August 18, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 7605 a thorough, explanation of what Kleindienst our communities, our states and our nation system. We must support those legislators meant by asserting there was no evidence are run. who will work for the Hart-Magnuson No- known to him of a federally punishable con­ This Resolution will not tell you whom to Fault auto insurance bill, which will give spiracy. On July 25 the students also wrote vote for. Americans real insurance protection in auto to Garment asking for a meeting with him But it will say that you and those asso­ accidents. and President Nixon to discuss the Nixon ciated with you should choose wisely, because We need comprehensive child care, an edu­ Administration’s handling of the petition. As -if you and they choose wisely, our commu- cation policy which provides every Ameri­ of the writing of this report (August 8), * nities and states and the nation will be gov­ can with all of the education he or she neither letter has been acknowledged. Nor are erned well. can utilize without regard to ability to pay, they expected to be, considering the numer­ Choosing wisely is not always easy. and we need a full range of consumer pro­ ous leters sent to the Justice Department In the hot atmosphere of American poli­ tections in the market place. and the Nixon Administration concerning tical campaigning, charges are replaced by We need an environment that is health­ the Kent State case which have never been counter-charges, claims are superseded by ful, we need enforcement of laws which pro­ acknowledged. counter-claims, today’s promises smother tect workers, and we need welfare reform yesterday’s and tomorrow’s smears lie in without destroying job rights of welfare ambush, awaiting their call into the political workers. action. We need livable cities for all Americans, Despite this, we must choose well. jobs for everyone who can work, and we need POLITICS, 1972 And we can, if we disregard the charges and a climate of considerateness toward each the counter-charges, the claims, the prom­ other, not a climate of confrontation. ises, and the smears. That is not a long list—that is only a HON. WILLIAM R. ANDERSON Wherever possible, whenever there is a rec­ beginning. OP TENNESSEE ord, we must look at the record. Where a candidate has a record, it should IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Fortunately in many elections there is a be checked, and where a candidate does record. not have a record, positions should be Thursday, August 17, 1972 All of the national candidates seeking the established before support is offered. Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. nominations of the major parties have rec­ Those seeking our support for the highest Speaker, as the United States approaches ords. All of the incumbent Congressional national office, the Presidency of the United its 200th anniversary the American peo­ candidates for the House and Senate, and States, also have held or hold office, and many of those seeking state and community they have records. ple face the twin tasks of improving the offices have records. Therefore, when we make our decision on conduct of our nation’s foreign relations But they must be looked at carefully. the Presidency, we should check their record. and building a better country for our Some politicians have so small a sense of If a candidate tries to sound as though he own 210 million citizens. Because of truth, and so vast an imagination, that they invented tax reform, we have a right to ask these important needs, the elections that can convert votes against us into votes for us, where he stood on it before the campaign will be held this November will be among when they are campaigning. started, and where he stood on it when he the most significant in our Nation’s his­ It is not unusual for an anti-labor legis­ had the authority to do something about lator—on the state or national level—to tell it? tory. us that he has just voted to protect the rights The American electorate must, there­ As we might expect, we will find our long­ of working people, when he has actually just time friends through the years have con­ fore, choose wisely from the many voted for “compulsory open shop”—a vote sistently voted to remove the inequities in candidates who seek to govern our directly opposite the interests of working the tax burden, and take some of it off communities, our states and our Nation. people. workers. And we will find that some who We cannot allow ambitious candidates to And it is not unusual for an anti-labor claim to be our friends are capable of deliv­ ride into office on the crest of inflamma­ legislator to tell us that he has always been ering an emotional spiel about taxes, but did tory rhetoric. We cannot allow dema­ in favor of tax reform, but neglect to tell us not deliver the votes to do anything about that to him tax reform means taking taxes it when they could have helped us. gogues to divide us by appealing to our off corporations, and the very wealthy, and emotions rather than our reason. Arous­ I f a candidate takes an obviously emo­ putting them on middle and low income tional issue— any emotional issue— and at­ ing the public and appealing to the workers. tempts to ride it into office by inflaming the people on the basis of their fears rather So the record requires scrutiny. voters, we have a right to ask—what is the than their hopes is an inadequate sub­ Every Local President and Local legislative candidate’s record? What has the candidate stitute for bringing an issue to light on chairman in our Union has been sent a vot­ accomplished on the issue? How many of the basis of its merits. Too often in the ing record analysis of each incumbent mem­ his promises has he actually delivered on, past, we have permitted emotional issues ber of Congress. Many state central bodies and how many are just hollow, crowd-inflam­ prepare a voting record analysis of members ing promises? to serve as a smokescreen obscuring de­ of the state legislature. bate on pertinent matters. These should be reviewed, so that our votes The facts and the answers will be in the It is vital that in this year’s election, are given or withheld on a basis of the facts record, for every issue that concerns us. the American people should scrutinize and the record, and not on emotions or Therefore, Be It Resolved: That the Com­ the record of candidates using past voting erroneous information. munications Workers of America will give rather than glittering promises as a crit­ We must oppose those legislators who maximum consideration and exposure to the would take away our right to strike, and record of each candidate for office who seeks erion in selecting the best men for vari­ who would end collective bargaining by in­ our support and our votes, and ous offices. stalling a compulsory arbitration system, Be It Further Resolved: That we will dis­ Recently, the Communications Work­ with arbitrators chosen by the government. seminate the facts from the record showing ers, of America, which represents more We must oppose those legislators who try which candidates are true friends of work­ than 550,000 people, passed a resolution to pass off a sales tax in disguise, such as the ers, and which candidates want to woo our at its annual convention calling for a value added tax, as tax reform, when value votes from us with emotion instead of sub­ added tax is actually the opposite of tax stance, and close examination of the voting records reform. of all candidates for political office. Be It Finally Resolved: That the mem­ We must support the true tax reform legis­ bers of the Communications Workers of Because of its timeliness and impor­ lators— those who woqld correct the errors America will strive throughout the months tance, under unanimous consent, I insert in the system which now place an unfair between now and election day, November 7, this resolution entitled “Politics 1972” share of the tax burden on low and middle to give our fellow workers, and others we in the R ecord . I agree with the CWA income earners, while the wealthy and the know and talk with, the true facts from the not on every single issue, but with by corporations too often can avoid any tax record about candidates running for office. far the great majority of issues discussed payment at all. We must support those who would elimi­ in the resolution. nate the percentage depletion allowances for The resolution follows: INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE EYE minerals and the intangible drilling costs CARE PROGRAM P o l i t i c s , 1972 loophole, who would disallow special treat­ Less than half a year from now, hundreds ment for stock options and other favoritisms, of thousands of Communications Workers of including accelerated depreciation, invest­ HON. SAM STEIGER America members, their families, and mil­ ment credit, long-term capital gains, and O F A R IZ O N A lions of other Americans will file into voting who would tax profits held overseas by multi­ places all over the country. Young and old, national corporations. IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES rich and destitute, radical and reactionary, We must support those legislators who will T h u rsd a y , A u g u s t 17, 1972 Democrat and Republican.— all will make ■work for passage of the Kennedy-Griffiths their marks, and flip their levers, in the ritual version of National Health Insurance, which Mr. STEIGER of Arizona. Mr. Speak­ which determines how well or how poorly would give Americans a true health delivery er, the Navajo Times, of Window Rock, E 7606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks A ugust 18, 1972 Ariz., on April 6, 1972, contained an edi­ ter of cancer both personally and profes­ Colorado and Washington University. He re­ torial in praise of the recently passed In­ sionally was my friend and distinguished ceived an honorary degree of Doctor of Sci­ terior appropriations bill, H.R. 9417. constituent, Dr. Wendell G. Scott of St. ence from the University of Colorado and was to receive an honorary degree from I would like to take this opportunity Louis, Mo. The great new cancer attack Washington University in May of 1972. to place this editorial in the C on gres­ bill bears the imprint of his patient devo­ Scottie had a mix of qualities, rarely found, sional Record. tion to that cause, and I think it can that makes a great man. He was demanding The editorial follows: fairly be said that while he may have and persevering, yet warm and loyal. He could N a v a j o T i m e s E d i t o r i a l lost his own battle, he has done more involve himself in several important proj­ We have been informed that the House Ap­ than his share to help us win ours. He ects, yet give each his seemingly undivided propriations Committee and the Subcom­ will be greatly missed. attention. He could be active in university mittee on Interior have approved an addi­ At this point in the R ecord I would and national medical affairs, yet find time to tional $400,000 for an expanded eye care pro­ like to place the remarks of his own remain a loving husband, father,, and grand­ gram in the Indian Health Service. father as well as a busy radiologist. friend and colleague, Dr. Ronald G. Many of Scottie’s loves and accomplish­ Also, the Appropriations Committee has ap­Evens, director of the Mallinckrodt In­ proved an additional $1 million for the Con­ ments cannot be found on certificates or tract Health Care Program for procuring stitute of Radiology: awards. His close family relationships are sig­ those health services the Indian Health Serv­ W e n d e l l G. S c o t t , M.D., 1905-72 nified by his grandchildren who called him ice cannot provide because of lack of staff, (By Ronald G. Evens, M.D.) “ O.K.” His farm, near St. Louis, provided a distances and other factors. place for pleasant interludes in a busy sched­ Wendell G. Scott, M.D., died of cancer on ule. It is gratifying that Important Committees May 4, 1972 at the age of 66. of the U.S. Congress have recognized that His family, his profession, and his Univer­ Born and raised in Colorado, he attended sity will miss him greatly. Friends and col­ serious vision and health problems exist the University of Colorado as an undergradu­ among Indians and that they have taken leagues have established a living memorial to ate student. He came to Missouri in 1928 his loyalty and excellence in the Wendell G. steps to solve these problems. to attend Washington University Medical Statistics abound on the problems the In­ Scott Annual Lecture at the Mallinckrodt In­ School; and fortunately for this Medical Cen­ stitute of Radiology. dians have faced in the overall health field. ter, decided to stay. After graduating with the In the field of vision, even the most casual Class of 1932, he interned at Barnes Hospital observer who has spent some time among and accepted a residency in radiology at Indians will conclude that their eye problems the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology. are much more serious than that of the gen­ Throughout his professional career he was IS KINDERGARTEN TOO LATE? eral population. associated with the Mallinckrodt Institute The American Optometric Association, and Washington University Medical School, composed of eye specialists, has as members, holding the position of professor of clinical HON. 0RVAL HANSEN over 18,300 optometrists who provide over 70 radiology. O P IDAHO perdenlToT'this country’s eye care. Dr. Scott exemplified excellence to all who IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Yet, there are reportedly only twelve of knew him. His competence as a radiologist these eye specialists serving in th e ' Indian and concern for his patients was evident at Thursday, August 17, 1972 Health Service! all times; his desire to further the specialty Mr. HANSEN of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, The eight Indian Health Service Areas rep­ of radiology and the care of patients was the Dr. Richard L. Willey, Dean of the Col­ resenting the greatest concentration of In­ driving force behind his many scientific and dian population have an estimated Indian organizational activities. His accomplish­ lege of Education at Idaho State Univer­ population of 477,546 Indians. Of these, 179,- ments as a scientist and radiologist include sity, was one of the featured speakers at 174 are children in the school age bracket. more than 70 publications and active partici­ the recent Early Childhood Conference Yet, a total of about 40,000 of these chil­ pation in the development of radiographic I sponsored in Idaho to focus on the needs dren receive vision examinations each year kymography and rapid film changers for of young children. Dr. Willey is well- which is only 22 percent of the total Indian diagnostic radiographic use. The latter proj­ known in Idaho as a researcher, and I students in these areas. ect was an important step in the develop­ include his remarks on “Is Kindergarten Students in the general population not ment of angiographic evaluation of the heart, Too Late” in the R eco rd and commend only get frequent vision and health exami­ brain, lungs, and the organs of the abdomen. nations through various school systems, but He was called to active duty in the United them to the attention of my colleagues: they do not have the problems which have States Navy in 1941, and served with typical Is K indergarten T o o L a t e ? plaqued most Indian children from birth. devotion to duty to all causes that he be­ (By Dr. Richard L. Willey) For Indian non-students the situation is lieved important. He received several com­ The subject of my talk, duly assigned, was even worse. I t is estimated by the American mendations for activities in radiology and to cover what "Research Finds About Early Optometric Association that less than 10,000 general medicine, and continued to be ac­ Childhood Education.” This topic, if you of these Indians in the Areas cited have re­ tive in the United States Naval Reserves and have been listening, has been more or less ceived an annual examination. This is less as a consultant to the Surgeon General’s covered this morning and afternoon. My title than 4 percent of this population of Indians. office, attaining the rank of rear admiral. is not original. It actually was taken more or For the school age five years and for non­ Dr. Scott was a great diplomat, under­ less unconsciously at the time, but in my students in the Indian population this means standing the art of compromise with an un­ “research” I find it is the title of an article that many or most would never get an ex­ canny ability, to lead individuals or societies in Saturday Review of some three years ago. amination ! towards accomplishment of goals. He served An article that I read and quietly filed in the While perhaps it could be argued that even as president of the Baxnes Hospital Medical kindergarten section of my mind. more is needed, the House Appropriation Society and the Washington University Med­ Before I launch into my researched talk I Committee and the Subcommittee on Inte­ ical Alumni Association, president of the St. want to pose a puzzlement to this assembled rior are to be highly commended for their far­ Louis Radiological Society, vice president of group. It is an interesting puzzle even if it sighted and concerned action. the Radiological Society of North America adds nothing to the discussion at hand. We hope that the Senate Appropriationsand the American Radium Society, president Certain leader and/or legislators feel that Committee and the other bodies who will be of the American Roentgen Ray Society, and to justify early childhood education, kinder­ involved will join in this humanitarian effort was national president of the American Can­ gartens, etc. one should be able to point to to give the First Americans assistance so that cer Society in 1964. He was an important con­ research that points to casual relationships they can eventually have equal health treat­ tributor to numerous organizations including between kindergarten preparation and sci­ ment with the rest of society.— C h e t the American Medical Association, Veterans entific designed test results. To the thinking M a c B o r i e , Editor. Administration, American College of Radiol­ and rational person this makes sense. Re­ ogy, and the James Picker Foundation. He membering, of course, that in Idaho we do also served as editor-in-chief of the Ameri­ hot have general public kindergarten pro­ can College of Radiology publication, Y our grams and the expectation is that if we WENDELL G. SCOTT, M.D. Radiologist, editor of the Planning Guide for have the research pointing to the need, QED Radiological Installations, and editor of the Kindergartens. Let us examine this type of journal of Cancer. He recently was commis­ premise from another view point or perspec­ HON. JAMES W. SYMINGTON sioned by President Nixon to the National tive. Cancer Advisory Board. How much research do you know about O f MISSOURI Dr. Scott’s recognitions include the Gold that has been done on the specific value of IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Medal of the St. Louis Medical Society, the a college education? Does it matter what Thursday, August 17, 1972 President’s Medal of the American Roentgen curriculum one takes over another? Is there Ray Society, the Gold Medal of the American the real value (instead of just the stated Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Speaker, one of College of Radiology, the National Award of value) of a liberal education? Has this been the most gallant and talented men of the American Cancer Society, and the distin­ scientifically demonstrated? Most institu­ medicine ever to challenge the grim spec­ guished alumni awards of the University of tions of higher education require a general S 8434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 25, 1972 Eaum, of Massachusetts, and Irene Feagin By Mr. BEALL (for himself and Mr. need more than one service never reach Seott, of Alabama, to be judges of the U.S. M a t h i a s ) : Tax Court; S. 3646. A bill to provide for the establish­ the second service agency, and those who John Michael Hennessy, of Massachusetts, ment o f the Clara Barton House National do, find that there are no shared case to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Historic' Site in the State of Maryland, and histories, no coordinated approach to the and for other purposes. Heferred to the Commit- providing of assistance. Having to go Edwin S. Cohen, of Virginia, to be Under ■ tee on Interior ad Insular Affairs. through the painful retracing of individ­ Secretary of the Treasury. By Mr. BUCKLEY (for himself, Mr. ual case histories before receiving aid is By Mr. HRUSKA, from the Committee on B e n n e t t , Mr. B r o c k , Mr. C u r t is , demoralizing to the individual whom the the Judiciary: Mr. E r v in , Mr. Gurney, and Mr. programs are designed to assist, and it is Otto R. Skopil, Jr., of Oregon, to be a U.S. Thurmond) : district judge for the district of Oregon; and S. 3647. A bill to amend chapter 85 of title also a waste of time, energy and the tax­ James M. Burns, of Oregon, to be a U.S. 28, United States Code, relating to the cen­ payer’s money. district judge for the district of Oregon. sure, suspension, and disbarment o f A ttor­ The President has proposed a number neys. Referred to the Committee on the Judi- of initiatives which, taken together, are cia r y . designed to eliminate many of the basic EXTENSION OP TIME FOR THE COM­ faults in the present system. MITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC His general revenue sharing proposal WELFARE TO FILE ITS REPOR' STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS ipuld return to the States and localities ON S. 3419, THE CONSUMER SAF, a Significant amount of Federal money TY ACT By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, to be used by State and local officials Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the'Com Mr. Ja v it s , Mr. P e r c y , Mr. T aft , in accordance with their local needs. mittee on Labor and Public Welfare is Mr. M a t h ia s , and Mr. B e a l l ) ; The special revenue sharing proposal due to report on S. 3419, the Consumer S. 3643. A bill to encourage and assist would do the same thing in six specific Safety Act, on May 30, 1972. By arrange­ States and localities to coordinate their areas of public services. ment between the Chairman of the Com­ various programs and resources available The administration, under President mittee on Labor and Public Welfare and to provide human services in order to fa­ Nixon’s direction, has strengthened the the Chairman of the Interstate and For­ cilitate the improved provision and utili­ Federal Government’s regional structure eign Commerce Committee, I ask unani­ zation of those services and increase and has initiated a comprehensive re­ mous consent that the Committee on their effectiveness in achieving the ob­ view of all Federal assistance programs Labor and Public Welfare may have up jectives of personal independence, eco­ in an effort to simplify and decentralize nomic self-sufficiency, and the maximum to and including June 1, 1972, to report. them. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, reserv­ enjoyment of life, with dignity, and for Mr. President, in an effort to see to other purposes. Referred, by unanimous ing the right to object, may I inquire it that there is a continuation of the phi­ consent, to the Committee on Labor and from the Senator why he asks the addi­ losophy of increased responsiveness and Public Welfare; and, if and when re­ coordination, I am sponsoring the Allied tional time? ported by that committee, to the Com­ Mr. JAVITS. Because May 30 falls on Services Act. I am confident that the mittee on Finance. Tuesday, and we are unable to have a passage of the act will create the ca­ meeting on that day; and the Committee ALLIED SERVICES ACT pacity at State and local levels to dis­ on Government Operations has until Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on be­ cern problem areas, to eliminate dupli­ May 31, which is the day before, and half of my colleague Mr. J av its and cation, and to fill existing voids in the both committees are required to report, other Senators and myself, I am today broad range of human services that are and the chairman of our committee feels introducing the Allied Services Act, now offered through the host of cate­ that we need the time in order to report. which is designed to assist State and lo­ gorical grant-in-aid programs. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ cal governments in achieving a coordi­ I am also sponsoring the Allied Serv­ pore. Is there objection? The Chair hears nated and integrated system for the de­ ices Act because I believe that we must none, and it is so ordered. livery of the broad range of social serv- maximize the effect of the programs and ice-oi'iented programs financed by the eliminate unnecessary administrative Federal Government. costs so That more seridceFto people can INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND During the past 20 years, the Federal be supported. This bill is designed to JOINT RESOLUTIONS Government has created a vast system achieve that goal. If resources are The following bills and joint resolu­ of categorical programs designed to meet pooled, administrative costs must go tions were introduced, read the first time the increasing demands of social prob­ down. It is wasteful to have more than and, by unanimous consent, the second lems. They have been aimed at the elim­ 250 HEW categorical grant-in-aid pro­ time, and referred as indicated: ination of such problems as drug abuse, grams administered at the State and By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. inadequate educational opportunity, local level by separate structures'which mental retardation, alcoholism, sub- J a v i t s , Mr. P e r c y , Mr. T a f t , Mr. do not pool resources, which have sep­ M a t h i a s , and Mr. B e a l l ) : standard health care, housing conditions, arate administrative and accounting S. 3643. A bill to encourage and assist nutrition, family counseling, and the list procedures, which file an inordinate States and localities to coordinate their vari­ goes on and on totaling well over 250 in- amount of differing forms with the Fed­ ous programs and resources available to pro­ dividual programs at HEW alone. eral Government and which require dif­ vide human services in order to facilitate the ferent planning effort, separate case­ improved provision and utilization of those It can be accurately said that there services and increase their effectiveness in is a Federal program designed to dear workers, and separate facilities. The achieving the objectives of personal inde­ with virtually every social problem in Allied Services Act is designed to reduce pendence, economic self-sufficiency, and the this country. The fact that these prob­ this extraordinary duplication by al­ maximum enjoyment of life, with dignity, lems still exist points 'out two things: lowing the Governor to pool thexylan- and for other purposes. Referred, by unani­ first, there is much which has yet to be ning resourccsVnnfl funds-' from the mous consent, to the Committee on Labor done, and second, that there is a ques­ various human service categories, by and Public Welfare; and, if and when re­ tion about whether or not there is the allowing the’ Secretary of HEW to waive ported by that committee, to the Committee necessary coordination between pro­ some of the administrative guidelines on Finance. By Mr. HUGHES: grams to allow the delivery of services in and regulations which require admin­ S. 3644. A bill to amend the Comprehensive a way which will’ be responsive to the istrative duplication and duplicated Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, human needs they are designed to serve. costs, and by allowing a voluntary trans- Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act and other The fact that more than 80 percent of fex~of Jfunds of up to ..25 pefcenjPfrom. related Acts to concentrate the resources of The Department of Health, Education, one of the participating programs to the Nation against the problem of alcohol and Welfare’s clients require more than another in order to reduce dURMeaffiffP abuse and alcoholism. Referred to the Com­ ancTfo fiIL¥xistirig voids. ' ' mittee on Labor and Public Welfare. one service points out the increasing By Mr. FULBRIGHT (by request): heed for a sensible service delivery sys­ Mr. President, I am sure that this is S. 3645. A bill to further amend the United tem that can offer a central location for the beginning of a reform which we all States Information and Educational Ex­ the distribution of both information and have known has been needed for some change Act of 1948. Referred to the Commit­ assistance. It is unfortunate, but true time. Governors and mayors who have tee on Foreign Relations. that a majority of those individuals who struggled for years in an effort to co- May 25, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 8433 ST. ANDREWS PRESBYTERIAN COL­ He has fought to preserve the Fourth Mr. MAGNUSON. I am sure we can LEGE CONFERS AN HONORARY Amendment guarantee against government accept the amendment on the shrimp assaults on privacy. He has defended federal matter. DEGREE UPON SENATOR SAM J. employees against an inquisitive bureauc­ ERVIN, JR. racy, and he has opposed military snooping, Mr. MANSFIELD. Are there any “ no-knock” legislation, preventive detention, others? