, our White House staff doors never closed. We talked with elected tribal chairmen like Bob Jim of Yakima, Wendell Chino of the Mescalero Apache, Don Wright of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We kept in close touch with Vine Deloria, the distinguished Indian author. But we also met with and listened to dissidents -- the angry and the discontented: such as to the Lakota traditionalists who detested Sioux Chief Wilson, to the dissident Osages who complained that their tribal "head-rights" system was corrupt, to single-minded Ada Deer who organized the long and successful effort to wrest the ownership of the Menonimee Lands from hostile outside control, or to the angry young Hopi who, when a bill was pending to assist a Hopi Industrial Park, sat on my sofa and hissed "If a young Hopi wants a job, let him leave the reservation!"

These folks were not the regular government or Indian bureaucrats one might expect to be coming in and out of our precincts. Some of them were raucous and rough, often discourteous. even pugnacious. When Bob Robertson went out to Alcatraz Island to meet with the xenophobic occupiers to discuss their "demands", they spiked his coffee with mescaline. Sam Cagey of the Lummi, Sam Deloria from New Mexico, Charlie Edwardson from the North Slope -were loud, tough and often hostile, figuratively poking me in the eye. During the AIM occupation of the BIA building, Leonard and I met with activist Hank Adams, who entered the White House still bearing the scars of his brushes with police on the protest lines of fishing-rights encounters. I headed a White House staff team to Wounded Knee to negotiate the wrap-up of the AIM occupation. Under the canopy of pine-boughs, the seemingly unhappy Lakota chiefs, war-bonneted and painted, separated me from my colleagues, surrounded me, brusquely pressed against me, demanded that I give them back the Black Hills NOW -- on the spot. I thought to myself: "This was supposed to be a desk job in the Executive Office building ... ?"

As a participant in, and now a scholar of White House staff work, I reflect that along with what is usually expected of White House officers: doing the indispensable, careful policy research and interdepartmental coordination, we of the Nixon staff were proud that we were indispensable in also handling the unexpected: that we listened to voices long suppressed and that we even disciplined some hesitant and doubtful government executives who otherwise would have dragged their feet in implementing the President's policy. (In two instances, this meant that we actually had to overrule fuming senior agency officials to prevent them from using brute government force against the occupiers of Alcatraz, the BIA building and Wounded Knee.)

Thus we bent our energies, as staff, to implement the new beginnings of self-determination, and to consult with Indian leaders themselves, to begin the process of strengthening Native American tribal government and improving the legal and economic status of the First Americans.

That was our job as White House Staff. We are proud of what we did in those years and urge you, Senators, Congressmen, and members of their staffs, to continue this effort in the years to come.

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY STATEMENTS:

PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS

Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President

Richard Nixon

1970

NOTE: The President spoke at 5:48 p.m. in the East Room at the White House.

213 Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs.

July 8, 1970

To the Congress of the United States:

The first Americans-the Indians are the most deprived and most isolated minority group in our nation. On virtually every scale of measurement--employment, income, education, health-the condition of the Indian people ranks at the bottom.

This condition is the heritage centuries of injustice. From the time first contact with European sett American Indians have been o and brutalized, deprived of the ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny. Even the Federal programs which are intended to meet

This condition is the heritage of centuries of injustice. From the time of their first contact with European settlers, the American Indians have been oppressed and brutalized, deprived of their ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny. Even the Federal programs which are intended to meet their needs have frequently proven to be But the story of the Indian in America is something more than the record of the white man's frequent aggression, broken agreements, intermittent remorse and prolonged failure. It is a record also of endurance, of survival, of adaptation and creativity in the face of overwhelming obstacles. It is a record of enormous contributions to this country-to its art and culture, to its strength and spirit, to its sense of history and its sense of purpose. It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal government began to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people Both as a matter of justice and as a matter of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.

SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT

TERMINATION

The first and most basic question that must be answered with respect to Indian policy concerns the historic and legal relationship between the Federal government and Indian communities. In the past, this relationship has oscillated between two equally harsh and unacceptable extremes.

On the one hand, it has-at various times during previous Administrations-been the stated policy objective of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government eventually to terminate the trusteeship relationship between the Federal government and the Indian people.==

community services such as health, education and public safety, services which would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other Americans.

This goal, of course, has never been achieved. But the special relationship between the Indian tribes and the Federal government which arises from these agreements continues to carry immense moral and legal force. To terminate this relationship would be no more appropriate than to terminate the citizenship rights of any other American.

The second reason for rejecting forced termination is that the practical results have been clearly harmful in the few in. stances in which termination actually has been tried. The removal of Federal trusteeship responsibility has produced considerable disorientation among the affected Indians and has left them unable to relate to a myriad of Federal, State and local assistance efforts. Their economic and social condition has often been worse after termination than it was before.

The third argument I would make against forced termination concerns the effect it has had upon the overwhelming majority of tribes which still enjoy a special relationship with the Federal government. The very threat that this relationship may someday be ended has created a great deal of apprehension among Indian groups and this apprehension, in turn, has had a blighting effect on tribal progress. Any step that might result in greater social, economic or political autonomy is regarded with suspicion by many Indians who fear that it will only bring them closer to the day when the Federal government will disavow its responsibility and cut them adrift.

In short, the fear of one extreme policy, forced termination, has often worked to produce the opposite extreme: excessive dependence on the Federal government. In many cases this dependence is so great that the Indian community is almost entirely run by outsiders who are responsible and responsive to Federal officials in Washington, D.C., rather than to the communities they are supposed to be serving. This is the second of the two harsh approaches which have long plagued our Indian policies. Of the Department of the Interior's programs directly serving Indian control, for example, only 1.5 percent are presently under Indian control. Only 2.4 percent of HEW's Indian health programs are run by Indians. The result is a burgeoning Federal bureaucracy, programs which are far less effective than they ought to be, and an erosion of Indian initiative and morale.

I believe that both of these policy extremes are wrong. Federal termination errs in one direction, Federal paternalism errs in the other. Only by clearly rejecting both of these extremes can we achieve a policy which truly serves the best interests of the Indian people. Self-determination among the Indian people can and must be encouraged without the threat of eventual termination. In my view, in fact, that is the only way that self-determination can effectively be fostered.

This, then, must be the goal of any new national policy toward the Indian people: to strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community. We must assure the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can become independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal support. My specific recommendations to the Congress are designed to carry out this policy.

1. Rejecting Termination

Because termination is morally and legally unacceptable, because it produces bad practical results, and because the mere threat of termination tends to discourage greater self-sufficiency among Indian groups, I am asking the Congress to pass a new Concurrent Resolution which would expressly renounce, repudiate and repeal the termination policy as expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 108 of the 83 rd Congress. This resolution would explicitly affirm the integrity and right to continued existence of all Indian tribes and Alaska native governments, recognizing that cultural pluralism is a source of national strength. It would assure these groups that the United States Government would continue to carry out its treaty and trusteeship obligations to them as long as the groups themselves believed that such a policy was necessary or desirable. It would guarantee that whenever Indian groups decided to assume control or responsibility for government service programs, they could do so and still receive adequate Federal financial support. In short, such a resolution would reaffirm for the Legislative branch-as I hereby affirm for the Executive branch-that the historic relationship between the Federal government and the Indian communities cannot be abridged without the consent of the Indians.

2. The Right to Control and Operate Federal Programs

Even as we reject the goal of forced termination, so must we reject the suffocating

pattern of paternalism. But how can we best do this? In the past, we have often assumed that because the government is obliged to provide certain services for Indians, it therefore must administer those same services. And to get rid of Federal administration, by the same token, often meant getting rid of the whole Federal program. But there is no necessary reason for this assumption. Federal support programs for non-Indian communities-hospitals and schools are two ready examples-are ordinarily administered by local authorities. There is no reason why Indian communities should be deprived of the privilege of self-determination merely because they receive monetary support from the Federal government. Nor should they lose Federal money because they reject Federal control.

For years we have talked about encouraging Indians to exercise greater self-determination, but our progress has never been commensurate with our promises. Part of the reason for this situation has been the threat of termination. But another reason is the fact that when a decision is made as to whether a Federal program will be turned over to Indian administration, it is the Federal authorities and not the Indian people who finally make that decision.

This situation should be reversed. In my judgment, it should be up to the Indian tribe to determine whether it is willing and able to assume administrative responsibility for a service program which is presently administered by a Federal agency. To this end, I am proposing legislation which would empower a tribe or a group of tribes or any other Indian community to take over the control or operation of Federally-funded and administered programs in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare whenever the tribal council or comparable community governing group voted to do so.

Under this legislation, it would not be necessary for the Federal agency administering the program to approve the transfer of responsibility. It is my hope and expectation that most such transfers of power would still take place consensually as a result of negotiations between the local community and the Federal government. But in those cases in which an impasse arises between the two parties, the final determination should rest with the Indian community.

Under the proposed legislation, Indian control of Indian programs would always be a wholly voluntary matter. It would be possible for an Indian group to select that program or that specified portion of a program that it wants to run without assuming responsibility for other components. The "right of retrocession" would also be guaranteed; this means that if the local community elected to administer a program and then later decided to give it back to the Federal government, it would always be able to do so.

Appropriate technical assistance to help local organizations successfully operate these programs would be provided by the Federal government. No tribe would risk economic disadvantage from managing its own programs; under the proposed legislation, locally-administered programs would be funded on equal terms with similar services still administered by Federal authorities. The legislation I propose would include appropriate protections against any action which endangered the rights, the health, the safety or the welfare of individuals. It would also contain accountability procedures to guard against gross negligence or mismanagement of Federal funds.

This legislation would apply only to services which go directly from the Federal government to the Indian community; those services which are channeled through State or local governments could still be turned over to Indian control by mutual consent. To run the activities for which they have assumed control, the Indian groups could employ local people or outside experts. If they chose to hire Federal employees who had formerly administered these projects, those employees would still enjoy the privileges of Federal employee benefit programs-under special legislation which will also be submitted to the Congress.

Legislation which guarantees the right of Indians to contract for the control or operation of Federal programs would directly channel more money into Indian communities, since Indians themselves would be administering programs and drawing salaries which now often go to non-Indian administrators. The potential for Indian control is significant, for we are talking about programs which annually spend over $400 million in Federal funds. A policy which encourages Indian administration of these programs will help build greater pride and resourcefulness within the Indian community. At the same time, programs which are managed and operated by Indians are likely to be more effective in meeting Indian needs.

I speak with added confidence about these anticipated results because of the favorable experience of programs which have already been turned over to Indian control. Under the auspices of the office of Economic Opportunity, Indian communities now run more than 60 community action agencies which are located on Federal reservations. OEO is planning to spend some $57 million in Fiscal Year 1971 through Indian-controlled grantees. For over four years, many OEO-funded programs have operated under the control of local Indian organizations and the results have been most heartening.

Two Indian tribes--the Salt River Tribe and the Zuni Tribe-have recently extended this principle of local control to virtually all of the programs which the Bureau of Indian Affairs has traditionally administered for them. Many Federal officials, including the Agency Superintendent, have been replaced by elected tribal officers or tribal employees. The time has now come to build on these experiences and to extend local Indian control-at a rate and to the degree that the Indians themselves establish.

3. Restoring the Sacred Lands Near Blue Lake

No government policy toward Indians can be fully effective unless there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the Federal government and the Indian people. Such a relationship cannot be completed overnight; it is inevitably the product of a long series of words and actions. But we can contribute significantly to such a relationship by responding to just grievances which are especially important to the Indian people.

One such grievance concerns the sacred Indian lands at and near Blue Lake in New Mexico. From the fourteenth century, the Taos Pueblo Indians used these areas for religious and tribal purposes. In 1906, however, the United States Government appropriated these lands for the creation of a national forest. According to a recent determination of the Indian Claims Commission, the government "took said lands from petitioner without compensation."

For 64 years, the Taos Pueblo has been trying to regain possession of this sacred lake and watershed area in order to preserve it in its natural condition and limit its non-Indian use. The Taos Indians consider such action essential to the protection and expression of their religious faith.

The restoration of the Blue Lake lands to the Taos Pueblo Indians is an issue of unique and critical importance to Indians throughout the country. I therefore take this opportunity wholeheartedly to endorse legislation which would restore 48,000 acres of sacred land to the Taos Pueblo people, with the statutory promise that they would be able to use these lands for traditional purposes and that except for such uses the lands would remain forever wild.