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, at its Mr. TOWER. The Senator from Alaska commencement on May 21, 1972, St. An­ government censorship of the press, and other police state techniques. It should not (Mr. S t e v e n s ) has one. drews Presbyterian College of Laurin- be forgot that as a member of the N.C. As­ Mr. MAGNUSON. We can accept the burg, N.C., conferred its honorary degree sembly in the early twenties he helped to Stevens amendment, also, because we of doctor of laws upon our distinguished defeat a bill that would have possibly are going to put that in the bill, and we colleague, the senior Senator from North brought the Scopes “monkey trial” to North can lay it aside. Carolina (Mr. E r v in ), who delivered a Carolina, and that in recent years he was responsible for Congressional action that Mr. MANSFIELD. Very well, Mr. Pres­ commencement address entitled “Our ident, I withdraw my request. We have Heritage is Freedom.” finally extended full civil rights to American Indians. the agreement to continue the morning I ask unanimous consent that a copy His decisions and actions throughout his hour until 11 o’clock, if need be. I sug­ of the citation recording the reasons for career have been based on the first ten gest the absence of a quorum. the conferring of the degree be printed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ at this point in the R ecord . ground where true conservatives and true pore. The clerk will call the roll. liberals meet. There being no objection, the citation The second assistant legislative clerk was ordered printed as follows: The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ proceeded to call the roll. S a m u e l J a m e s E r v i n , J r . pore. Is there further morning business? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is The original purpose of the degree of Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I suggest there further morning business? Legum Doctor was to serve as a means of The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ recognizing learning or attainment in the the absence of a quorum. law. Today the degree is commonly awarded The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ pore. There is a quorum call in progress. in recognition of distinguished service in pore. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask unanimous the fields of government, politics, and public The second assistant legislative clerk consent that the order for the quorum administration. The man St. Andrews chooses proceeded to call the roll. call be rescinded. to honor with this degree today uniquely Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ satisfies both the old and the new qualifica­ unanimous consent that the order for pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. tions, as student of the law, jurist. Constitu­ the quorum call be rescinded. tional authority, legislator, and Senator. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ Sam J. Ervin, Jr., was born in Morganton, PETITIONS Burke County, North Carolina, where he re­ pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ceived his early education and where he be­ Petitions were laid before the Senate gan his career as a lawyer and judge. Gradu­ and referred as indicated: ated from the University of North Carolina EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR TRANS­ By the ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ ACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING in 1917, he served eighteen months in Prance pore (Mr. B u r d i c k ) : during World War I. He was twice wounded. BUSINESS A resolution adopted by the Common His decorations include the Fourragere, the Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask Council of the City of Buffalo, N.Y., praying Silver Star, and the Distinguished Service for the enactment of legislation relating to Cross. unanimous consent that the morning lead poisoning research; ordered to lie on the In 1922 he earned a law degree from Har­ hour be extended to not beyond 11 table. vard University. He was a representative from o’clock. ’ A resolution adopted by the Town Board Burke County during several terms of the The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ of Cheektowaga, N.Y., praying for the enact­ N. C. Assembly, and he served as U. S. Rep­ pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. ment of legislation relating to the construc­ resentative in the 79th Congress. He was tion of sewage treatment facilities in the successively, judge of Burke County Court State of New York; ordered to lie on the and of the N. C. Superior Court, and for six ORDER OF BUSINESS table. years was an associate justice of the N. C. Supreme Court. He has been in the U. S. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask Senate since 1954. unanimous consent that the distinguish­ REPORT ON ESSENTIALITY OF SPE­ . A statesman is judged by what he fights ed Senator from Tennessee at that time, CIALTY STEELS INDUSTRY TO NA­ for and by what he fights against. Through­ 11 a.m., may be allowed to offer his TIONAL SECURITY—REPORT OF A out his life Sam Ervin has been for the law amendment and that following that and for its goals of order and justice and COMMITTEE (S. REPT. NO. 92-804) freedom,, for he believes that law and the amendment the Fisherman’s Act, under the distinguished chairmanship of the Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. Presi­ respect for law are the basis of order in a dent, the Subcommittee on General Leg­ Senator from Washington (Mr. M a g n u - free society. He believes that the individuals islation has submitted to the full Com­ respect for law must be balanced by the law’s s o n ) be taken up again. reverence for the individual’s rights. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ mittee on Armed Services a report on the It is significant that Sam Ervin’s first ma­ pore.-Is there objection? essentiality of specialty steels industry to jor speech in the Senate challenged the Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, reserving national security. This report has been threats and intimidation of the then power­ the right to object, and I shall not ob­ approved by the full committee and I ful Senator Joseph McCarthy. As a member ject, I have an amendment, and I have submit this report and ask unanimous of the select committee to study censure geared my whole day to this agreement. consent that it be printed. charges against Senator McCarthy, he helped The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. to bring a period of national hysteria and Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Texas that A l l e n ) . Without objection, it is so or­ near insanity to a close. dered. As a staunch defender of the Bill of Rights, I did not know of any proposed amend­ he has warned against the network of in­ ments to our committee bill until the telligence-gathering systems being developed Senator from Texas asked me about it EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF by government and private agencies, saying late yesterday. I understand the Senator COMMITTEES that “in these systems, where they contain from Mississippi (Mr. E a s tla n d ) has the record of the individual’s thoughts, be­ been interested in the matter also. I have As in executive session, the following liefs, habits, attitudes, and personal activi­ taken a look at the amendment, and I favorable reports of nominations were ties, there ma? well rest a potential for polit­ submitted: ical control and for intimidation that is feel that I can accept it. Mr. TOWER. That is what I under­ By Mr. LONG, from the Committee on alien to a society of free men.” In the name Finance: of Constitutional civil liberties, he has fought stood. to uphold freedom of speech, thought, and Lee H. Henkel, Jr., of Georgia, to be an Mr. MAGNUSON. I will say to the Assistant General Counsel in the Department privacy. In the spirit of the First Amend­ majority leader that one problem we of the Treasury (Chief Counsel for the In­ ment he opposed the prayer amendment pro­ have is that the Senator from Virginia ternal Revenue Service); posed in 1966 by Senator Dirksen. Sam Ervin was quoted at the time as saying, “ I am a (Mr. S p o n g ) conducted most of the George P. Shultz, of Illinois, to be Secre­ possessor of a great affliction—a Scotch-Irish hearings on this bill, and he is not here tary of the Treasury; [Presbyterian] conscience, which will not today. Charls E. Walker, of Connecticut, to be permit me to follow after a great multitude Mr. MANSFIELD. Is this the only Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; to do what I conceive to be evil.” amendment the Senator knows of? William H. Quealy, of Virginia, Arnold May 25, 1972 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 8435 ordinate and participate in the vast have responsibility for developing a State services and other service areas on a rea­ range of human services available in allied services plan incorporating local plans sonable basis. their areas, I am certain will be pleased and implementing the State plan. Subsection (d) provides certain penalties 1 Section 201(b) provides that to be desig­ if the Secretary finds failure to comply sub­ to see this as the first major step in the n a te d as described above, a local agency must stantially with the provisions of an approved badly needed process of reform. I be a n ’ office or agency of a unit of general State plan (or included local plan). He may Mr. President, I ask unanimous con­ | purpose local government (or combination of in his discretion apply these penalties to sent that the summary of the proposed- Jsuch units) which has been chosen to act the entire State plan or only those parts of Allied Services Act of 1972 be printed in' * in this capacity by the chief elected official the State or local plan or service areas af­ (or officials) of the unit (or units), or of a the R ecord . fected by the noncompliance. In such in­ There being no objection, the sum­ public or nonprofit private agency (which, stances, the subsection would provide: no for this purpose, is under the direction of mary was ordered to be printed in the Federal planning funds may be consolidated the designated State agency), which can or intermingled with other such funds for R ecord , as follows: plan for and provide a broad range of human human services planning, no Federal funds S u m m a r y o p t h e P r o p o s e d " A l l i e d S e r v ic e s services, and must give assurance, satisfac­ may be transferred among programs, no re­ A c t o p 1 9 7 2 " tory to the Governor, that it has the neces­ quirements may be waived, and no further The proposed "Allied Services Act of 1972" sary ability to develop and carry out the lo­ payments or grants may be made (in the is intended to encourage States and localities cal plan. The Governor may designate a pub­ fiscal year for which the plan is approved) to coordinate the provision of human serv­ lic or nonprofit agency, other than an office for so long as the failure to comply continues. ices to individuals and families which will or agency chosen by a unit (or units) of gen­ Section 203 describes the various types of assist them in attaining the greatest feasi­ eral purpose local government, only if he Federal assistance which become available ble degree of personal independence and finds that there is no such office or agency upon approval of a State allied services plan. economic self-sufficiency, or which *will pre- which has the capacity to carry out a local Four types of assistance are available: vent individuals and families from becoming allied services plan. First, authority would be given both the increasingly dependent upon public and jari- The local allied services plan must be ap­ Secretary and State and local governments vate programs for both financial support proved by the State agency and incorporated with allied services plans to consolidate and personal care. into the State plan before any of the forms planning funds extended by the Department The Act would define various key terms of Federal assistance described below can of Health, Education, and Welfare. Thus, the For instance, the term "human services" accrue. The local plan must specify the agen­ Secretary may make a single, consolidated includes any services provided to achieve or cies and organizations which have agreed to grant of HEW funds available for planning maintain personal and economic independ­ participate in the coordination effort, de­ for or under any program included in the ence. The "coordinated provision of services"; scribe the service needs and resources with­ approved State or local allied services plan. means the provision of human services in the service area, enumerate the programs As a corollary, a State or a unit of general needed by individuals and families, in such to be included under the plan, and provide purpose local government, with an approved a way as to (1) facilitate access to and use reasonable assurance that progress will be allied services plan, may use planning funds of the services, (2) improve the effective­ made in coordinating the provision of serv­ provided, by the Department of Health, Edu­ ness of the services, and (3) use service re­ ices. This assurance is to be provided by de­ cation, and Welfare and available for any sources more efficiently and with minimal scribing the specific functions and services program included in its plan, for planning in duplication. These definitions help to restate to be coordinated, the benefits to individuals, connection with the provision of human serv­ the goals of the Act in clear terms— to lessen and the administrative efficiencies to be ices under any included program. dependency through more effective service achieved by the coordination. Second, a State or local agency with an delivery. It is the intent of this bill to have the approved plan may transfer up to 25 % of the Title I of the bill provides authority for active and continuous involvement of volun- Federal assistance available for use under the Secretary to make various types of proj­i tary organizations, client groups, service con- any HEW-assisted program included in the ect grants which may be needed by States * sumers, and local social service providers in plan to be expended in carrying out any and localities to plan and develop the capac­! the planning and administrative processes other included programs. Assistance trans­ ity for the coordinated provision of services. \ of the program. Therefore, to ensure the pro- ferred under this authority carries with it There is also authority to provide technical | gram’s responsiveness to the particular needs the matching rate established under the assistance for planning or implementing a \>f each community, each plan.must be ac­ program for which it was originally appro­ specific coordinated services program. Also, companied by assurances that interested priated, so that no incentive to transfer will the Secretary is given authority to evaluate, agencies, organizations, and individuals were be created merely by disparities in matching directly or by grant or contract, the programs afforded the opportunity to comment upon rates which exist among the included established under this Act. In addition to the plan prior to its submission to the State programs. any salary and expense money he may wish agency and will have an effective channel The transfer authority does not apply, to devote to evaluation, the Secretary may through which their views can be known with however, to the open-ended assistance pro­ also use for this purpose amounts not in respect to the ongoing administration of the grams under the Social Security Act, or to excess of 1% of the amounts appropriated plan. assistance provided under title I of the Ele­ to carry out the Act. Section 202(a) prescribes the requirements mentary and Secondary Education Act (con­ Title I I describes the State and local allied applicable to a State allied services plan. An sistent with the Administration’s special services programs contemplated under this approvable plan must, (1) through a brief education revenue sharing bill). Act. Section 201(a) describes the steps which summary of the incorporated local plans, de­ Third, the Secretary is authorized to waive must be taken by the Governor as condi­ scribe the current status of the coordinated requirements of Statewideness, single or tions precedent to the submission of a State provision of services, and the steps which will specified State or local agency, or technical allied services plan. First, .he must divide be taken to achieve a greater degree of hu­ or administrative requirements imposed in the State intcKservice areasx(within_which man services coordination, (2) provide as­ connection with any included program human services programs will ~~be"*coordi-. surance that under each local plan services which, at the Federal level, is administered nated), after taking into consideration fac­ under the assistance titles of the Social Se­ by the Secretary and which the State or local tors such as the distribution throughout the curity Act will be coordinated with services agency certifies impedes implementation of State of service needs and service resources, under: any other three human services pro­ its allied services plan. Thus, it would not / / the boundaries of planning areas or areas grams, any other HEW supported programs affect the basic protections provided by the{/ for the delivery of individual service pro­ which the Secretary may specify, and any Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other gen­ grams, and the location of units of general other such programs, regardless of whether erally applicable legislation; nor would it purpose local government. they are receiving Federal support, which the apply to programs administered by other In the process of delineating service areas, State may desire to include, and (3) provide Federal departments or agencies. he must inform units of general purpose lo­ that the State agency will provide any other Finally, the Secretary may make discre­ cal government of his plans and consider relevant information which the Secretary tionary grants to meet costs of planning or their comments and recommendations. The may request. preparing to carry out allied services plans, service areas should conform, to the extent Subsection (b ) directs that an opportunity or to meet the administrative costs of coordi­ found practicable by him, to any other areas to review and comment upon a State plan nation under a State or local plan, which within the State established for the plan­ submitted for approval be afforded to the cannot be met from other available funds. ning or administration of human services head of any Federal department or agency The State must indicate how it plans to al­ programs. Second, he must determine, after which is extending assistance to a program locate the funds applied for among the vari­ consultation with the various public and included within that plan. ous designated local agencies with approved private service agencies, whether a local allied Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to ap­ plans. These grants are not to be used to services plan will be developed for any given prove a State plan if he finds that: (1) the meet the non-Federal share requirements of service area. In the event that it is, then Governor has complied with the preliminary any Federally-assisted program and may not the Governor designates a local agency to organizational requirements prescribed in be made to any State for more than two years take the lead in developing and assuring im­ section 201, (2) the plan meets all the speci­ except where the Secretary finds it is neces­ plementation of the local plan. Third, the fied requirements, and (3) the plan is de­ sary to enable the State to carry out a sig­ Governor must designate a State agency signed to accomplish the purposes of the Act nificant expansion of its allied services plan. which Is undeT his direction and which will to achieve expansion of its coverage to other Section 204 provides joint funding author­ S 8436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 25, 1972 ity. It is almost identical to that contained All 50 States have submitted compre­ Community Mental Health Centers Act. in the juvenile delinquency law, the Eco­ hensive statewide programs to attack This has caused a good deal of confusion nomic Opportunity Act, the Older Americans this problem under the formula-grant around the country, and works against Act, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. It goes somewhat further than those provisions of the act. a more focused and coordinated program statutes in two respects: (1) it would permit Thousands of inquiries are being re­ approach to this problem. I am, there­ joint funding of several grants made hy the ceived cdncerning grant proposals from fore, recommending that these authori­ same agency, and (2) it would permit waiver all over tfie country. The National Ad­ ties be transferred to the Comprehen­ of technical grant or contract requirements visory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Al­ sive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Pre­ imposed by statute as well as by regulation. coholism has approved over $20 million vention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask grant proposals to date. Act, as administratively more sound, and unanimous consent that the bill intro­ The millions of suffering alcoholics and to reduce any confusion over the pur­ duced by Mr. B e n n e tt and others, the their families and loved ones have been poses of these authorities. Allied Services Act, be referred to the given new hope by the leadership dis­ Recommended authorizations of $480 Committee on Labor and Public Welfare played by the Federal Government. We million in formula grants for the next and that if and when it should be re­ must not let them down now. 3 fiscal years are based on estimates of ported by that committee, it bi referred The programs and moneys authorized what is needed to deal with alcohol abuse to the Committee on Finance. by the 1970 act extended for only 3 years. and alcoholism from a health stand­ The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem­ The amendments which I introduce to­ point. The State of Washington alone, pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. day would extend and increase the au­ for example, has indicated that it will thorities under the act for an additional need $58 million over the next 3 years to By Mr. HUGHES: 3 years, and seek more effectively to con­ implement a State comprehensive pro­ S. 3644. A bill to amend the Compre­ centrate the resources of the Nation gram. Formula grants have been very hensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism against the problem of alcohol abuse helpful to the efforts of the States and Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilita­ and alcoholism. the $480 million over 3 years is prob­ tion Act and other related acts to con­ Despite the progress which has been ably a modest estimate of what the States centrate the resources of the Nation made, efforts to deal with this major na­ can effectively use and need. Likewise, against the problem of alcohol abuse and tional problem are still too fragmented the $420 million over 3 years in project alcoholism. Referred to the Committee and poorly supported. A national cam­ grant and contract support is modest. on Labor and Public Welfare. paign is underway to modify cultural at­ Many communities are only starting to titudes that encourage and tolerate the address this problem and to develop co­ COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCO­ HOLISM PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND RE­ abuse of alcohol. Local and State gov­ ordinated community-based programs in HABILITATION'ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972 ernments are becoming more responsive close association with their respective Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I rise to­ to the problem and are seeking Federal State agencies. This takes time and sup­ leadership and support to understand day to introduce the Comprehensive port so the amount requested for project and approach alcohol abuse and alcohol­ Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Preven­ support is reasonable in this sense. These ism from a health standpoint. This mo­ tion, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act total appropriations, balanced - against mentum is crucial and must be rein­ other national priorities, will help to re­ Amendments of 1972 to extend and in­ forced. crease the authorities under that act. dress the neglect of this problem which I am therefore recommending a num­ With the enactment of the Compre­ in economic waste alone has been esti­ ber of changes which I believe are neces­ hensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism mated by the National Institute on Al­ sary to achieve a more coordinated ap­ Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilita­ cohol Abuse and Alcoholism to cost $15 proach to the broad health, economic, tion Act in 1970, Congress provided the billion a year, including highway acci­ social, and cultural aspects of alcohol Department of Health, Education, and dents, treatment facilities, welfare, in­ abuse and alcoholism in American so­ Welfare with the tools and resources dustrial loss, and so forth. ciety. This support will do a great deal to needed to begin reducing the tragic toll First, the Secretary should have suf­ of alcoholism in this Nation. bring the problem of alcohol abuse and ficient flexibility to accomplish this ap­ alcoholism under control. During our deliberations on this bill, proach. I am recommending that the Finally, I recommend the strengthen­ we learned that more than nine mil­ new Institute be identified as in the De­ ing of the provision that would require, lion persons suffer from alcoholism in partment rather than in one of the De­ admission to hospitals of alcohol abusers this country. One-half of all traffic fa­ partment’s agencies. The intent is not to and alcoholics who are suffering from talities and one-third of all homicide withdraw the National Institute on Al­ emergency medical conditions. At pres­ victims have significant amounts of alco­ cohol Abuse and alcoholism from the Na­ ent, violators are only threatened by a hol in their bloodstreams at the time tional Institute of Mental Health, or to cutoff of Federal financial assistance of autopsy. Alcoholics die 10 to 12 years settle on its location in the Department. under this act. This would have little earlier than the average American. One The intent is merely to give the Secre­ influence. The original House and Senate in every 13 employees is an alcoholic. tary flexibility in its placement should bills applied this restriction to all Fed­ Losses to industry alone because of alco­ he find it desirable to give the Institute eral support, and the recently enacted holism have been computed at between more visibility. Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act— $7 and $9 billion a year. One in three In addition, it is important organiza­ Public Law 92-255— does have the more suicides in our country involves an al­ tionally to recognize that the problem of inclusive provision apply to hospitals coholic. The ratio of alcoholics to non­ dealing with alcohol abuse and alcohol­ which refuse admission of drug abusers alcoholics committing suicide is 58-1. ism goes beyond mental health services who are suffering from emergency medi­ As required by that law, the Depart­ and involves other services and agencies cal conditions. ment of Health, Education, and Welfare both in and out of the Department. Thus, In addition, the National Council on has compiled and sent to Congress the I am recommending the designation “in Alcoholism, the Alcohol & Drug Prob­ first of several reports required on “Al­ the National Institute of Mental Health” lems Association of North America, and cohol and Health.” In the preface to this be changed to “in the Department of the National Advisory Council on Alco­ report, Merlin K. DuVal, Assistant Sec­ Health, Education, and Welfare.” hol Abuse and Alcoholism, created by retary for Health and Scientific Affairs, Second, the original act did not address this act, have recommended the more recognizes that— the matter of personnel except for a Di­ inclusive provision. While we are horrified by the abuse ol rector, to run the Institute. My experi­ Individuals who have an alcohol prob­ such drugs as hallucinogens, narcotics, and ence over the past year and a half in lem should be able to obtain care in stimulants hy our youth, we pay little heed dealing with the Institute has convinced routine care facilities but are often ex­ to the most abused drug of them all: me that a section should be added to Alcohol. cluded. This has contributed to the de­ make clear the need for additional per­ velopment of many special and unnec­ The new Institute on Alcohol Abuse sonnel. essary facilities, often far removed from and Alcoholism, created by this act, un­ Third, the original act did not incor­ other community resources. The amend­ der the inspired leadership of Dr. Morris porate the project and contract authori­ ment to this provision is important to E. Chafetz, has made an impressive be­ ties administered by the National Insti­ obtaining the help that could and should ginning in carrying out the mandate of tute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. be provided by these facilities. I would the act. Instead, they remained as part C of the hasten to add that this is only one of ROUGH roEAS FOR POSSIBLE LEGISLATION FOR THE SENATOR