With the addition of some perfecting amendments, legislation now pending in the Congress would properly achieve this goal. That legislation (H.R.- 471) should promptly be amended and enacted. Such action would stand as an important symbol of this government's responsiveness to the just grievances of the American Indians.

4. Indian Education

One of the saddest aspects of Indian life in the United States is the low quality of Indian education. Drop-out rates for Indians are twice the national average and the average educational level for all Indians under Federal supervision is less than six school years. Again, at least a part of the problem stems from the fact that the Federal government is trying to do for Indians what many Indians could do better for themselves.

The Federal government now has responsibility for some 221,000 Indian children of school age. While over 50,000 Of these children attend schools which are operated directly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, only 750 Indian children are enrolled in schools where the responsibility for education has been contracted by the BIA to Indian school boards. Fortunately, this condition is beginning to change. The Ramah Navajo Community of New Mexico and the Rough Rock and Black Water Schools in Arizona are notable examples of schools which have recently been brought under local Indian control. Several other communities are now negotiating for similar arrangements.

Consistent with our policy that the Indian community should have the right to take over the control and operation of federally funded programs, we believe every Indian community wishing to do so should be able to control its own Indian schools. This control would be exercised by school boards selected by Indians and functioning much like other school boards throughout the nation. To assure that this goal is achieved, I am asking the Vice President, acting in his role as Chairman of the National Council on Indian Opportunity,' to establish a Special Education Subcommittee of that Council. The members of that Subcommittee should be Indian educators who are selected by the Council's Indian members. ne Subcommittee will provide technical assistance to Indian communities wishing to establish school boards, Will conduct a nationwide review of the educational status of all Indian school children in whatever schools they may be attending, and will evaluate and report annually on the status of Indian education, including the extent of local control. This Subcommittee will act as a transitional mechanism; its objective should not be self-perpetuation but the actual transfer of Indian education to Indian communities.

We must also take specific action to benefit Indian children in public schools. Some 141,000 Indian children presently attend general public schools near their homes. Fifty-two thousand of these are absorbed by local school districts without special Federal aid. But 89,000 Indian children attend public schools in such high concentrations that the State or local school districts involved are eligible for special Federal assistance under the Johnson-O'Maey Act In Fiscal Year 1971, the Johnson-O'Malley program will be funded at a level of some $20 million.

This Johnson-O'Malley money is designed to help Indian students, but since funds go directly to the school districts, the Indians have little if any influence over the way in which the money is spent I therefore propose that the Congress amend the Johnson-O'Malley Act so as to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to channel funds under this act directly to Indian tribes and communities. Such a provision would give Indians the ability to help shape the schools which their children attend and, in some instances, to set up new school systems of their own. At the same time, I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to make every effort to ensure that Johnson-O'Malley funds which are presently directed to public school districts are actually spent to improve the education of Indian children in these districts.

5. Economic Development Legislation

Economic deprivation is among the most serious of Indian problems. Unemployment among Indians is ten times the national average; the unemployment rate runs as high as 80 percent on some of the poorest reservations. Eighty percent of reservation Indians have an income which falls below the poverty line; the average annual income for such families is only $1,500. As I said in September of 1968, it is critically important that the Federal government support and encourage efforts which help Indians develop their own economic infrastructure. To that end, I am proposing the "Indian Financing Act of 1970."

This act would do two things:

1. It would broaden the existing Revolving Loan Fund, which loans money for Indian economic development projects. I am asking that the authorization for this fund be increased from approximately $25 million to $75 million.

2. It would provide additional incentives in the form of loan guarantees, loan insurance and interest subsidies to encourage private lenders to loan more money for Indian economic projects. An aggregate amount of $200 million would be authorized for loan guarantee and loan insurance purposes.

I also urge that legislation be enacted which would permit any tribe which chooses to do so to enter into leases of its land for up to 99 years. Indian people now own over 50 million acres of land that are held in trust by the Federal government. In order to compete in attracting investment capital for commercial, industrial and recreational development of these lands, it is essential that the tribes be able to offer long-term leases. Long-term leasing is preferable to selling such property since it enables tribes to preserve the trust ownership of their reservation homelands. But existing law limits the length of time for which many tribes can enter into such leases. Moreover, when long-term leasing is allowed, it has been granted by Congress on a case-by-case basis, a policy which again reflects a deep-rooted pattern of paternalism. The twenty reservations which have already been given authority for long-term leasing have realized important benefits from that privilege and this opportunity should now be extended to all Indian tribes.

Economic planning is another area where our efforts can be significantly improved. The comprehensive economic development plans that have been created by both the Pima-Maricopa and the Zuni Tribes provide outstanding examples of interagency cooperation in fostering Indian economic growth. The Zuni Plan, for example, extends for at least five years and involves a total Of $55 million from the Departments of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Education and Welfare and from the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Economic Development Administration. I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to play an active role in coordinating additional projects of this kind.

6. More Money for Indian Health

Despite significant improvements in the past decade and a half, the health of Indian people still lags 20 to 25 years behind that of the general population. The average age at death among Indians is 44 years, about one-third less than the national average. Infant mortality is nearly 50% higher for Indians and Alaska natives than for the population at large; the tuberculosis rate is eight times as high and the suicide rate is twice that of the general population. Many infectious diseases such as trachoma and dysentery that have all but disappeared among other Americans continue to afflict the Indian people.

This Administration is determined that the health status of the first Americans will be improved. In order to initiate expanded efforts in this area, I will request the allocation of an additional $10 million for Indian health programs for the current fiscal year. This strengthened Federal effort will enable us to address ourselves more effectively to those health problems which are particularly important to the Indian community. We understand, for example, that areas of greatest concern to Indians include the prevention and control of alcoholism, the promotion of mental health and the control of middle-ear disease. We hope that the ravages of middle-ear disease-a particularly acute disease among Indians--can be brought under control within five years.

These and other Indian health programs will be most effective if more Indians are involved in running them. Yet almost unbelievably-we are presently able to identify in this country only 30 physicians and fewer than 400 nurses of Indian descent. To meet this situation, we will expand our efforts to train Indians for health careers.