1 Authorize the use of Federal grants to study the use of the tides for meeting the meeds of this country as to electric powere

2 The whole area of medicine, medical schools, assistance for educating the nurses aides, etc that are essential in order to meaningfully carry out the demands that are sure to increase with the F e d e ra ll Government getting closer to a national health plan also, Hawaii just authorized a new medical School

3 I see recreation as the area to get into in the immediate future with the four day work week upon us and the fact thatthe Average Am erican (the guy who likes both Geo. Wallace and Geo. McGovern) wants a place to park his pick-up with the Camper on the back. You could probably jurisdiction over most of the bills that would be introduced in thus area and you could work out any of the difficulties with M r. Scop Jackson on the Interior Committee One of the things that I was thinking about iaac is establishing a youth Corps that would police the Federal Recreational areas ( sim ilar to the CCC) to assist in arresting the pollution the is taking place in the National parks. The bill would be endorsed by the Environmentalists, Those who want jobs J fot youth, and the average guy who wants to share the beauty of the national Parks that he pays for but cannot use daae to overcrowdinf fAnother bill , in the area of recreation is a bill to authorize a grant program that will give monies to the states with National Parks to help the States combat the environmental iranqxaadx impact that the tourists have on a n area trash, traffic, construction of special facilities, etc. Also, a third aspect of the bill or balls would be that of the giving to proprietors of large areas of land, laapooxx long term loan authority to develop their land for recreational purposes (outdoor activities, hunting c te b x camping etc) if the property owners grant to the F ederal Government certain easements and environmental Kd^fasbex land rights.

4 Certain amendments to the Campaign expenditures bill of last year and x&aoxxiuaxDqx also incorporate into it the concepts of voter registration that were xadx discussed in relation to your bill and that of Mcgheefc

5 SasusxtXK A bill to give to any citizen who qualifies the right to subpeonyi information regarding the budgetary porcesses of the fFederal Government In other words, put to use the concept that you have working for you here in the District of Columbia where interested parties (usually organized) could do the birddogging and the skullduggery that is necedsary in order to com up with a decent approximation of where the taxpayers money is actually being spent. I would en;vision this bell being lauded by such perosnct as Anderson, Nader, etc. There would of course be the need to insure th inquiring group be one of unquestionalble intent and integrity. The way one may qualify is to have tfesx that person qualify by having in hand the "letters of authorization " of his Congressman, and the c barman of ;the House and Senate Appropriations Sub committee or, if unattainable, letters form both his own Senators, or, in the alternative, two other members of the subcommittees that have jurisdiction of the subject matter. These conditions insure khaagK that the Congress still, in fact, have control oover the matter and bbex that there would be no reckless inquiries. There would never besmEszxxapqxEqxx be any appropriations attached to the inquiry. Thus it would have to be funded by the interested parties. No national interests would be jeapordized becuase of the mandatory "letters of Author ization",xxaaadcxiiasāJsjK An iimportant factor, the posver to appropraite would still be in the hands of the Congress. But the people would feel, and believe, and in fact be in the position of influence itakk Also, this would generate an interest in a particular matter by at least fchgy three Congressman and could get the Congressman some mileage in foldowing up on one of his constituents suggestions. Also, the Congressman would be testifying ofn the finglings i n the budgett ary hearings, filong with the original constituent. The net result just might be the reordering of the priorities of the Natioanl budget. ( INOUYE PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE INTERLOPER ACT)

6 Perhaps taking the Coastal Zones Bill of Hollings adxxdgfenjKgxfeex and introducing a bill next session that would define the Coastal Zone either as a "Zone for Commercial Transportation" and thus qualify it odxK for special traetment by the DOT ie getting some money out of the Highway fund when it is broken up waterways gax can be the same as rail, air routes, Interstate highways.