7. Helping Urban Indians

Our new census will probably show that a larger proportion of America's Indians are living off the reservation than ever before in our history. Some authorities even estimate that more Indians are living in cities and towns than are remaining on the reservation. Of those American Indians who are now dwelling in urban areas, approximately three-fourths are living in poverty.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs is organized to serve the 462,000 reservation Indians. The BIA's responsibility does not extend to Indians who have left the reservation, but this point is not always clearly understood. As a result of this misconception, Indians living in urban areas have often lost out on the opportunity to participate in other programs designed for disadvantaged groups. As a first step toward helping the urban Indians, I am instructing appropriate officials to do all they can to ensure that this misunderstanding is corrected.

But misunderstandings are not the most important problem confronting urban Indians. The biggest barrier faced by those Federal, State and local programs which are trying to serve urban Indians is the difficulty of locating and identifying them. Lost in the anonymity of the city, often cut off from family and friends, many urban Indians are slow to establish new community ties. Many drift from neighborhood to neighborhood; many shuttle back and forth between reservations and urban areas. Language and cultural differences compound these problems. As a result, Federal, State and local programs which are designed to help such persons often miss this most deprived and least understood segment of the urban poverty population.

This Administration is already taking steps which will help remedy this situation. In a joint effort, the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare will expand support to a total of seven urban Indian centers in major cities which will act as links between existing Federal, State and local service programs and the urban Indians. The Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce have pledged to cooperate with such experimental urban centers and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has expressed its willingness to contract with these centers for the performance of relocation services which assist reservation Indians in their transition to urban employment.

These efforts represent an important beginning in recognizing and alleviating the severe problems faced by urban Indians. We hope to learn a great deal from these projects and to expand our efforts as rapidly as possible. I am directing the Office of Economic Opportunity to lead these efforts.

8. Indian Trust Counsel Authority

The United States Government acts as a legal trustee for the land and water rights of American Indians. These rights are often of critical economic importance to the Indian people; frequently they are also the subject of extensive legal dispute. In many of these legal confrontations, the

Federal government is faced with an inherent conflict of interest. The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General must at the same time advance both the national interest in the use of land and water rights and the private interests of Indians in land which the government holds as trustee.

Every trustee has a legal obligation to advance the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust without reservation and with the highest degree of diligence and skill. Under present conditions, it is often difficult for the Department of the Interior and the Department of justice to fulfill this obligation. No self-respecting law firm would ever allow itself to represent two opposing clients in one dispute; yet the Federal government has frequently found itself in precisely that position. There is considerable evidence that the Indians are the losers when such situations arise. More than that, the credibility of the Federal government is damaged whenever it appears that such a conflict of interest exists.

In order to correct this situation, I am calling on the Congress to establish an Indian Trust Counsel Authority to assure independent legal representation for the Indians' natural resource rights. This Authority would be governed by a three man board of directors, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. At least two of the board members would be Indian. The chief legal officer of the Authority would be designated as the Indian Trust Counsel.

The Indian Trust Counsel Authority would be independent of the Departments of the Interior and justice and would be expressly empowered to bring suit in the name of the United States in its trustee capacity. The United States would waive its sovereign immunity from suit in connection with litigation involving the Authority.

9. Assistant Secretary for Indian and Territorial Affairs

To help guide the implementation of a new national policy concerning American Indians, I am recommending to the Congress the establishment of a new position in the Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Indian and Territorial Affairs. At present, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management-an officer who has many responsibilities in the natural resources area which compete with his concern for Indians. A new Assistant Secretary for Indian and Territorial Affairs would have only one concern - the Indian and territorial peoples, their land, and their progress and well-being. Secretary Hickel and I both believe this new position represents an elevation of Indian affairs to their proper role within the Department of the Interior and we urge Congress to act favorably on this proposal.

CONTINUING PROGRAMS

Many of the new programs which are outlined in this message have grown out of this Administration's experience with other Indian projects that have been initiated or expanded during the last 17 months.

The Office of Economic Opportunity has been particularly active in the development of new and experimental efforts. OEO's Fiscal Year 1971 budget request for Indian-related activities is up 18 percent from 1969 spending. In the last year alone-to mention just two examples - OEO doubled its funds for Indian economic development and tripled its expenditures for alcoholism and recovery programs. In areas such as housing and home improvement, health care, emergency food, legal services and education, OEO programs have been significantly expanded. As I said in my recent speech on the economy, I hope that the Congress will support this valuable work by appropriating the full amount requested for the Economic Opportunity Act.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already begun to implement our policy of contracting with local Indians for the operation of government programs. As I have noted, the Salt River Tribe and the Zuni Tribe have taken over the bulk of Federal services; other projects ranging from job training centers to high school counseling programs have been contracted out to Indian groups on an individual basis in many areas of the country.

Economic development has also been stepped up. Of 195 commercial and industrial enterprises which have been established in Indian areas with BIA assistance, 71 have come into operation within the last two years. These enterprises provide jobs for more than 6,000 Indians and are expected to employ substantially more when full capacity is reached. A number of these businesses are now owned by Indians and many others are managed by them. To further increase individual Indian ownership, the BIA has this month initiated the Indian Business Development Fund which provides equity capital to Indians who go into business in reservation areas.

Since late 1967, the Economic Development Administration has approved approximately $80 million in projects on Indian reservations, including nearly $60 million in public works projects. The impact of such activities can be tremendous; on the Gila River Reservation in Arizona, for example, economic development projects over the last three years have helped to lower the unemployment rate from 56 to 18 percent, increase the median family income by 150 percent and cut the welfare rate by 50 percent.

There has been additional progress on many other fronts since January of 1969. New "Indian Desks" have been created in each of the human resource departments of the Federal government to help coordinate and accelerate Indian programs. We have supported an increase in funding Of $4 million for the Navajo Irrigation Project. Housing efforts have picked up substantially; a new Indian Police Academy has been set up; Indian education efforts have been expanded-including an increase of $848,000 in scholarships for Indian college students and the establishment of the Navajo Community College, the first college in America planned, developed and operated by and for Indians. Altogether, obligational authority for Indian programs run by the Federal Government has increased from a little over $598 million in Fiscal Year 1970 to almost $626 million in Fiscal Year 1971.

Finally, I would mention the impact on the Indian population of the series of welfare reform proposals I have sent to the Congress. Because of the high rate of unemployment and underemployment among Indians, there is probably no other group in the country that would be helped as directly and as substantially by programs such as the new Family Assistance Plan and the proposed Family Health Insurance Plan. It is estimated, for example, that more than half of all Indian families would be eligible for Family Assistance benefits and the enactment of this legislation is therefore of critical importance to the American Indian.

This Administration has broken a good deal of new ground with respect to Indian problems in the last 17 months. We have learned many things and as a result we have been able to formulate a new approach to Indian affairs. Throughout this entire process, we have regularly consulted the opinions of the Indian people and their views have played a major role in the formulation of Federal policy.

As we move ahead in this important work, it is essential that the Indian people continue to lead the way by participating in policy development to the greatest possible degree. In order to facilitate such participation, I am asking the Indian members of the National Council on Indian Opportunity to sponsor field hearings throughout the nation in order to establish a continuing dialogue between the Executive branch of government and the Indian population of our country. I have asked the Vice President to see that the first round of field hearings are completed before October.

The recommendations of this Administration represent an historic step forward in Indian policy. We are proposing to break sharply with past approaches to Indian problems. In place of a long series of piecemeal reforms, we suggest a new and coherent strategy. In place of policies which simply call for more spending, we suggest policies which call for wiser spending. In place of policies which oscillate between the deadly extremes of forced termination and constant paternalism, we

suggest a policy in which the Federal government and the Indian community play complementary roles.

But most importantly, we have turned from the question of whether the Federal government has a responsibility to Indians to the question of how that responsibility can best be fulfilled. We have concluded that the Indians will get better programs and that public monies will be more effectively expended if the people who are most affected by these programs are responsible for operating them.

The Indians of America need Federal assistance-this much has long been clear. What has not always been clear, however, is that the Federal government needs Indian energies and Indian leadership if its assistance is to be effective in improving the conditions of Indian life. It is a new and balanced relationship between the United States government and the first Americans that is at the heart of our approach to Indian problems. And that is why we now approach these problems with new confidence that they will successfully be overcome.

NOTE: On the same day, the White House released a summary of the message and the transcript of a news briefing on it by Vice President Spiro T. Agnew and Leonard Garment, Special Consultant to the President.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS

OF THE UNITED STATES

Jimmy Carter

1979

BOOK I - JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 22, 1979

The State of the Union

Annual Message to the Congress.

January 25,1979

To the Congress of the United States:

My State of the Union Address was devoted to what I believe are the highest priorities facing our Nation in 1979 as we seek to build a new foundation at home and abroad.

However, my Administration's time and effort this year will also be focused on a significant number of other important initiatives and goals. I am sending, this State of the Union Message so that the Members of the 96th Congress are presented with a full picture of my basic legislative program in domestic and foreign affairs for the year.

Over the past two years, my Administration has developed a very cooperative relationship with the Congress. That relationship not only resulted in the extraordinarily productive record of the 95th Congress, but will provide the foundation for a renewed sense of trust and confidence by the American people in their government.

We have an enviable record to match. But with your help, the 96th Congress can meet this challenge. My Administration and I are eager to help in the effort.

Our basic goals will be to continue working with you to build solid foundations for the next century-a solid economic foundation of stable prices and continued growth-a solid foundation for a more efficient, less intrusive Federal government-a solid foundation for world peace and American security.

FOUNDATION FOR PROGRESS

When I took office two years ago, the country faced serious domestic problems:

• the economy had not recovered from a recession;
• unemployment was intolerably high at 7.8%, with 7 3/4 million Americans out of work;
• the Nation had no sound energy policy and oil imports were rising rapidly;
• we supported the legislation passed to increase part-time and flexible-hour employment opportunities; and
• we supported the Pregnancy Disability Act that outlaws employment discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions.

We are striving to improve women's professional opportunities within the Federal government. To this end:

• women have been appointed in senior positions in the Administration, including two Cabinet officers. About 207o of my senior appointees have been women, and many of them are in areas in which no previous women had served; and

• we have strengthened and increased our equal employment opportunity enforcement.

This year, in addition to continuing our efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, we will work closely with the Congress to enhance the economic standing of women-particularly the poor, minority, and elderly by improving their access to housing, health care, and child care for those who choose to work. We will expand additional opportunities this year for women business owners and will create a permanent interagency group to review and help improve the position of women business owners. I will make every effort to select as many women as possible to fill the 152 new Federal judgeships. Their under-representation in the courts cannot be continued.. Our country needs and deserves the full participation of women in our society, and I am committed to taking the steps needed to ensure this partnership.

Native Americans

The Federal government has a special responsibility to native Americans, and I intend to continue to exercise this responsibility fairly and sensitively. My Administration will continue to seek negotiated settlements to difficult conflicts over land, water, and other resources and will ensure that the trust relationship and self determination principles continue to guide Indian policy. There are difficult conflicts which occasionally divide Indian and non Indian citizens in this country. We will seek to exercise leadership to resolve these problems equitably and compassionately.

________________________________

' Executive Order I 1 35 i, dated August i i, 1970, provided for additional Indian members on the National Council on Indian Opportunity. A White House release dated August 31, announcing the appointment of eight new members to the Council, is printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 6,p. 1132).

' Public Law No. 638, June 4, 1936 (49 Stat1438; 25 U.S.C. 452-433).

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

STATEMENT OF

PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN

ON AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY, JANUARY 24, 1983

"This Administration believes that responsibilities and resources should be restored to the governments which are closest to the people served. This philosophy applies not only to state and local governments, but also to federally recognized American Indian tribes.

When European colonial powers began to explore and colonize this land, they entered into treaties with sovereign Indian nations. Our new nation continued to make treaties and to deal with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis. Throughout our history, despite periods of conflict and shifting national policies in Indian affairs, the government-to-government relationship between the United States and- Indian tribes has endured. The Constitution, treaties, laws, and court decisions have consistently recognized a unique political relationship between Indian tribes and the United States which this Administration pledges to uphold.

In 1970, President Nixon announced a national policy of self-determination for Indian tribes. At the heart of the new policy was commitment by the federal government to foster and encourage tribal self-government. That commitment was signed into law in 1975 as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

The principle of self-government set forth in this Act was a good starting point. However, since 1975, there has been more rhetoric than action. Instead of fostering and encouraging self-government, federal policies have by and large inhibited the political and economic development-of the tribes. Excessive regulation and self-perpetuating bureaucracy have stifled local decision making, thwarted Indian control of Indian resources, and promoted dependency rather than self-sufficiency.