7 Always can lend some support to the breaking up o f the Highway trust Fun

8 Health Services Act for Native Hawaiians (and there decendents as determined by the guidelines for the Hawaiian Homestead Lands Commissioi This is an araa that w ill be expanding at a tremendous rate ---- community clinics a that are paid for by the Federal Government and w s k x k s h x you can lay the groundwork for the design of the delivery system by the Model P ro gra m that would be authorized in this particular bill

9 The field of the afrts and Humanities is wide open very few Congressrr or Senators want to get involved. Afad yet, look at the thousands of monied persons who would cater to the leader in the field. And a leader is ne WMAL AM FM TV EDITORIAL #10 SLOW MOTION JUSTICE

With our overcrowded court system and its backlog of cases

giving the criminal suspect an added advantage, it's rather

surprising that a defense attorney would complain about it.

But that's exactly what Edward Bennett Williams did last

night on the "McCaffrey-At-Large" program on WMAL television

and radio.

We still have, said the noted attorney, what I call slow

motion justice, and he put most of the blame on the system.

He called it scandelous that in some states it takes 6 to 8

weeks to pick a jury and the same length of time waiting for

a probation report, or that cases argued back in 1969 are still

in appellate courts undecided.

He sees no reason why the time between arrest for a street

crime and exhaustion of appeal should exceed 90 days. So how

would he speed up the judicial process?

Eliminate lawyer's written briefs, he suggests, encourage

judges to keep their written opinions short and concise, video­

tape courtroom proceedings for instant playback, and utilize

a steno-computerized system that would print out the record

for use immediately after trial

We like Williams' refreshing approach to the problem.

It's obvious the system needs to be streamlined.

February 11, 1972

All rights reserved to The Evening Star Broadcasting Company, Inc. This editorial may not be reprinted or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatsoever without the express con­ sent of The Evening Star Broadcasting Company, Inc. The restricted distribution of this editorial constitutes a limited publication only and no general publication is intended thereby.

THE EVENING STAR BROADCASTING COMPANY • 4461 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W. * WASHINGTON D.C. 20008 * (202) 686-3027

MEDICAL BACKGROUNDER

HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMO’S)

Definition of an HMO

In the President's Health Message of February 1971 the Adminis­ tration proposed a program of encouragement and subsidy for HMO's. The Administration's program is contained in H.R. 5615 and S.1182.

Two other major HMO proposals have since been introduced, H.R. 11728, (Reps. William Roy and Paul Rogers, principal sponsors), and S.3327 (Senator Edward Kennedy).

In general an HMO is responsible for providing a broad range of health care services and must account for both the quantity and quality of services provided. For instance, an HMO must provide emergency care, hospital and physician care, ambulatory physician care and outpatient preventive medical services.

Payment for such services must be on a prepaid basis. Individ­ uals or families pay a monthly fee in advance with the amount of the payment ordinarily set for a year at a time.

Many organizations and groups are considered possible "sponsors" such as clinics, medical foundations, hospitals, neighborhood health centers, public corporations, health insurance companies, Blue Cross- Blue Shield, or combinations of these. However, the type of program most easily converted to an HMO is one where professional and institu­ tional services are already integrated. The Kaiser Foundation approach is almost always suggested as an HMO prototype; the few remaining railroad hospitals and such union-sponsored plans as the United Mine Workers of America medical program also might qualify easily.

Prepaid Group Practice

In many ways, an HMO will resemble prepaid group practice plans which exist in many parts of the country, although such plans do not always provide institutional services, emergency care, and certain other services which an HMO would generally be expected to provide.

In addition to the Kaiser plans which operate principally on the west coast (but also in Cleveland and Denver) there are prepaid group practice plans in several other cities, including Washington, D. C. (Group Health Association), New York City (Health Insurance Plan), Detroit (Community Health Association), and St. Louis (Labor Health Institute). A new prepaid group plan is operating in Columbia, Maryland. Harvard University School of Medicine is sponsoring a prepaid group plan in Boston. Medical Backgrounder - Health Maintenance Organizations - Page 2

Prepaid group plans (contract practice) have been developing in the United States for several decades. The major impetus for this type of health care delivery system was provided by the Kaiser pro­ grams following World War II. Labor unions have also been active in sponsoring such organizations. At this time about seven million Americans are enrolled in prepaid group plans of one kind or another.

In the typical prepaid group payment plan today, the organi­ zation undertakes to provide most physician and hospital services to an enrolled family, for which the family will pay about $50 to $60 per month in advance. There are frequently charges to prevent overuse, such as $1.00 per physician office visit, $1.00 per pre­ scription (if prescriptions are covered by the plan), and sometimes a one-time payment of $50 per hospitalization. In some plans which do not make any hospital charge for most admissions there is a charge for childbirth.

Summary of HMO Legislation

H.R. 5615 and S.1182 (Administration bills) authorize grants or contracts for public or non-profit, private HMO's to assist in planning for development or expansion and to pay all or part of the initial operating costs incurred as a result of operations in a medically underserved area. Loan guarantees would be available to establish or expand the health facilities of private, non-profit or for-profit HMO's. Loans or loan guarantees could be for up to 90 percent of the costs of the project for which the loan or loan guar­ antee is given. Benefits to be available under the bill are defined in general terms as those which a defined population might reasonably require in order to be maintained in good health.

H.R. 11728 (Roy and Rogers) provides a more detailed listing of benefits which must be provided by an HMO. The bill contains a series of grant, loan guarantee, and loan provisions authorizing funds for planning and feasibility studies, development costs, con­ struction, and initial costs of operation. The bill would not per­ mit federal funds to be provided to for-profit HMO's. Also contained in the bill are grant programs for special projects relating to the operation and development of HMO's, for HMO management training, and for clinical training to be provided by HMO's.

S.3327 (Kennedy) provides more comprehensive benefits which must be provided by an HMO. It outlines other conditions which an HMO must meet to qualify for federal assistance. The bill also defines in detail a Health Services Organization, which could receive support under the program. The HSO would not have to meet all the qualifications of an HMO and would be designed primarily for rural areas. For-profit organisations would be included in the loan and loan guarantee support authorized. This bill also contains a series of grant and loan programs for planning and feasibility Medical Backgrounder - Health Maintenance Organizations - Page 3

studies, development costs, construction, and initial costs of oper­ ation for HMO's and HSO's. In addition, it provides funds for the development of area health education and service centers. The bill would also create a Commission on duality Health Care to develop quality health care standards and to prescribe quality control systems for HMO's and a federal, medical malpractice insurance program. HMO Advantages Proponents of prepaid group plans and HMO's say that under most present insurance and payment arrangements, the physician is paid only when the patient is sick. Therefore there is little financial incentive to keep the patient well.

Under a prepaid plan or HMO, the amount of money that the organi­ zation receives is set in advance. Therefore there is an economic incentive to keep the patient well and thus keep him out of the hospital where today's high costs use up dollars at a fast rate.

An HMO would stress early diagnosis, preventive care and better organization of the physician's time by increased use of nurses and other allied health personnel. There would also be an organized group of physicians with specialists available at most clinics, or outpatient facilities, where enrollees would receive their care. Many prepaid group plans make an effort to provide each family with its own physician who becomes familiar with its health problems and history.

HMO legislation generally stresses effective review of the quality of medical care provided by physicians and other members of the health team. Members of the health team are paid by salary or other pre­ determined arrangement and can enjoy regular hours since all are assigned standby duty at night and on weekends on a rotating basis. In addition, supporting personnel can handle many financial and administrative duties, leaving the physician and other trained medical personnel free to devote their time to patient care.

HMO Disadvantages The disadvantages of the prepaid group plan or HMO include over­ promise, potential for undertreating patients, consumer dissatis­ faction, and shortage of experienced management personnel. While prepaid group plans have enjoyed a steady but unspectacular growth since the end of World War II, they have not been without their problems.

Prepaid group plans are plagued by rising hospital and other costs as are all insurance plans. In addition, enrollment has dropped in several plans for various reasons and the Federal Medical Backgrounder - Health Maintenance Organizations - Page 4

Employees Health Benefits Program has dropped three prepaid group plans because of lack of employee interest in one case, and inability of the plans to deliver care contracted for in the other two cases.

The possibility that HMO's might be started with limited financial resources results in possible HMO failures due to (1)Enroll­ ment that does not meet expectations? thus producing insufficient income. (2) Inadeauate management. (3) Enrollees subject to an unusual number of catastrophic illness expenses.

While proponents of prepaid plans generally state that the fee- for-service system contains a potential for overtreatment, there is also general agreement that prepaid group plans, such as an HMO, contain the potential for undertreatment of patients. Since there are generally no fees or charges in a prepaid plan other than the monthly premium (except a token charge in some cases), regardless of how much hospital care and other medical treatment is necessary, the income into the plan is fixed. Therefore some have said that there could be an incentive for physicians to undertreat so that more money is available to pay physicians, nurses and other personnel hired by the plan.

While many Americans willingly enroll in prepaid group plans and are satisfied with the medical care they receive, a significant number of enrollees go to physicians outside the plan for some of their medical care. A recent study showed that as many as 37 percent in one prepaid group plan went to non-plan physicians for surgery. Some have also complained that prepaid group plans do not provide personalized care and that they practice clinic medicine.

The shortage of experienced management has been cited by some with experience in prepaid group plans as an obstacle to the growth of HMO1s .

AMA Position

The AMA has testified specifically on several aspects of HMO's:

(1) The AMA supports prepaid group practice plans as part of a health delivery system which encourages competing forms of care in order to produce the most effective system for the patients.

/ (2) The AMA supports HEW's experiments with HMO's, specifically the 52 HMO grants awarded in 1971, in order to provide a valid test for several HMO concepts.

(3) AMA opposes an open-ended commitment to HMO's such as called for in most of the HMO bills and believes there is hazard in any de 1 .iverv system dependent on long-term, if not permanent, federal subsidy in order to exTst. _ * 833-8310 APRIL 1972 #92-9 FROM: AMA Washington Office, 1776 K St., N.W. PAIGE KAWELO BARBER Program Director—Comprehensive Community Mental Health Planning

MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII 200 N. VINEYARD BLVD. • HONOLULU, HAW AII 96817 • PH: 521 1846

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR NEWS OFFICE OF INFORMATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20210

USDL - 72-240 FOR RELEASE: A.M. Editions Bureau of Labor Statistics Thursday, April 27, 1972 (202) 961-2579

AUTUMN 1971 URBAN FAMILY BUDGETS AND GEOGRAPHICAL COMPARATIVE INDEXES

The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics has

updated to autumn 1971 its 4-person family budgets at three levels and the

place-to-place indexes based on these budgets. The new budgets are

about 3 percent higher than the previous budgets for spring 1970, as income

tax reductions offset about half the effect of the rise in consumer prices

over the 18 month period. The equivalent budget levels varied widely

among cities and regions, with the lowest in small cities and in the South,

and the highest generally in the largest metropolitan areas.

The U.S. average budget for an urban family of four ranged from $7,214

a year at a lower level, to $10,971 at an intermediate level, and to $13,905

at a higher level. (See table A.) Further details are shown in tables 1, 2,

and 3. These budgets are for a precisely defined urban family of four: a

38-year-old husband employed full time, his non-working wife, a boy of 13,

and a girl of 8. After about 15 years of married life, the family is well

established, and the husband is an experienced worker. The budgets are

illustrative of three different levels of living and provide for different

specified types and amounts of goods and services. The family has, for each

budget level, average inventories of clothing, housefurnishings, major dur­

ables, and other equipment. The budgets pertain only to an urban family with

the specified characteristics; no budgets are available for rural families. budget. The remaining 19 percent covered gifts and contributions, occupa­

tional expenses, life insurance, and social security and personal income

taxes. In the intermediate budget, consumption items represented 79 percent of the total budget. For the higher budget, these items were 75 percent of

the total budget.

The food budget (for food at home and away from home) was 34 percent of

the consumption budget at the lower level, 29 percent at the intermediate,

and 27 percent at the higher level.

Medical care comprised 10 percent of the consumption budget at the

lower level and 7 and 5 percent at the intermediate and higher levels,

respectively. In contrast to food and medical care, total housing (including

not only shelter, but also housefumishings and household operation)

accounted for a rising budget share as the budget-level rose. At the lower

level, where the shelter component provided only for a rented dwelling unit,

26 percent of all consumption was allocated to housing. It was 31 percent

of the intermediate and 33 percent of the higher budget. Roughly the same

proportion (about 15 percent) was allocated to clothing and personal care

at all three levels, and for transportation the proportionate differences

between the levels were small. These allocations do not represent how

families of the budget type actually spend their money. Rather, they reflect

the assumptions made about the manner of living at each of the three levels.

New information on actual spending patterns will not be available until the

1972-73 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, now in process, is completed. 4

Consumption Budgets for Different Family Types

How family consumption budgets that provide an equivalent level of liv­ ing vary for urhin families of different size and composition is shown in the following table.

Table B. Annual consumption budgets for selected family types, urban United States, autumn 1971 1/ Family size, type and age Lower Intermediate Higher level level level

Single person under 35 years $2,040 $3,020 $4,180

Husband and wife under 35 years:

No children 2,860 4,230 5,850

1 child under 6 3,620 5,350 7,400

2 children, older under 6 4,210 6,210 8,590

Husband and wife, 35-54 years:

1 child, 6-15 years 4,790 7,070 9,790

2 children, older 6-15 years 2J 5,841 8,626 11,935

3 children, oldest 6-15 years 6,780 10,010 13,840

Husband and wife, 65 yrs. and over 3/ 3,176 4,484 6,592

Single person, 65 years and over 4/ 1,747 2,466 3,626

1/ For details on estimating procedures, see "Revised Equivalence Scale," BLS Bulletin 1570-2. 2/ Estimates for the BLS 4-Person Family Budgets. 3/ Estimates for the BLS Retired Couple's Budgets. 4/ Estimated by applying a ratio of 55 percent to the BLS Retired Couple's Budgets. 5

Differences in Budgets Among Urban Areas

Area indexes, representing differences in budgets for an equivalent level of living, reflect not only differences among the areas in price levels, but also regional variations in consumption patterns and differences in climate, types of transportation facilities, taxes, etc.

For the lower budget, the consumption component was about 8 percent higher in metropolitan areas than in nonmetropolitan urban areas. The metropolitan-nonmetropolitan difference was 14 percent for the intermediate budget and 18 percent for the higher. Total budget levels were lowest in the South and in small cities. Excluding Honolulu and Anchorage, the interarea differences tended to be smallest in the case of the lower budget and to widen as the level rose.

All indexes relate to budgets for established families in each area.

They do not measure cost differences associated with moving from one area to another or the living costs of newly arrived residents in a given community.

Further details on the indexes are presented in tables 4, 5, and 6.

Changes in Budgets, 1970-71

Since Spring 1970, when the three family budgets were last published, the consumption budgets at each level have risen 5 percent as a result of the rise in prices.

The Consumer Price Index rose by 6.3 percent over this 18-month period.

The reduced impact of inflation on the budgets results primarily from two factors: (1) In the intermediate and higher budgets 75-85 percent of the families are assumed to be homeowners, who purchased their homes 6-7 years ago. 6

Hence a substantial portion of their shelter costs (principal and interest payments) are fixed and do not reflect the current increases in home purchase

costs reported by the Consumer Price Index. (2) In the intermediate and higher budgets, the relative importance of public transportation was signi­

ficantly lower than in the Consumer Price Index, where prices for public

transportation outpaced that for private transportation. Changes in the various components of the budgets between Spring 1970 and autumn 1971 were as

follows:

Table C. Percent changes in 4-person family budgets, Spring 1970 to Autumn

1971.