This Administration intends to reverse this trend by removing the obstacles to self-government and by creating a more favorable environment for the development of healthy reservation economics. Tribal-governments, the federal government, and the private sector will all have a role. This Administration will take a flexible approach which recognizes the diversity among tribes and the right of each tribe to set its own priorities and goals. Change will not happen overnight Development will be charted by the tribes, not the federal government.

This Administration honors the commitment this nation made in 1970 and 1975 to strengthen tribal governments and lessen federal control over tribal governmental affairs. This Administration is determined to turn these goals into reality. Our policy is to reaffirm dealing with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis and to pursue the policy of self-government for Indian tribes without threatening termination.

In support of our policy, we shall continue to fulfill the federal trat responsibility for the physical and financial resources we hold in trust for the tribes and their members. The fulfillment of this unique responsibility will be accomplished in accordance with the highest standards.

Tribal governments, like state and local governments, are more aware of the needs and desires of their citizens than is the federal government. and should, therefore, have the primary responsibility for meeting those needs. The only effective way for Indian reservations to develop is through tribal governments which are responsive and accountable to their members.

Early in this nation's dealings with Indian tribes, federal employees began to perform Indian tribal government functions. Despite the Indian Self-Determination Act, major tribal government functions -enforcing tribal laws, developing and managing tribal resources, providing health and social services, educating children are frequently still carried on by federal employees. The federal government must move away from this surrogate role which undermines the concept of self-government.

It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their, dependence on federal funding by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their self-government. Some tribes are already moving in--this direction. This Administration pledges to assist tribes in strengthening their governments by removing. the federal impediments to tribal self-government and tribal resource development. Necessary federal funds will continue to be available This Administration affirms the right of tribes to determine the best way to meet the needs of their Members and to establish and run programs which best meet those needs.

For those small tribes which have the greatest need to develop core governmental capacities, this Administration has developed, through the Assistant-Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the Small Tribes Initiative. This program will provide financial support necessary to allow these tribes to develop basic tribal administrative and management capabilities.

In keeping with the government-to-government relationship, Indian tribes are defined by law as eligible entities and receive direct funding, if they wish, in five block grant programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. These and other blocks to the states consolidated dozens of categorical federal domestic assistance programs to reduce fragmentation and overlap, eliminate excessive federal regulation, and provide for more local control. This Administration now proposes that Indian tribes be eligible for direct funding in the Title XX social services block, the block with the largest appropriation and the greatest.

In addition, we are moving the White House liaison for federally recognized tribes-from the Office of Public Liaison to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, which maintains liaison with state and local governments. In the past several administrations, tribes have been placed along, with vital interest groups, such as veterans, businessmen and. religious leaders. In moving the tribal government contact within the White House Intergovernmental Affairs staff, this Administration is underscoring its commitment to recognizing tribal governments on a government-to-government basis.

Further, we are recommending that the Congress expand the authorized membership of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (42 U.S.C. 4273) to include a representative of Indian tribal governments. In the interim before Congressional action, we are requesting that the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs join the Commission as an observer. We also supported and signed into law the Indian Tribal Governmental Tax Status Act which provides tribal governments with essentially the same treatment under federal tax laws as applies to other governments with regard to revenue raising-and saving mechanisms.

In addition, this Administration calls upon Congress to replace House Concurrent Resolution 108. of the 83 rd Congress, the resolution which established the now discredited policy of terminating the federal-tribal relationship. Congress has implicitly rejected the termination policy by enacting the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1979.

However, because the termination policy declared in H. Con. Res. 108 has not been expressly and formally repudiated by a concurrent resolution of Congress, it continues to create among the Indian people an apprehension that the United States may not in the future honor, the unique relationship between the Indian people and the federal government. A lingering threat of termination has no place in this Administration's policy of self-government for Indian tribes, and I ask Congress to again express its support of self government.

These actions are but the first steps in restoring control to tribal governments, Much more needs to be done. Without sound reservation economies, the concept of self-government has little meaning. In the past despite good intentions, the federal government has been one of the major obstacles to economic progress. This Administration intends to remove the impediments to economic development and encourage cooperative efforts among the tribes, the federal government and the private sector in developing reservation economies.

The economies of American Indian reservations are extremely depressed with unemployment rates among the highest in the country. Indian leaders have. told this Administration that the development of reservation economies is their number one priority. Growing, economies provide jobs, promote self-sufficiency, and provide revenue - for. essential services. Past attempts to stimulate growth have been fragmented and largely ineffective. As a result, involvement of private industry has been limited, with only infrechallenge: devising investment procedures consistent with the trust status; removing legal barriers which restrict the type of contracts tribes can enter into and reducing the numerous and complex regulations which hinder economic growth.

Tribes have had limited opportunities to invest in their own economies because often their has been no established resource base for community investment and development . Many reservations lack a developed infrastructure including utilities, transportation, and other public services. They also often lack the regulatory, adjudicatory and enforcement mechanisms necessary to interact with the private sector for reservation economic development. Development on the reservation offers potential for tribes and individual entrepreneurs in manufacturing, agribusiness and modern technology, as well as fishing, livestock, arts and crafts and other traditional livelihoods.

Natural resources such as timber, fishing and energy provide an avenue of development for many tribes. Tribal governments have the responsibility to determine the extent and the methods of developing the tribe's natural resources. The federal government's responsibility should not be used. to hinder tribes from taking advantage of economic development opportunities.

With regard to energy resources, both the Indian tribes and the nation stand to gain from the prudent development and management of the vast coal, oil, gas, uranium and other resources found on Indian lands. As already demonstrated by a number of tribes, these resources can become the foundation for economic development on many reservations while lessening our nation's dependence on imported oil. The federal role is to encourage the production of energy resources in ways consistent with Indian values and priorities. To that end, we have strongly supported the use of creative agreements such, as joint ventures and other non-lease agreements for the development of Indian mineral resources.

It is the free market which will supply the bulk of the capital investments required, to develop tribal-energy and other resources. A fundamental prerequisite to economic development is capital formation. The establishment of a financial structure that is a part of the Indian reservation community is-essential- to the development of Indian capital formation

Federal support will be made available to tribes to assist them in developing the necessary management capability and in attracting private capital. As a first ste In-that directions we provided funds in the FY' 1983 budget to private funding for economic development ventures on reservations. As more tribes develop their capital resource base and increase their managerial expertise, they will have an opportunity to realize the maximum return on their investments and will be able to share an increasing portion of the business risk.

It is the policy of this Administration to encourage private involvement, both Indian and non-Indian, in tribal economic development. In some cases, tribes and the private sector have already

taken innovative approaches which have overcome the legislative and regulatory impediments to economic progress.

Since tribal governments have the primary responsibility for meeting the basic needs of Indian communities, they must be allowed the chance to succeed. This Administration, therefore, is establishing a Presidential Advisory Commission on Indian Reservation Economies. The Commission, composed of tribal and private sector leadenly is to identify obstacles to economic growth in the public and private sector at all levels; examine and recommend changes in federal law, regulations and procedures to remove-such obstacles; identify actions state, local ana tribal governments could take to rectify identified problems; and recommend ways for the private sector, both Indian and non-Indian, to participate-in the development and growth of reservation economies. It is also to be charged with the responsibility for advising the President on recommended actions required to create a positive environment for the development and growth of reservation economies.

Numerous federal agencies can offer specialized assistance and expertise to the tribes not only in-economic development, but also in housing, health, education, job training, and other areas which are an integral part-of reservation economics. It is to the advantage of the tribes, and in the interest of the taxpayers, that the federal role be fully reviewed and coordinated. Therefore, the Administration directs the Cabinet Council on Human Resources to act as a mechanism to ensure that federal activities are non-duplicative, cost effective, and consistent with the goal of encouraging self-government with a minimum of federal interference.

SUMMARY

This Administration intends to restore tribal governments to their rightful place among the governments of this nation. and to enable tribal governments, along with state and local governments, to resume control over their own affairs.

This Administration has sought suggestions from Indian leaders in forming the policies which we have announced. We intend to continue this dialog with the tribes as these policies are implemented.

The governmental and economic reforms proposed for the benefit or Indian tribes and their members cannot be achieved in a vacuum.

This nation's economic health -and that of the tribes- depends on adopting this Administration's full Economic Recovery Program. This program calls for eliminating excessive federal spending and tax, removing burdensome regulations, and establishing a sound monetary policy. A bull economic recovery will unleash the potential strength of the private sector and ensure a vigorous economic climate for development which will benefit not only Indian people, but all other Americans as well."

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 102^nd CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES

WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS (Senate - June 21, 1991)

[Page: S8388]

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are most pleased to be able to share with our colleagues, a recent policy statement of the President of the United States reaffirming the government-to-government relationship of the United States with Indian tribal governments.

Mr. President, on April 15 and 16 of this year, the leaders of tribal governments from across Indian country met in the Senate in the seventh of a series of regional and national tribal leaders forums held over the past year in an effort to develop a national Indian agenda. During the course of the national forum, tribal government leaders shared their concerns and their priorities with officials from the various Federal agencies responsible for the administration of Federal Indian programs.

The national forum culminated in a meeting with the President of the United States, in which tribal leaders called upon the President to reaffirm the policy of Indian self-determination first articulated by President Nixon in the early 1970's and to reaffirm the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Indian nations. The tribal leaders also requested that the President designate a senior staff member in the White House to serve as a liaison with Indian tribal governments.

The President's statement, issued on June 14, 1991, is responsive to the petition of the leaders of tribal governments in every respect, and we applaud his leadership.

After a century of fluctuating Federal policies that ranged from wars against the Indian tribes, followed by a policy of removal from their traditional lands to reservations in the Western States, and later a policy of termination of Federal relations with the Indian tribes and forced assimilation of Indian people, tribal governments and their citizens across Indian country will undoubtedly greet the President's message with considerable enthusiasm and relief.

We are grateful to the President for recognizing and reaffirming the governmental status of the nations that represent this country's first Americans. In so doing, the

President has sent a signal to the nations of the world, that this country will honor and respect its native peoples. We commend the President for his firm commitment to an enlightened policy.

We ask that the President's statement and the briefing paper to the President be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary,

Los Angeles, CA, June 14, 1991.

Statement by the President Reaffirming the

Government-to-Government Relationship Between the Federal

Government and Tribal Governments

On January 24, 1983, the Reagan-Bush Administration issued a statement on Indian policy recognizing and reaffirming a government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the Federal Government. This relationship is the cornerstone of the Bush-Quayle Administration's policy of fostering tribal self-government and self-determination.

This government-to-government relationship is the result of sovereign and independent tribal governments being incorporated into the fabric of our Nation, of Indian tribes becoming what our courts have come to refer to as quasi-sovereign domestic dependent nations. Over the years the relationship has flourished, grown, and evolved into a vibrant partnership in which over 500 tribal governments stand shoulder to shoulder with the other governmental units that form our Republic.

This is now a relationship in which tribal governments may choose to assume the administration of numerous Federal programs pursuant to the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.

This is a partnership in which an Office of Self-Governance has been established in the Department of the Interior and given the responsibility of working with tribes to craft creative ways of transferring decision-making powers over tribal government functions from the Department to tribal governments.

An Office of American Indian Trust will be established in the Department of the Interior and given the responsibility of overseeing the trust responsibility of the Department and of insuring that no Departmental action will be taken that will adversely affect or destroy those physical assets that the Federal Government holds in trust for the tribes.

I take pride in acknowledging and reaffirming the existence and durability of our unique government-to-government relationship.

Within the White House I have designated a senior staff member, my Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, as my personal liaison with all Indian tribes. While it is not possible for a President or his small staff to deal directly with the multiplicity of issues and problems presented by each of the 510 tribal entities in the Nation now recognized by and dealing with the Department of the Interior, the White House will continue to interact with Indian tribes on an intergovernmental basis.

The concepts of forced termination and excessive dependency on the Federal Government must now be relegated, once and for all, to the history books. Today we move forward toward a permanent relationship of understanding and trust, a relationship in which the tribes of the nation sit in positions of dependent sovereignty along with the other governments that compose the family that is America.

--

Briefing Paper to President Bush From the National Indian Tribal

Leaders Forum

We very much appreciate this historic opportunity to meet with you today and to discuss the relationship between the United States and tribal governments.

CRITICAL ISSUES IN FEDERAL INDIAN POLICY

Tribal Sovereignty and the Government-to-Government Relationship: Indian tribes, along with the United States and the states, are one of three sources of sovereignty within the United States of America. Tribal governments have exercised sovereignty since time immemorial. Two centuries of treaties, executive action, legislation, and supreme court opinions have recognized tribes as sovereigns. Today, tribes enact laws, administer them, and adjudicate disputes in tribal courts. Every president from Nixon to Reagan has issued a formal statement recognizing the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.