Budget level Inter- Component Lower mediate Higher

Food------3.1 3.3 3.4 Housing------6.1 5.5 5.5 Transportation------6.1 5.7 5.7 Clothing and personal care------5.1 5.2 5.1 Medical care------8.4 8.5 8.5 Other family consumption ------6.7 7.0 6.9 Total consumption------5.2 5.1 5.2

Other items------4.1 3.9 3.8 Social security ------12.2 8.3 8.3 Personal income taxes------12.5 -10.9 -9.1 Total budget------3.6 2.9 2.5

The total budget levels--including social security payments and Federal,

State, and local income taxes--rose by approximately 3 percent over the 18-

month period. The smaller increase in the overall budgets than in consump­

tion was due to a reduction of personal income taxes at all levels of 7

government. Fersonal taxes decreased 13, 11 and 9 percent respectively in the lower, intermediate and higher budgets. However, the progressive effect of these income tax adjustments was partly offset by an increase in Old Age,

Survivors', Disability and Health Insurance (0ASDH1) rates in 1971. As a

result, for the illustrative 4-person budget family the distribution of

income between consumption and taxes changed between 1970 and 1971 as follows:

Table D. Percentage composition of 4-person family budgets, Spring 1970 and

Autumn 1971

______Budget Level______Lower Intermediate Higher 1970 1971 1970 1971 1970 1971

Total budget------100 100 100 100 100 100

Consumption------80 81 77 79 73 75

Other items*------5 5 5 5 6 6

Taxes** ------15 14 18 16 21 19

* Includes gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational

expenses.

** Social security and disability payments, plus Federal, State and

Local personal income taxes. The 1970 taxes were computed at 1969 rates; the

1971 taxes at 1971 rates.

Methods of Calculation

The 1971 consumption budgets were derived by applying price changes

between spring 1970 and autumn 1971, reported in the Consumer Erice Index for

individual areas, to the appropriate spring 1970 final budget for each main 8

class of goods and services. This method of updating is approximate because the Consumer Price Index reflects spending patterns and prices paid for commo­ dities and services purchased by wage earners and clerical workers generally without regard to their family type and level of living. Other items were also updated to autumn 1971. Personal income taxes and OASDHI were computed from tax rates in effect for 1971.

The sources of data, methods of calculation, and quantities of goods and services for each budget level are described in detail-in BLS Bulletin 1570-5,

Three Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons (spring 1967), which can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C.

20402, or from any BLS Regional Office listed below for $1. A supplement, with budgets for spring 1969-70, is also available, free of charge.

Region I Region II Region III 1603-A Federal Bldg. 1515 Broadway 1317 Filbert St. Boston, Mass. 02203 New York, N.Y. 10036 Phila., Pa. 19107

Region IV Region V Region VI 1371 Peachtree St., N.E. 300 South Wacker Dr. 1100 Commerce Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Chicago, 111. 60606 Dallas, Tex. 75202

Regions VII and VIII Regions IX and X 911 Walnut St. 450 Golden Gate Ave. Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Box 36017 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Table 1. Annual budgets at a lower level of living for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971

Fam ily consumption S o cial P e r s o n a l T o t a l Clothing O ther security and A r e a Other incom e b u d g e t and M edical item s 5 d isa b ility F o o d Housing 2 Transportation 3 fa m ily taxes T otal p erso n al c a re 4 paym ents consumption ca re

Urban United States------$ 7, 214 $ 5, 841 $ 1, 964 $ 1, 516 $ 536 $848 $ 609 $368 $ 357 $ 387 $ 6 2 9 Metropolitan areas6 — ------— ------— ------7, 330 5, 926 1, 996 1, 543 512 8 62 630 383 359 3 95 651 Nonm etropolitan areas 7 —------— 6, 694 5, 464 1, 824 1, 396 641 787 517 299 3 45 352 533

N o r t h e a s t : Boston, M ass——------—------7, 825 6, 242 2, 061 1, 766 548 862 594 411 368 40 6 8 0 9 Buffalo, N. Y ------7, 277 5 ,8 7 9 2, 047 1, 469 549 87 2 551 391 357 395 6 46 Hartford, Conn — -----—------7, 920 6, 48 5 2, 107 1, 8 77 575 915 593 418 376 406 6 53 Lancaster, Pa— ------— ------7, 100 5, 673 2, 029 1, 427 496 833 543 345 351 369 707 New York—Northeastern N. J~ ------7, 578 6, 104 2, 202 1, 510 4 60 854 668 4 10 364 4 13 697 Philadelphia, Pa. —N. J ------7, 406 5, 825 2, 109 i , 373 496 8 44 614 389 356 3 86 8 3 9 Pittsburgh, Pa ------7, 078 5, 633 1, 992 1, 392 522 8 4 4 518 3 65 3 50 369 726 P o r t la n d , M a in e ------7, 414 6, 064 2, 029 1 ,6 9 2 507 8 43 578 4 15 363 385 6 02 Nonmetropolitan areas 7------7, 052 5, 719 1, 988 1, 418 673 788 547 305 353 3 82 599 North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa ------7, 033 5, 649 1, 821 1, 521 462 919 551 375 350 3 6 4 6 70 Champaign—Urbana, 111— — -----— ------7, 534 6, 107 1, 919 1, 8 33 487 889 610 369 364 385 678 Chicago, 111—Northwestern Inch------7, 536 6, 106 2, 037 I, 592 561 882 640 394 364 390 676 Cincinnati, Ohio—Ky* —Ind — — ------6, 8 54 5, 560 1, 9 39 1, 351 524 8 42 520 384 348 359 587 Cleveland, Ohio-— *-----— ------— ------—— 7, 230 5, 88 5 1, 973 1, 479 556 883 608 386 358 374 613 Dayton, O hio ------,------—*—------6, 923 5, 643 1, 929 1, 443 499 8 34 548 390 3 50 359 571 Detroit, M ich ------7, 074 5, 751 1, 997 1, 388 510 868 6 14 3 74 354 366 6 03 Green Bay, Wis— ------— ------— 7, 030 5, 597 1, 842 I , 479 467 917 538 354 349 3 6 4 7 20 Indianapolis, Ind ------7, 231 5 ,8 9 1 1, 935 1, 560 539 841 616 400 358 3 74 608 Kansas City, Mo. — Kans------— 7, 241 5, 852 1, 982 1, 451 554 898 590 377 357 377 6 55 Milwaukee, Wis —------7, 28 5 5, 771 1, 847 1, 587 495 891 575 37b 3 54 380 7 80 Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn ------7, 233 5, 788 1, 906 1, 542 511 8 74 575 .38 0 355 374 716 9 St. Louis, M o.—Ill ------—------7, 238 5, 8 5 5 2, 033 1, 451 590 856 559 366 357 3 76 650 Wichita, Kans ------— ------6, 817 5, 568 1, 893 1, 468 454 829 571 353 348 3 54 547 Nonmetropolitan areas7-—------6, 943 5, 652 1, 848 1, 551 632 814 506 301 351 361 579 S ou th : Atlanta, Ga —------6, 681 5, 496 1, 807 1, 423 490 812 570 394 346 348 491 Austin, Tex — ------6, 362 5, 261 1, 770 1, 276 466 811 569 369 339 333 429 Baltimore, Md ------7, 515 5, 9 80 1, 871 I , 679 5 30 8 54 6 6 4 382 360 3 90 7 85 Baton Rouge, L a ------6, 572 5, 425 1 , 889 1, 332 495 783 . 549 377 344 343 460 Dallas, Tex ------6, 772 5, 583 1, 821 1, 388 4 94 792 706 382 348 3 5 4 487 Durham, N. C ------7, 009 5, 666 1, 791 1, 564 459 8 20 658 374 351 3 64 628 Houston, Tex ------6, 686 5, 519 1, 850 1, 3 40 511 800 644 374 347 348 47 2 Nashville, Tenn ------6, 584 5, 440 1, 763 1, 415 497 851 534 380 344 343 457 Orlando, Fla ———------6, 786 5, 596 1, 736 1,614 478 767 6 20 381 349 3 54 487 W a s h in g to n , D. C . —M d . —V a------7, 500 6, 012 1, 940 1 ,7 1 0 540 809 621 392 361 3 90 7 37 Nonmetropolitan areas 7 ------6, 267 5, 165 1, 731 1, 2 70 626 745 496 297 336 327 4 39

Bakersfield, C alif------7, 068 5, 744 1, 924 1, 398 527 861 689 345 353 4 4 0 531 Denver, Colo ------6, 818 5, 580 1, 887 1, 367 518 869 586 353 348 3 5 4 536 Los Angeles—Long Beach, C alif ------7, 671 6, 204 1, 9 34 1, 699 554 909 746 362 367 4 7 4 626 San Diego, Calif ------7, 394 5, 997 1, 915 1, 608 535 876 707 356 361 459 577 San Francisco—Oakland, Calif ------7, 971 6, 436 2, 006 1, 859 552 951 688 380 3 74 4 80 681 Seattle—Everett, Wash ------— 7, bb6 6, 277 2, 08 5 1, 676 518 953 6b 1 384 369 40 0 6 20 Honolulu, Hawaii ------8, 990 7, 137 2, 442 2, 150 610 899 6 38 398 395 406 1, 052 Nonmetropolitan areas7 ------7, 199 5, 789 1, 869 1, 526 657 889 557 291 355 3 74 681 Anchorage, Alaska ------11, 019 8, 702 I, 434 3, 055 906 1, 011 945 351 442 449 1, 426

1 The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefurnishings. All fam ilies with the lower budget are assumed to be renters. 3 Average budgets for automobile o w n e r s a n d n o n o w n e r s are weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both auto­ mobile owners and nonowners; all other metropolitan a r e a s , 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. 4 In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies pacing, half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by the em ployer). Includes allowance for gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational expenses. 6 As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 7 Places with population of 2, 500 to 50, 000. Table 2. Annual budgets at an intermediate level of living for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971

Fam ily consumption S o c i a l P e r s o n a l T o t a l C lo t h in g O t h e r security and A r e a O t h e r i n c o m e b u d g e t an d M e d i c a l it e m s 5 disability T o t a l F o o d H o u s in g 2 T ransportation 3 f a m i l y t a x e s p e r s o n a l c a r e 4 p a y m e n t consumption c a r e

Urban United States— — — — — —— ------$10,971 $8,626 $2, 532 $2, 638 $964 $ 1 , 196 $612 $ 6 8 4 $ 5 60 $ 4 1 9 $ I , 366 M etropolitan areas 6 — ...... — 1 1 ,2 3 2 8 , 8 23 2, 575 2, 723 969 1, 2 14 633 709 567 421 1, 421 Nonm etropolitan areas 7—— ------— ------— 9,805 7,746 2, 338 2, 258 941 1, 113 521 575 530 409 1, 121

N o r t h e a s t : Boston, M ass ------—------—------■------1 2 ,8 1 9 9 ,8 8 6 2, 739 3, 543 1, 026 1, 221 598 759 604 406 1, 923 Buffalo, N. Y ------11,666 9, 112 2, 682 2, 875 1, 038 1, 235 554 728 577 421 1, 5 56 Hartford, Conn------•------— 12,029 9, 684 2, 788 3, 090 1, 140 1, 298 596 772 597 406 1, 342 Lancaster, Pa ------1 0 ,7 8 6 8, 432 2,657 2, 418 960 1, 182 544 671 553 406 1, 395 New York—Northeastern N. J— ------— ----- 12, 585 9 , 777 2, 943 3, 273 918 1,212 670 761 600 425 1, 783 Philadelphia,Pa.—N. J — ------—•— — ------11,404 8, 801 2, 766 2, 5 74 926 1, 192 617 726 566 410 1, 6 2 7 Pitt sburgh, Pa — ------1 0 ,6 8 6 8, 326 2, 609 2, 353 946 1, 206 522 690 549 406 1, 405 Portland, Maine— ------—-----—------11,169 8, 911 2, 714 2, 655 1, 023 1, 189 581 749 570 406 1, 282 Nonm etropolitan areas 7— -----—— ——------1 0 ,7 7 3 8, 491 2, 593 2, 673 971 1 ,0 9 9 549 606 555 420 1, 307 North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iowa—------—— 11, 029 8, 547 2, 294 2, 731 983 1, 290 556 693 557 406 1, 519 Champaign—Urbana, III ------11,214 8,862 2, 442 2, 873 992 1, 259 615 681 568 406 1, 378 Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Ind— ------— — 1 1 ,4 6 0 9 , 049 2, 558 2, 864 1, 025 1, 247 641 714 575 406 1, 4 3 0 C inc innat i, Ohio—K y . —Ind------—------— 10,493 8, 303 2, 450 2, 470 986 1, 183 523 691 549 406 1, 2 5 5 Cleveland, Ohio —— ------— ------— 1 1 ,3 3 0 9 , 030 2, 489 2 ,9 7 0 991 1, 247 6 13 720 574 4 06 . 1, 320 Dayton, Ohio — ------—------— ------— 10,218 8, 134 2, 434 2, 322 940 1, 178 551 709 543 406 1, 135 Detroit, M ich ------— ------—-----— ------10 , 754 8 , 4 52 2, 544 2, 456 917 1, 230 618 687 554 406 1, 342 Green Bay, W is ------—----- 10, 935 8, 380 2, 331 2, 6 4 4 926‘ 1, 283 539 657 551 406 1, 598 Indianapolis, Ind—-----— ------— ------1 1 ,0 9 3 8 , 799 2, 449 2, 7 52 1, 062 1, 186 618 732 566 406 1, 322 Kansas City, Mo..—Kans ------—------— 10, 981 8 , 629 2, 506 2, 525 1, 042 1, 270 592 6 9 4 560 406 1. 386 Milwaukee, W is ------— —------—— 1 1 ,6 8 5 8,913 2, 354 3, 091 940 1, 250 577 701 570 406 2, 796 M inneapolis—St. Paul Minn— ------— ------11, 183 8 , 489 2, 420 2, 587 971 1, 230 578 703 555 406 1, 7 3 3 St. Louis, M o.—I ll ------—------—------— 10, 944 8, 608 2, 593 2, 5 24 1, 052 1, 205 563 671 559 406 1, 371 Wichita, K ans ------— ------10, 217 8 , 106 2, 349 2, 443 904 1, 117 574 665 542 406 1, 163 Nonmetropolitan areas 7— — ------— ------1 0 ,0 7 8 7, 940 2, 315 2, 443 950 1, 145 510 577 536 406 ' 1, 196 S o u th : Atlanta, G a ------. 9 ,8 1 3 7 , 8 2 4 2, 364 2, 092 940 1, 149 575 704 532 406 1 ,0 5 1 A u st in , T e x ------—------9, 408 7, 578 2, 274 1, 971 931 1, 2 40 572 690 523 406 901 Baltimore, Md— ------11,013 8, 431 2, 482 2, 372 977 1, 221 668 711 553 406 1, 6 2 3 Baton Rouge, L a ------— ------——— 9, 885 7 ,8 9 9 2, 475 2, 105 973 1, 107 550 689 534 406 1, 0 46 Dallas, Tex ■ ------10, 056 8, 092 2, 353 2, 247 960 1, 123 710 699 541 406 1, 0 17 Durham, N .G ------— ------— ■■ 10,489 8, 168 2, 332 2, 407 918 1, 159 661 691 544 406 1, 371 Houston, Tex------9 ,8 9 4 7 , 968 2, 399 2, 129 972 1, 135 647 686 537 406 9 8 3 N ashville, T enn — ------— ------9,976 8, 031 2, 269 2, 349 963 1 ,2 1 4 • 536 700 539 406 1, 0 0 0 Orlando, F la------— ------——— ------— 9, 695 7, 808 2, 244 2, 237 917 1, 090 623 697 531 406 9 5 0 Washington, D .C .—M d.—Va — ------— 1 1 ,2 5 2 8 , 717 2, 552 2, 658 1, 001 1, 163 625 718 563 406 1, 566 Nonm etropolitan areas 7----- — ------— 9 , 180 7, 301 2, 253 1 ,9 8 7 929 1, 067 499 566 514 407 958 W e s t : Bakerfield, Calif — ------——— ------——- 10,236 8, 125 2, 391 2, 237 984 1, 173 691 649 542 480 1, 0 89 Denver, Colo— —— ------—— ----- 10, 639 8, 410 2, 366 2, 499 961 1, 333 591 660 552 406 1, 271 Los Angeles—Long Beach, C alif— -----— ------10,985 8, 701 2, 431 2, 636 978 1, 245 748 663 563 480 1, 241 San Diego, Calif— —------— ------10, 670 8, 452 2, 386 2, 522 969 1, 197 713 665 554 480 1, 1 8 4 San Francisco—Oakland, C alif—------— —- 1 1 ,6 8 3 9 , 244 2, 538 2,992 1, 013 1, 3 12 692 697 58 2 480 1 ,3 7 7 Seattle—Everett, Wash— —— -----—------11,124 8,964 2 ,6 2 9 2, 707 956 1, 302 66 4 706 572 406 1, 1 82 Honolulu, Hawaii —— ------— ------— ------— ■ — 13, 108 9, 974 3, 059 3, 158 1, 154 1, 231 642 730 607 406 2, 121 Nonmetropolitan areas 7------— ----- —------10, 087 7,864 2, 295 2, 291 916 1, 2 4 4 560 558 533 406 1, 284 A n c h o r a g e , A la s k a ------— ------—— ------14, 867 11,381 2,979 4, 171 1, 214 1, 420 946 651 656 449 2, 381