Trust Relationship and Federal Expenditures: The United States has a well-established special trust obligation to American Indians. When treaties were negotiated, the United States promised Indian tribes that the federal government would meet the special needs of Indian people. Today, special federal programs for education, health, housing, and economic development remain seriously underfunded and are inadequate to address pressing needs in Indian country.

Culture and Religion: The vibrant and diverse cultures and religions of Indian people are flourishing: Our traditions--including our reverence for the land and the extended family--are the indispensable underpinning for tribal policy.

Sustainable Homelands: Our ultimate goal is that our reservations will be prosperous, self-sustaining, permanent homelands in which strong and creative tribal governments preserve the old ways and adopt new ones, including the tools of modern technology, when consistent with our traditions and our love and respect for the land.

[Page: S8389]

REQUESTS RELATING TO THIS MEETING

We respectfully request that the President take the following preliminary actions in order to further the goal of fulfilling the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and American Indian tribes:

1. The President should issue a formal statement acknowledging and supporting the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes;

2. The President should designate a senior staff member in the White House to serve as liaison with Indian tribes; and

3. The designated liaison person within the White House should promptly begin discussions with Indian leaders on the issue of how best to institutionalize, within the White House, a mechanism for carrying out the government-to-government relationship.

SIGNATORIES

We sign this statement on behalf of 200 Indian leaders meeting in Washington, DC in Room 216 of the Senate Hart Office Building at a National Indian Tribal Leaders Forum conducted from April 15 through April 17, 1991:

Delbert Frank, President, Affiliated Tribes of N.W. Indians; Jacob Viarrial, Governor, Pojoaque Peublo; Wilma Mankiller, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; Russell Hawkins, Chairman, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe; Eddie L. Tullis, Chairman, Poarch Creek Indian Reservation; Phillip Martin, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Inds.; Larry Nuckolls, Governor, Absentee-Shawnee Tr. of Oklahoma; Elbridge Coochise, President, Nat'l Amer. Ind. Ct Judges Assoc.; Jerry G. Haney, Chief, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.

Edward K. Thomas, President, Tlingit & Haida Tribes of Alaska; Peterson Zah, President, Navajo Tribe; Nora Garcia, Chairperson, Ft. Mohave Indian Reservation; Lionel Bordeaux, President, Sinte Gleska College; Wayne Ducheneaux, President, Nat'l Congress of Am. Indians; Earl Old Person, Chief and Chairman, Blackfeet Indian Reservation; Glen Miller, Chairman, Menominee Indian Reservation; and Oren Lyons, Chief, Onondaga Nation, Iroquois Confederation.

Dated: April 17, 1991.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON

Memorandum

Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments

April 29, 1994

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

The United States Government has a unique legal relationship with Native American tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, and court decisions. As executive departments and agencies undertake activities affecting Native American tribal rights or trust resources, such activities should be implemented in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful of tribal sovereignty. Today, as part of an historic meeting, I am outlining principles that executive departments and agencies, including every component bureau and office, are to follow in their interactions with Native American tribal governments. The purpose of these principles is to clarify our responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government operates within a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized Native American tribes. I am strongly committed to building a more effective day-to- day working relationship reflecting respect for the rights of self-government due the sovereign tribal governments. In order to ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal govenirnents are fully respected, executive branch activities shall be guided by the following:

(a) The head of each executive department and agency shall be responsible for ensuring that the department or agency operates within a government-to- government relationship with federally recognized tribal governments.

(b) Each executive department and agency shall consult, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with tribal governments prior to taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. All such consultations are to be open and candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals.

(c) Each executive department and agency shall assess the impact Of Federal Government plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust resources and assure that tribal government rights and concerns are considered during the development of such plans, projects, programs, and activities.

(d) Each executive department and agency shall take appropriate steps to remove any procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with tribal governments on activities that affect the trust property and/or

governmental rights of the tribes.

(e) Each executive department and agency shall work cooperatively with other Federal departments and agencies to enlist their interest and support in cooperative efforts, where appropriate, to accomplish the goals of this memorandum.

(f) Each executive department and agency shall apply the requirements of Executive Orders Nos. 12875 ("Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership") and 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review") to design solutions and tailor Federal programs, in appropriate circumstances, to address specific or unique needs of tribal communities.

The head of each executive department and agency shall ensure that the department or agency's

bureaus and components are fully aware of this memorandum, through publication or other means, and that they are in compliance with its requirements.

This memorandum is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right to administrative or judicial review, or any other right or benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

WILLIAM CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, April 29, 1994.

59 FR 22951, 1994 WL 163120 (Pres.)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Birmingham, England)

For Immediate Release May 14, 1998

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084

- - - - - -

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions. Since the formation of the Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection. In treaties, our Nation has guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights.

Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities; to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribal governments; and to streamline the application process for and increase the availability of waivers to Indian tribal governments; it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.

(b) "Indian tribe" means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

(c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an of agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(l), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

Sec. 2. Policymaking Criteria. In formulating policies significantly or uniquely affecting Indian tribal governments, agencies shall be guided, to the extent permitted by law, by principles of respect for Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, for tribal treaty and other rights, and for responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments.

Sec. 3. Consultation.

(a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

(b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of the Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on such communities, unless:

(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or

(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the

regulation,

(A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with representatives of affected Indian tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and

(B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by such Indian tribal governments.

Sec. 4. Increasing Flexibility for Indian Tribal Waivers.

(a)Agencies shall review the processes under which Indian tribal governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.

(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by an Indian tribal government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with the applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

(c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. The agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and, if the application for a waiver is not granted, the reasons for such denial.

(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory

requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Sec. 5. Cooperation in developing regulations. On issues relating to tribal self-government, trust resources, or treaty and other rights, each agency should explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.

Sec. 6. Independent agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are

encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

Sec. 7. General provisions. (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive. Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), OMB Circular A-19, and the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments.

(c) This order shall complement the consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of the Executive order, entitled "Federalism," being issued on this day.

(d) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this

order.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 14,1998.

END OF DOCUMENT