1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefumishings. ■ Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for renter costs, 75 percent for homeowner costs. 3 A v e r a g e budgets for automobile owners and n on ow n ers are weighted by the following proportions: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, p 80 e r c e n t for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, with 1.4 m illion of population or m ore, in I960, 95 percent for automobile own­ ers, and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. 4 In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying, half costs; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by em ployer). Includes allowances for gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational expenses. 6 As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 7 Places with populations of 2, 500 to 50, 000. Table 3. Annual budgets at a higher level of living for a 4-person family,' autumn 1971

Fam ily consumption S o c ia l C lo t h in g • O t h e r security and P e r s o n a l T o t a l O t h e r A r e a disability i n c o m e b u d g e t an d M e d i c a l i t e m s 5 F o o d Housing2 T ransportation 3 f a m i l y T o t a l p e r s o n a l c a r e 4 p a y m e n t s t a x e s consumption c a r e

$ 2 , 6 1 4 $ 1 5 , 905 $ 1 1 , 935 $3, 198 $3, 980 $ 1 ,2 5 0 $ 1 , 740 $ 6 3 8 $ 1 , 129 $ 9 3 7 $ 4 1 9 2 ,7 5 1 1 6 ,4 0 8 12, 282 3, 274 4 , 137 1, 273 1, 765 659 1, 172 955 421 861 2, 002 Nonm etropolitan areas 7 — ■■ —— -——------— ------13, 657 10, 385 2, 857 3, 277 1, 147 1, 625 543 935 4 0 9

4 06 3, 7 0 2 19, 073 13, 928 3 ,4 1 8 5,414 1, 438 1, 791 625 1, 242 1, 037 421 Buffalo, N. Y . ------16, 711 12, 325 3, 324 4 , 177 1, 235 1, 806 578 1, 205 957 3, 0 0 8 16, 869 13, 035 3, 377 4, 522 1, 354 1, 899 620 1, 263 993 4 0 6 2, 4 3 5 15,293 11, 539 3, 315 3, 601 1, 169 1, 740 566 1, 148 918 4 06 2, 4 3 0 New York—Northeastern N .J -----...... ------1 9 ,2 3 8 13, 943 3, 752 5, 070 1, 376 1, 790 699 1, 256 1, 0 3 8 425 3, 832 4 10 2, 9 2 4 Philadelphia, Pa.—N.J — ------16, 583 12, 293 3, 4 29 3, 939 1, 313 1, 744 644 1, 214 956 1 5 ,4 7 5 11, 625 3, 271 3, 672 1, 193 1, 768 545 1, 176 922 406 2, 522 1 5 ,5 2 3 11. 900 3, 370 3. 772 1, 231 1, 733 598 1, 196 936 4 06 4 2 0 Nonmetropolitan areas 7 ------14,894 11, 259 3, 149 3, 755 1, 194 1, 611 572 9 78 904

16, 033 11, 848 2, 931 4 , 137 1, 199 1, 861 577 1, 143 933 4 06 2, 8 46 4 06 2, 5 9 3 Champaign—Urbana, 111 ------—------1 6 ,2 7 4 12, 318 3, 106 4 , 385 1, 221 1, 834 636 1, 136 957 Chicago, 111. —Northwestern In d ------1 6 ,4 8 7 12, 475 3, 261 4, 157 1,419 1, 803 665 1, 170 965 4 06 2, 64 1 406 2, 1 50 Cincinnati, Ohio—K y.—In d------1 4 ,6 6 4 11, 207 3, 101 3, 553 1, 179 1, 706 545 1, 123 901 1 6 ,0 6 7 12, 316 3, 163 4 , 312 1, 224 1, 800 641 1, 176 957 4 06 2, 3 8 8 14, 812 11, 395 3, 086 3, 690 1, 176 1, 706 573 1, 164 911 4 06 2, 1 00 1 5 ,6 6 5 11, 781 3, 245 3, 821 1 145 1, 776 6 48 1, 146 930 4 06 2, 54 8 Green Bay, W is ----- ■ ------—— 1 6 ,0 7 2 1 1, 577 2, 934 4 . 007 1, 136 1. 846 561 1, 093 920 4 06 3, 169 15, 817 12, 061 3, 126 4, 123 1 266 1, 726 642 1, 178 944 4 0 6 2, 4 0 6 1 6 ,1 1 7 12, 077 3, 267 3, 909 1, 304 1, 838 615 1, 144 945 406 2, 6 8 9 16, 899 12, 117 3, 036 4 , 393 1, 138 1, 808 599 1, 143 947 4 06 3, 4 2 9 Minneapoli s—St. Paul, Minn ------—------16, 231 11, 645 3, 123 3, 813 1, 180 1, 773 604 1, 152 923 406 3, 2 57 1 5 ,7 3 3 11, 812 3, 350 3, 673 1, 352 1, 745 5 86 1, 106 932 4 06 2, 583 14, 682 11, 181 2, 974 3, 676 1, 146 1, 700 597 1, 088 900 406 2, 181 Nonmetropolitan areas7 ------— ------14, 198 10, 733 2, 862 3, 578 1,133 1, 700 533 927 87 8 4 06 2, 181 Sou th : 13, 883 10, 740 3, 019 3, 123 1, 185 1, 687 598 1, 1 28 87 8 4 0 6 1, 859 13, 600 10, 633 2, 938 3, 094 1, 179 1, 668 5 97 1, 157 873 4 0 6 1, 6 8 8 Baltimore, M d------16, 094 11, 685 3, 219 3, 549 1 ,2 2 9 1, 815 694 1, 179 925 406 3, 07 8 Baton Rouge, L a ------1 4 ,5 6 7 11, 196 3, 153 3,474 1,231 1, 620 571 1, 147 901 406 2, 0 64 1 4 ,6 2 0 11, 395 3, 091 3, 606 1, 218 1, 65 6 737 1, 159 911 406 1, 9 0 8 Durham, N. C ------14, 984 11, 114 2, 953 3,478 1, 165 1, 704 682 1, 132 897 4 0 6 2, 5 67 14,213 11, 091 3, 080 3, 295 1 ,23 1 1, 6 6 9 675 1, 141 896 406 1, 820 1 4 ,3 3 1 11,183 2, 834 3, 620 1, 236 1, 790 558 1, 145 900 4 0 6 1, 842 Orlando, F la ------13, 923 10, 878 2, 810 3, 507 1, 171 1, 599 647 1, 144 885 4 0 6 1, 7 5 4 Washington, D. C.— M d,—Va ------—----- 16, 345 12,002 3, 228 3, 917 1, 310 1, 726 650 1, 171 941 4 0 6 2, 9 9 6 Nonmetropolitan areas7 ------1 2 ,7 4 2 9, 802 2, 750 2, 908 1, 146 1, 561 522 915 831 4 0 7 1, 7 0 2 W es t: 14, 465 11, 028 2, 991 3, 348 1, 226 1, 663 7 18 1, 082 892 480 2, 065 Denver, C olo ------—— — — ————— ------1 5 ,4 1 9 11, 607 3, 073 3, 745 1, 178 1, 883 615 1, 113 921 406 2, 485 Los Angeles—Long Beach, C a lif ------1 6 ,2 2 5 12 , 287 3, 191 4 , 143 1,2 85 1, 774 781 1,113 955 4 8 0 2, 5 03 San Diego, Calif — — —— — —— — ------—— 15, 517 11, 7 86 3, 052 4 , 016 1, 168 1, 688 747 1, 115 930 480 2, 321 San Francisco—Oakland, C a lif------—— 16, 906 12, 742 3, 292 4, 392 1, 302 1, 868 725 1, 163 978 4 80 2 , 7 0 6 Seattle—Everett, Wash —------1 5 ,7 8 6 12, 254 3, 336 4 , 069 1, 156 1, 832 689 1, 172 954 4 0 6 2 , 172 Honolulu, H aw aii ------—-— — 19, 700 14, 018 3, 939 4 , 898 1, 536 1, 747 6 68 1, 230 1, 042 4 0 6 4 , 2 3 4 Nonmetropolitan areas7 ------—— —------1 4 ,1 2 1 10, 548 2, 785 3, 377 1, 098 1, 752 5 83 953 868 4 0 6 2, 2 9 9 Anchorage, Alaska — ■ ---- •------2 0 ,5 7 7 15, 006 3, 674 5, 829 1 ,4 3 5 1; 997 979 1, 092 1, 091 449 4 , 031

1 1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, age 38, a w ife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. ' 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, housefurnishings, and lodging out of home city. Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 15 percent for renter costs, 85 percent for homeowner costs. 3 All fam ilies were assumed to be automobile owners. 4 In total medical care, average budgets for m edical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by em ployer). Includes allowances for gifts and contributions, life insurance, and occupational expenses. 6 As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 7 Places with population of 2, 500 to 50, 000. Table 4. Comparative indexes based on a lower budget for a 4-person fam ily,1 autumn 1971

(U.S. urban average=lOO) Fam ily consumption

T o t a l C lo t h in g A r e a i n c o m e b u d g e t an d M e d i c a l Other fam ily T o t a l F o o d H o u s in g 2 Transportation3 t a x e s p e r s o n a l c a r e 4 c onsum pti on c a r e

Urban United States------100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 M etropolitan areas * ------102 101 102 102 96 102 103 104 103 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------93 94 93 92 120 93 85 81

N o r t h e a s t : Boston, M ass ------108 107 105 117 102 102 98 112 129 Buffalo, N. Y ------101 101 104 97 102 103 90 106 103 Hartford, Conn------110 111 107 124 107 108 97 114 1 04 Lancaster, P a ------98 97 103 94 93 98 89 94 112 N e w Y o r k —N o r t h e a s t e r n N . J ------105 104 112 100 86 101 110 111 111 Philadelphia, Pa,—N. J ------103 100 107 91 93 100 101 106 133 Pittsburgh, Pa ------98 96 101 92 97 100 85 99 115 Portland, Maine ------103 104 103 112 95 99 95 113 96 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------98 98 101 94 126 93 90 83 95 North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iow a------97 97 93 100 86 108 90 102 106 Champaign—U rbana.Ill------104 105 98 121 91 105 100 100 108 C h ic a g o , 111.—N o r t h w e s t e r n , I n d ------104 105 104 105 105 104 105 107 107 Cincinnati, Ohior-Ky.—Ind ------95 95 99 89 98 99 85 104 93 Cleveland, Ohio------— 100 101 100 98 104 104 100 105 97 Dayton, Ohio ------96 97 98 95 93 98 90 106 91 Detroit, M ich ------98 98 102 92 ' 95 102 101 102 96 Green Bay, W is ------97 96 94 98 87 108 88 9 6 114 Indianapolis, Ind------100 101 99 103 101 99 101 109 97 Kans'as City, M o.—Kans ------100 100 101 96 103 106 97 102 104 Milwaukee, W is ------101 99 94 105 92 105 94 102 124 Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn ------100 99 97 102 95 103 94 103 114 St. Louis, M o.—Ill ------100 100 104 96 110 101 92 99 103 2 1 Wichita, Kans ------95 95 96 97 85 98 94 96 87 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------96 97 94 102 118 96 83 82 92 S ou th : Atlanta, Ga ------93 94 92 94 91 96 94 107 78 Austin, T ex ------88 90 90 84 87 96 93 100 68 Baltimore, M d------— — 104 102 95 111 99 101 109 104 125 Baton Rouge, L a ------91 93 96 88 92 92 90 102 73 Dallas, Tex------94 96 93 92 92 93 116 104 77 Durham, N. C ------97 97 91 103 86 97 108 102 100 Houston, Tex ------—------93 94 94 88 95 94 106 102 75 Nashville, Tenn ------91 93 90 93 93 100 88 103 73 Orlando, F la------94 96 88 106 89 90 102 103 77 Washington, D. C.—M d.—V a------104 103 99 113 101 95 102 106 117 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------87 88 88 84 117 88 81 81 70 W e s t : Bakersfield, C alif------98 98 98 92 98 102 113 94 84 Denver, Colo ------95 96 9 6 90 97 102 96 96 85 Los Angeles—Long Beach, C alif ------106 106 98 112 103 107 122 98 99 San Diego, C alif ------103 103 98 106 100 103 116 97 92 San Francisco—Oakland, C a lif------111 110 102 123 103 112 113 103 108 Seattle—Everett, W ash ------106 107 106 111 97 112 109 104 99 Honolulu, Hawaii ------125 122 124 142 114 106 105 108 167 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------100 99 95 101 123 105 91 79 108 Anchorage, Alaska ------153 149 124 202 169 119 155 95 227

1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefumishings. All fam ilies with the lower budget are assumed to be renters. 3 Average budgets for automobile owners and nonowners are weighted by the following proportions of fam ilies: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both automobile owners and nonowners: A ll other m etropolitan areas, 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetropolitan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. 4 In total m edical care, average budgets for m edical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). 5 As defined in 1960-61, For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 6 Places with population of 2, 500 to 50,000. Table 5. Comparative indexes based on an intermediate budget for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971

(U .S. urban average = 100)

Fam ily consumption P e r s o n a l C lo th in g . T o t a l O t h e r in c o m e Area budget an d M e d ic a l T o t a l F o o d Housing 2 Transportation 3 f a m i l y t a x e s p e r s o n a l c a r e 4 consumption c a r e

Urban United States ------100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Metropolitan areas5 — ------102 102 102 103 101 102 103 104 104 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------———------89 90 92 86 98 93 85 84 82

N o r t h e a s t : Boston, Mass ------117 115 108 134 106 102 98 111 141 Buffalo, N. Y ------106 106 106 109 108 103 91 106 114 Hartford, Conn ------110 112 110 117 118 109 97 113 98 Lancaster, Pa ------98 98 105 92 100 99 89 98 1C2 New York—Northeastern New Jersey ------115 113 116 124 95 101 109 111 131 Philadelphia, Pa. —N. J ------104 102 109 98 96 100 101 106 119 Pittsburgh, Pa ------98 97 103 89 98 101 85 101 103 Portland, Maine ------102 103 107 101 106 99 95 109 94 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------98 98 102 101 101 92 90 89 96 North Central. Cedar Rapids, Iowa------101 99 91 104 102 108 91 101 111 Cham paign—Urbana, 111 ------102 103 96 109 103 105 100 100 101 C h ic a g o , 111.—N o r t h w e s t e r n I n d ia n a ------105 105 101 109 106 104 105 104 105 Cincinnati, Ohio—K y.—In d------— 96 96 97 94 102 99 85 101 90 Cleveland, O hio------— 103 105 98 113 103 104 100 105 97 Dayton, Ohio ------93 94 96 88 98 98 90 104 83 Detroit, M ich ------98 98 101 93 95 103 101 100 98 Green Bay, W is ------100 97 92 100 96 107 88 96 117 Indianapolis, Ind------101 102 97 104 110 99 101 107 97 Kansas City, M o.—Kans ------100 100 99 96 108 106 97 101 101

13 Milwaukee, Wis ------— 107 103 93 117 98 104 94 102 131 Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn ------102 98 96 98 101 103 94 103 127 St. Louis, M o.—Ill ------100 100 102 .96 109 101 92 98 100 Wichita, Kans ------93 94 93 93 94 98 94 97 85 Nonm etropolitan areas 6------92 92 91 93 99 96 83 84 88

Atlanta, G a. ------89 91 93 79 98 96 94 103 77 Austin, Tex ------— 86 88 90 75 97 95 93 101 66 Baltimore, Md ------— 100 98 98 90 101 102 109 104 119 Baton Rouge, L a ------90 92 98 80 101 93 90 101 77 Dallas, Tex ------92 94 93 85 100 94 116 102 74 Durham, N. C ------96 95 92 91 95 97 108 101 100 Houston, Tex ------90 92 95 81 101 95 106 100 72 Nashville, Tenn ------91 93 90 89 100 101 88 102 73 Orlando, Fla ------— 88 91 89 85 95 91 102 102 70 Washington, D. C .-M d.-Va ------103 101 101 101 104 97 102 105 115 Nonmetropolitan areas6 ------84 85 89 75 96 89 82 83 70

Bakersfield, C alif------93 94 94 85 102 98 113 95 8 0 Denver, Colo ------97 98 93 95 100 111 97 96 93 Los Angeles—Long Beach, Calif ------100 101 96 100 101 104 122 97 91 San Diego, C alif ------97 98 94 96 101 100 116 97 87 San Francisco—Oakland, Calif ------106 107 100 113 105 110 113 102 101 Seattle—Everett, Wash ------— 101 104 104 103 99 109 108 103 87 Honolulu, Hawaii ------119 116 121 120 120 103 105 107 155 Nonm etropolitan areas 6------92 91 91 87 95 104 91 82 94 Anchorage, Alaska ------— 136 132 118 158 126 119 155 95 174

1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife-not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefurnishings. Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 25 percent for renter costs, 75 percent for homeowner costs. 3 Average budgets for automobile owners and nonowners are weighted by the following proportions: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, with 1, 4 m illion of popu­ lation or more in I960, 95 percent for owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas 100 percent for automobile owners. 4 In total medical care, average budgets for m edical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). 5 As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 6 Places with population of 2, 500 to 50, 000. Table 6. Comparative indexes based on a higher budget for a 4-person family,1 autumn 1971

(U.S. urban average=100) Fam ily consumption P e r s o n a l T o t a l C lo t h in g A r e a O t h e r in c o m e b u d g e t an d M e d i c a l T o t a l F o o d H o u s in g 2 T ra n s p o r t a t io n 3 f a m i l y t a x e s p e r s o n a l c a r e 4 consumption c a r e

Urban United State o...... ——- — ------100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 M etropolitan areas 5 ------— ------——— 103 103 102 104 102 101 103 104 105 Nonmetropolitan areas 6 ------— ------—— 86 87 89 82 92 93 85 83 77

N o r t h e a s t : Boston, M ass ------120 117 107 136 115 103 98 110 142 Buffalo, N. Y ------105 103 104 105 99 104 91 107 115 Hartford, Conn — ■■■ ——------106 109 106 114 108 109 97 112 93 Lancaster, Pa — ------— ...... 96 97 104 90 94 100 89 102 93 New York—Northeastern New Jersey -■ —— 121 117 117 127 110 103 110 111 147 Philadelphia, P a.—N. J ------————------— ----- 104 103 108 99 105 100 101 108 112 Pittsburgh, Pa— — ------— ------— ----- 97 97 102 92 95 102 85 104 96 Portland, Maine— ------— ■■ 98 100 105 95 98 100 94 106 87 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------94 94 98 94 96 93 90 87 88 North Central: Cedar Rapids, Iow------a 101 99 92 104 96 107 90 101 109 Champaign—Urbana, 111 ------— 102 103 97 110 98 105 100 101 99 Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Indiana — — ------104 105 102 104 114 104 1 04 104 101 Cincinnati, O hio-Ky.—Ind1 92 94 97 89 94 98 85 99 82 Cleveland, Ohio — ------— 101 103 99 108 98 103 100 104 91 Dayton, Ohio ------—...... 93 95 97 93 94 98 90 103 80 Detroit, Mich — —------98 99 101 96 92 102 102 102 97 Green Bay, Wis — — ------101 97 92 101 91 106 88 97 121 Indianapolis, Ind— —------99 101 98 1 04 101 99 101 104 92 Kansas City, Mo.-Kans- - — ...... —— 101 101 102 98 104 106 96 101 103 14 Milwaukee, W is ------— ■ — ■ 106 102 95 110 91 104 9 4 101 131 Minneapolis—St. Paul, M inn— ------——— 102 98 98 96 94 102 95 102 125 S t . L o u i s , M o . —I l l —------——-----——— 99 99 105 92 108 100 92 98 99 Wichita, Kans ------— ——------92 94 93 92 92 98 94 96 84 Nonm etropolitan areas 6 ------— 89 90 89 90 91 98 8 4 82 83 S o u th : A t la n t a , G a — —— — - —-----— ------87 90 94 78 95 97 94 100 71 Austin, T ex ------— 86 89 92 78 94 96 94 103 65 Baltim ore, Md— ——~------— 101 98 101 89 98 104 109 104 118 Baton Rouge, La —— ------92 94 99 87 98 93 90 102 79 D a l l a s , T e x —. . ------—.— — 92 95 94 91 97 95 116 103 73 Durham, N. C —— ------—------94 93 92 87 93 98 107 100 98 Houston, T e x ------— 89 93 96 83 98 96 106 101 70 N a s h v i l l e , T e n n —— ------— ----- 90 94 89 91 99 103 87 101 70 O r la n d o , F l a —------88 91 88 88 94 92 101 101 67 W a s h in g t o n , D . C . —M d . —V a — ------103 101 101 98 105 99 . 102 104 115 Nonm etropolitan areas 6------— .. ------— ..... 80 82 86 73 92 90 8 2 81 65 W e s t : Baker sfield, C alif------91 92 94 84 98 96 113 96 79 Denver, Colo ------■ ■ 97 97 96 94 94 108 96 99 95 Los Angeles—Long Beach, C alif— ------102 103 100 104 103 102 122 99 96 San Diego, Calif ------— 98 99 95 101 93 97 117 99 89 San Francisco—Oakland C alif—------— 106 107 103 1 10 104 107 114 103 104 Seattle—Everett, Wash ------99 103 104 102 92 105 108 104 83 Honolulu, Hawaii — ------——— ------—— 124 117 123 123 123 100 105 109 162 Nonmetropolitan areas 6— — ————— — ------89 88 8 7 85 88 101 91 84 88 Anchorage, Alaska ——————— ——— 130 126 115 146 115 115 153 97 154

1 The fam ily consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife hot employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 Housing includes shelter, household operations, housefurnishings and lodging out of home city. Average budgets for shelter are weighted by the following proportions: 15 percent for renter costs, 85 percent for homeowners costs. 3 All fam ilies are assumed to be automobile owners. 4 In total medical care, average budgets for medical insurance were weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for fam ilies paying full cost of insur­ ance; 26 percent for fam ilies paying half cost; 44 percent for fam ilies covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by em ployer). 5 As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of current and previous geographical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. Places with populations of 2, 500 to 30, 000. 2

The budgets, are not intended to represent a minimum or subsistence level of living.

Table A. Summary of annual budgets for a 4-person family at 3 levels of living, urban United States,S autumn 1971______Item Lower Intermediate Higher budget budget budget

Total budget $7,214 $10,971 $15,905

Total family consumption 5,841 8,626 11,935

Food 1,964 2,532 3,198

Housing 1,516 2,638 3,980

Transportation 536 964 . 1,250

Clothing and personal care 848 1,196 1,740

Medical care 609 612 638

Other family consumption 368 684 1,129

Other items 357. 560 937

Taxes 1,016 1,785 3,033 Social security and disability

payments 387 419 419

Personal income taxes 629 1,366 2,614

Consumption Budgets

Budgets covering consumption items only--food, housing, clothing, trans­ portation, medical care, etc.--were updated to autumn 1971 by applying changes in the Consumer Price Index to the spring 1970 budgets for these components. At the lower level, these items came to 81 percent of the total State of Hawaii Prepared by DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH & STATISTICS OFFICE Robert K. Hasegava, Director Robert C. Gilkey, Deputy Director Gordon Frazier, Chief

LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES April 12, 1972 (Preliminary)

Lanai & Item State Oahu Hawaii Maui Kauai Molokai

Civilian Labor Force 364,600 296,200 32,100 19,750 14,100 2,450

Unemployed 2 0 , 4 5 0 > 16,250 1,750 1,250 950 300 % Unemployed to Labor Force 5.6 5.5 5.5 6.4 6.7 11.3

Labor Disputes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Employed 344,150 280,000 30,350 18,500 13,200 2,150

Contract Construction 22,250 18,800 1,950 1,050 450 *

Manufacturing 23,000 16,700 2,750 2,100 1,450 * Durable Goods 4,350 4,000 50 250 50 * Lumber & Wood Products 1,250 1,150 50 50 50 0 Stone, Glass & Clay 1,500 1,350 * 150 0 * Other Durables 1,550 1,450 * 50 * 0 Non-Burable Goods 18,700 12,750 2,700 1,850 l,4oo * Food Processing 11,650 6,500 2,150 1,700 1,250 * Textile & Apparel 3,200 2,950 150 50 50 0 Printing & Publishing 2,600 2,300 150 100 50 * Other Non-Durables 1,250 950 250 50 50 0

Transp., Comm., Utilities 24,100 20,550 1,400 1,000 1,000 150

Trade 71,200 60,150 5,600 3,200 2,100 150 Wholesale 15,900 14,000 1,250 400 200 0 Retail 55,300 46,150 4,350 2,800 1,850 150

Finance, Ins., & Real Estate 19,500 17,850 850 450 250 50

Services & Misc. 62,850 52,500 4,450 3,400 2,350 150 Hotels 17,100 12,050 2,250 1,750 1,050 50 Other Services & Misc. 45,750 40,450 2,200 1,650 1,350 100

Government 79,500 69,450 4,700 2,650 2,250 450 Federal 32,350 31,450 350 200 300 50 Air Force 3,400 3,300 0 0 100 0 Army 5,950 5,900 50 * it * Navy 11,950 11,950 0 0 0 0 Other 11,050 10,300 350 150 200 50 State 36,000 29,450 3,100 1,800 1,350 350 Local 11,150 ‘ 8,550 1,200 700 650 50

Agriculture 10,250 2,500 3,150 1,950 1,650 1,050 Sugar 5,450 850 1,850 1,300 1,500 0 Pineapple 2,200 850 0 350 50 1,000 Other 2,600 800 1,300 350 100 50

Non-agr. self-employed, unpaid family workers & domestics 26,850 20,000 3,300 2,100 1,350 100

Agr. self-employed, unpaid family workers 4,600 1,450 2,150 600 350 50

* Less than 25. NOTE: Figures do not necessarily add to tobals due to rounding. Calendar No. 3 8 2 92d C o n g ress } SENATE { R e p o r t 1st Session No. 92-384

INDIAN EDUCATION ACT OF 1971

O c to b e r 1, 1971.— Ordered to be printed

Mr. P e l l , from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare; and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted, jointly, the following REPORT Together with supplemental views [To accompany S. 2482] The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which was referred, jointly, the bill (S. 2482) to authorize financial support for improvements in Indian educa­ tion and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill (as amended) do pass. The amendments are as follows: (1) On page 3, line 24, strike out “enrollment.” and insert in lieu thereof “enrollment: Provided, That the requirements of this sub- paragraph shall not apply to any such agencies serving Indian children in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma or located on, or in proximity to, an Indian reservation.”. (2) On page 5, line 16, strike out “ “APPLICATION OR GRANT;” and insert in lieu thereof ““APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS;”. (3) On page 11 insert a close quote and a period at the end of line 19 and, beginning on line 15, strike out all down through line 8 on page 12. (4) On page 12 strike out lines 9 through 18 and insert in lieu thereof: (b)(1) The second sentence of section 103(a)(1)(A) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows: “In addition, he shall allot from such amount to the Secretary of the Interior— “(i) the amount necessary to make payments pursuant to subparagraph (B); and ■(Star Print) 67-680 0— 71------1 2 “(ii) in the ease of fiscal years ending prior to July 1, 1973, the amount necessary to make payments pursuant to subparagraph (C)”. (2) (A) Section 103(a)(1) of such title I is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph: “(C) The maximum amount allotted for payments to the Secretary of the Interior under clause (ii) in the second sen­ tence of subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall be the amount necessary to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived Indian children on reservations serv­ iced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, as deter­ mined pursuant to criteria established by the Commissioner. Such payments shall be made pursuant to an agreement be­ tween the Commissioner and the Secretary containing such assurances and terms as the Commissioner determines will best achieve the purposes of this part. Such agreement shall contain (1) an assurance that payments made pursuant to this subparagraph will be used solely for programs and proj­ ects approved by the Secretary of Interior which meet the applicable requirements of section 141(a) and that the De­ partment of the Interior mil comply in all other respects with the requirements of this title, and (2) provision for carrying out the applicable provisions of sections 141(a) and 142(a)(3).” (B) The fourth sentence of section 103(a)(1)(A) of such title I is amended by striking out “and the terms upon which payment shall be made to the Department of the Interior.”. (3) The amendments made by this subsection shall be effective on and after July 1, 1972. (5) On page 14, line 7, insert the following: (c) (1) Subsection (a) of section 5 of Public Law 874, 81st Congress, as amended, is amended by inserting “(1)” after “(a)” and by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph (2): “(2)(A) Applications for payment on the basis of children determined under section 3(a) or 3(b) who reside, or reside with a parent employed, on Indian lands shall set forth adequate assurance that Indian children will participate on an equitable basis in the school program of the local educa­ tional agency. (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, Indian lands means that properly included within the definition of Federal property under clause (A) of section 303(1).” (2) (A) The Commissioner shall exercise his authority under section 415 of Public Law 90-247, to encourage local parental participation with respect to financial assistance under title I of Public Law 874, 81st Congress, based upon children who reside on, or reside with a parent employed on, Indian lands. (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “Indian lands” means that property included within the definition of Federal property under clause (A) of section 303(1) of Public Law 874, 81st Congress. 3 (6) On pages 15 through 23, strike out “American” each time it appears before “Indian”. (7) On page 16, beginning on line 17, strike out “agencies and other appropriate public and private educational and research agencies, organizations, and institutions (including” and insert in lieu thereof “agencies,” ; and on line 20, strike out “children)” and insert in lieu thereof “children”; and on line 21 strike out “tribes” and insert in lieu thereof “tribes, organizations, and institutions”. (8) On page 16, line 24, strike out “imposing” and insert in lieu thereof “improving”. (9) On page 19, beginning on line 12, strike out “and private agencies, organizations,” and insert in lieu thereof “agencies”; and, on line 10, insert “and, beginning on line 14, strike out “(except that no grant may be made to an agency, organization, or institution other than one which is nonprofit)”. (10) On page 21, beginning on line 10, strike out all down through line 6 on page 22, and insert in lieu thereof the following: (b)(1)(A) The third sentence of section 202(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out “July 1, 1972,” and inserting in lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”. (B) The third sentence of section 302(a)(1) of the Elemen­ tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out “July 1, 1972,” and inserting in lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”. (C) Clause (B) of section 612(a)(1) of Public Law 91-230 is amended by striking out “July 1, 1972,” and inserting in lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”. (2) For the purposes of titles II and III of the Elemen­ tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and part B of title VI of Public Law 91-230, the Secretary of the Interior shall have the same duties and responsibilities with respect to funds paid to him under such titles, as he would have if the Department of the Interior were a State educational agency having responsibility for the administration of a State plan under such titles. (11) On page 23, beginning on line 12, strike out “agencies and other appropriate public and private educational and research agencies, organizations, and institutions, Indian tribes and other Indian” and insert in lieu thereof “agencies, and to Indian tribes, institutions, and”. (12) On page 24, line 19, strike out “and private”; and, on line 20, strike out “organizations, or” and insert in lieu thereof “and”; and, on line 20, insert “and” after “institutions,”; and, beginning on line 20, strike out “tribes and other Indian” and insert in lieu thereof “tribes, institutions,” ; and beginning on line 21, strike out “(except that no grant may be made to an agency, organization, or institution, other than one which is nonprofit)”. (13) On page 26, on line 7, strike out “BUREAU” and insert in lieu thereof “OFFICE”; and, on line 8, strike out “BUREAU” and insert in lieu thereof “OFFICE”; and on line 10, strike out the open quote and “Bureau” and insert in lieu thereof an open quote and 4 “Office”; and, on line 19, strike out “Bureau” and insert in lieu thereof “Office”. (14) On page 27, line 11, strike out “Alaskan” and insert in lieu thereof “Alaska”. (15) On page 28, on line 5, insert “as added by this Act,” after “Congress)”; and, online 7, insert “as added by this Act” after 1965,”; and, on line 8, insert “as added by this Act,” after “Education Act,”. (16) On page 28, on line 12, insert after “program” the following: “of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare”. (17) On page 28, line 23, strike out “814” and insert in lieu thereof “874”. (18) On page 29, line 2, insert “education” after “Federal”. (19) On page 30, line 7, strike out “(a)” ; and on line 14, insert a close quote and a period at the end thereof and strike out lines 15 through 17. (20) On page 30, line 22, insert after the open quote “Sec. 706.”. (21) On page 31, after line 5, insert the following: DEFINITION S e c . 9. For the purposes of this Act, the term “Indian” means any individual who (1) is a member of a tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes, bands, or groups terminated since 1940 and those recog­ nized now or in the future by the State in which they reside, or who is a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any such member, or (2) is considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose, or (3) is an Eskimo or Aleut or other Alaska Native, or (4) is determined to be an Indian under regulations promulgated by the Commis­ sioner, after consultation with the National Advisory Coun­ cil on Indian Education, whicn regulations shall further define the term “Indian”. EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS B a c k g r o u n d o f L e g is l a t io n On August 6, 1971, by unanimous consent agreement, Title IV of S. 659 (the provisions on Indian education) was stricken from the bill and the language in that title was introduced as S. 2482, which was jointly referred to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and on Labor and Public Welfare with instructions that it be reported back to the Senate not later than October 1, 1971. Sponsors of S. 2482 are Senators Pell, Allott, Burdick, Fannin, Jackson, Kennedy, McGee, Metcalf, and Mondale. S. 2482 is identical with Title IV as reported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. It does not contain any provision which would eliminate impact aid funds from public schools on or near reservations. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held an open hearing on S. 2482 on September 20, 1971, to receive testimony from spokes­ men for the National Congress of American Indians, the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association, the National Indian Education 5 Association, the All-Pueblo Council and a spokesman for the Onon­ daga Nation. The witnesses proposed several amendments which were subsequently agreed to by the Committee. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs met in executive session on September 23, 1971, and, having considered the bill, reported it favorably, with amendments. The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare met on September 28, 1971, considered the amendments approved by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and made technical amendments thereto which Avere subsequently approved by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Amendments designated (2), (6), (8), (14), (15), (17), (19), and (20) are technical and conforming amendments requiring no explanation except as is noted below. EXEMPTION OP CERTAIN AGENCIES FROM MINIMUM ELGIBILITY REQUIREMENT (Amendment designated (1)) The purpose of this amendment is to exempt certain local educa­ tional agencies from the minimum Indian-enrollment provision of title III, in order to extend the benefits of this title to Indian children in isolated and sparsely settled areas, ivhere the need for special services is often the greatest, and to encourage increased enrollment on the part of Indians in these areas. DEFINITION OF “INDIAN” (Amendments designated (3) and (9)) These change the placement of the definition of “Indian” in order to insure that this broad definition applies to S. 2482 and the amend­ ments made to present law by this bill. The Avord “enrolled” is deleted before the Avord “member”, in the two places Avhere it appears, on the advice of the Indian Avitnesses that several tribes do not maintain up-to-date rolls of tribal membership. The broad definition is used in order to insure that State-recognized . tribes and off-reservation Indians are included in the definition in S. 2482; the exclusion of terminated Indians from this definition Avould not appear Avarranted. These native Americans do not become non- Indians by an Act of Congress; their formal relationship Avith the United States is simply changed by termination legislation. The Indian Education Act provides special programs for Indians because of the special, remedial education needs of Indian children, not necessarily because of any trust responsibility toivards, or treaty obligation to, these Indians. Non-terminated Indians in rural and urban areas across the country, just as Indians living on Federal trust lands, have special educational needs and problems of the nature described in the final report of the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. The needs and problems of terminated Indians are no different in kind from these other groups; in fact, they may be more acute. See part 5, pages 1981 and 1988, May 24, 1968 (Klamaths); Orfield, “A Study in Termination Policy,” in The Education ojf 6 American Indians: The Organization Question, Volume 4, Special Subcommittee on Indian Education, Page 673 (Menominees). It is not the intention of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to expand or reinstate Federal obligations to this group of Indians, so much as to recognize and provide program eligibility for them in legislation dealing with all Indian people. PAYMENTS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (Amendments designated (4) and (10)) The amendments designated (4) and (10) extend for one year the authority of the Commissioner of Education to make payments to the Secretary of the Interior for special education programs for Indian children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior. In its report on the Elementary and Secondary Education Amend­ ments of 1969 (Report No. 91-634, page 6), the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare recommended that the authorities extended by the Amendments expire by July 1, 1972. That Committee expressed the desire that prior to that expiration date, a comprehensive Indian education act could become law and be implemented. Since that time, the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare has reviewed the pros­ pects of enactment and implementation of an Indian education act prior to July 1, 1972, and has concluded that one more year may be needed with transfer payments under present law. In recommending a one-year extension of those transfer authorities, the Committee is also recommending that the law be amended to make clear that the Department of the Interior stands in the same relationship with the Commissioner of Education as a State educational agency does under those programs. AMENBMENTS RELATING TO PUBLIC LAW 874 (Amendment designated (5)) Section 2 of the bill is proposed to be amended to require that school districts receiving assistance under the “Impact Aid” program based upon the attendance of children residing on tax exempt Indian lands to provide satisfactory assurance that Indian children will participate on an equitable basis in all school programs. In addition, the amend­ ment requires the Commissioner of Education to exercise the authority under section 415 of the General Education Provision Act to require parental participation with respect to use of Indian Impact Aid funds. The committee on Labor and Public Welfare finds these provisions necessary to insure that school districts receiving Indian Impact Aid, do not discriminate against Indian children in the distribution of funds. Parent participation and assurance of equitable distribution of funds are two major recommendations of the report An Even Chance by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, with the co-operation of the Harvard Center for Law and Education. The need is documented by the hearings of the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education. Failure to spend an equal amount, on a per capita basis, on Indian as on other children is prima facie evidence, in the absence of a rea­ sonable explanation, of inequitable treatment. Parental participation requirements should in no event be less comprehensive than those presently in force with respect to title I of the Elementary and Sec­ ondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The committee on Labor and Public Welfare expects the Office of Education to insure compliance in fact with assurances of equitable treatment and parental participation requirements. ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF FUNDS (Amendments designated (7), (9), (11), (12)) In general these amendments limit eligiblility for funds under the various new programs to public educational agencies and institutions and to Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations. Eliminating the eligibility of private agencies and organizations is consistent with this Act’s mandate that priority be given to Indian applicants and the dual policies of furthering Indian control of Indian education pro­ grams, and of supporting the continued development of expertise in the field of education on the part of Indian people. OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION (Amendment designated (13)) S. 2482, as introduced, used the term “Bureau of Indian Education” as the designation of the administrative unit for Indian education pro­ grams in the Office of Education. Witnesses indicate a different term ought to be used in crder to avoid confusion between that unit and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Even though the name of the unit is changed to the “Office of Indian Education”, it will have bureau status in the Office of Education. SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INDIAN EDUCATION (Amendments designated (18) and (19)) These amendments are recommended in order to make clear that the National Advisory Council evaluates education programs within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and that it makes recommendations with respect to the administration and improvement of federally assisted education programs as they may benefit Indians. REPORTS SUBMITTED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t io n , a n d W e l f a r e , September 29, 1971. Hon. H a r r is o n A. W il l ia m s , Jr., Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Weljare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. D e a r M r . C h a ir m a n :.This letter is in response to your request of August 11, 1971, for a report on S. 2482, a bill “To authorize financial support for improvements in Indian education and for other purposes.” 8 The bill would add a new title to Public Law 874, School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas, to provide financial assistance to local education agencies to develop and carry out elementary and secondary programs to meet the special education needs of Indian children. The amount of the grant to which a local educational agency would be entitled would be equal to the average per pupil expenditure for such agency multiplied by the number of Indian children enrolled in that agency as determined by the Commissioner. There would be a ratable reduction of payments to such agency in the event that appropriations for any fiscal year were not adequate to pay in full that agency’s entitlement for that fiscal year. Grants made under this title could be used for the planning, devel­ opment and operation of programs specially designed to meet the special education needs of Indian children. Agencies with at least 10 Indian children, or with an enrollment of 50 percent Indian children, would be eligible to receive funds. Part B of S. 2482 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants for projects designed to test the effectiveness of programs for improving Indian educational opportunities; programs to provide eductional services not available to Indian children in sufficient quality or quan­ tity; training programs for educational personnel; and for dissemina­ tion and evaluation of the results of Federally-assisted programs. The bill would authorize $25 million for Fiscal Year 1973 and $35 million for each of the two succeeding fiscal years for such purposes. Part C of S. 2482 would amend the Adult Education Act by auth­ orizing pilot and demonstration projects, research, evaluation, and operation of adult education programs for Indians. For the purposes of making grants under this part, $5 million would be authorized for Fiscal Year 1973 and $8 million for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. The bill also provides, in part D, for the establishment of a Bureau of Indian Education within the Office of Education. The Bureau would have responsibility for administering Title III of Public Law 874, section 810 of Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and section 314 of the Adult Education Act as added by S. 2482. The Bureau would be headed by a Deputy Commissioner, appointed by the Commissioner from a list of nominees submitted to him by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Such National Advisory Council, consisting of fifteen members appointed by the President, would have wide responsibilities for advising the Commissioner, evaluating programs, reviewing applications for assistance and providing technical assistance on Indian education to local education agencies and Indian organizations. This bill additionally provides that, after Fiscal Year 1972, funds formerly set aside for the Secretary of the Interior under Elementary and Secondary Education Act titles I (Compensatory Education), II (Library Services), and III (Supplementary Educational Centers and Services), and under the Education of the Handicapped Act would be discontinued. Full funding of all parts of S. 2482 would result in an estimated cost of $118.5 million for Fiscal Year 1973, the initial year of operation. Due to the magnitude of the cost of this provision, and consistent with the Administration policy of avoiding unnecessary new categorical authorities in OE grant programs, we do not support the addition of 9 the proposed amendment to Public Law 874. Further, the proposed amendment to Public Law 874 would extensively duplicate Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since most Indian children are from low-income families. The sections of S. 2482 summarized above treat several issues in Indian education including: (a) the role of the U.S. Office of Educa­ tion in Indian education, (b) developmental and innovative needs in Indian education, (c) the organizational structure of OE’s effort in Indian education, and (d) the manner in which Indian educators and Indian representatives can effectively participate in policy decisions that pertain to their people. While we applaud the spirit and the objectives of S. 2482, we are not convinced that the bill constitutes the best response to the issues listed above. The Indian Education Policy Task Group, which Commissioner Marland established and referred to in his April testimony before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee is actively reviewing the general role of the Office of Education in Indian education and is considering a number of alternatives, many of which coidd be instituted without additional legislation. The Task Group is in the process of submitting its review and final recommendations to the Commissioner. Since this process has not been completed, we do not favor enactment of S. 2482. Further, we oppose the creation by statute of a Bureau of Indian Education within the Office of Education. The legislating of adminis­ trative structure does not necessarily serve the need for comprehensive planning and flexibility to cope with changes in problems, resources and responses over time. In addition, the creation of a Deputy Com­ missioner to head a single bureau would place that officer out of line with the existing Deputy Commissioners who administer the equiva­ lent of more than one bureau. The Task Group is now reviewing a range of possible administrative initiatives to create an optimal structure for serving the educational needs of public school Indian children. In his Indian message of July 8, 1970, the President expressed his support for Indian self-determination as a major goal of our national Indian policy. The Administration has proposed legislation to this end, which is currently pending before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs as S. 1573. We fully concur in the need for a mechanism to ensure meaningful participation of the Indian communities in the development of educational policy for Indian children. However, in S. 2482, there seems to be a potentially serious overlap of responsi­ bility between the Presidentially appointed National Advisory Council and the Commissioner and his appointed Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education. The rather unprecedented review and evaluation authority of the Council would seem to infringe on the program and evaluation responsibilities of the Commissioner and the proposed Deputy Commissioner for Indian Education. In addition, the advisory function of the proposed National Advisory Council duplicates the advisory role of the recently created Education Subcommittee of the National Council on Indian Opportunity. We believe that the provisions of S. 2482 stand in substantial contradiction to Administration education policy and recommend against passage of this legislation.

6 7 -6 8 0 0 — 71--- 2 10 We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. Sincerely, E l l io t L. R ic h a r d s o n , Secretary. U.S. Department of the Interior, O f f ic e o f t h e S e c r e t a r y , Washington, D.C., September 29, 1971. Hon. H e n r y M. J a c k s o n , Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. D e a r M r . C h a ir m a n : This is in response to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2482, a bill “To authorize financial support for improvements in Indian education and for other purposes.” We recommend against enactment of this bill. S. 2482 is divided into five major parts: Part A amends Public Law 874 of the 81st Congress which provides federal assistance to local educational agencies in areas impacted by Federal activities by adding a special category for Indian children. Part B amends Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Educa­ tion Act of 1965 to fund innovative Indian education programs in public and private educational organizations. Part C amends the Adult Education Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-750— Title III) to add a new section providing adult education programs for Indians. Part D creates a Bureau of Indian Education within the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and an independent National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Part E contains miscellaneous provisions dealing with higher edu­ cation for Indian students and their teachers. S. 2482 first appeared as Title IV in the Committee Print of S. 659, dated August 3, 1971. When S. 659 was passed by the Senate on August 6, 1971, Title IV was stricken by unanimous consent and the language was introduced as S. 2482 on the same day. A single day of hearings on S. 2482 was held on September 20, 1971, at which the National Con­ gress of American Indians and other Indian groups generally opposed the bill. We have not had a sufficient opportunity since the introduction of S. 2482 to consult adequately with Indian groups about it. On a matter as important as Iudian education, we believe that consultation with a broad cross-section of the Indian community is essential before a Federal policy is formulated. This is a central element in President Nixon’s policy of promoting maximum Indian self-determination in the management of their affairs. In view of the lack of opportunity for consultation, we have no alternative but to recommend against enact­ ment of S. 2482 at this time. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. Sincerely yours, H a r r is o n L o e s c h , Assistant Secretary off the Interior. 11 COST ESTIMATES PURSUANT TO SECTION 252 OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970 In accordance with section 252(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-150, 91st Congress), the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare estimates that the new obligational author­ ity which would be incurred in carrying out S. 2482 in the fiscal years ending June 30, 1972, 1973, and 1974, would be as follows:

ESTIMATED NEW OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY— FISCAL YEARS 1973, 1974, 1975

[In millions of dollars]

Subject 1973 1974 1975

Sec. 2: (a) Entitlements to local educational agencies...... 75.5 82.5 90.8 (b) Transfer to Secretary of Interior...... 1 2 . 0 . .. . Sec. 3: (a) Special programs and projects...... 35.0 35.0 35.0 (b) Transfers to Secretary of Interior...... 0 . 5 ___ Sec. 4. Adult education...... 8.0 8.0 8.0

Total______131.0 125.5 133.8 TABULATION OF VOTES CAST IN THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE Pursuant to section 133(b) of the Legislative Reorganization of 1946, as amended, the following is a tabulation of votes in the Com­ mittee on Labor and Public Welfare: 1. Motion by Mr. Mondale to report S. 2482 with amendments. Adopted: 12 yeas, no nays. y e a s — 1 2 Mr. Williams Mr. Hughes Mr. Randolph Mr. Javits Mr. Pell Mr. Dominick Mr. Kennedy Mr. Schweiker Mr. Mondale Mr. Beall Mr. Cranston Mr. Stafford

n a y s — o

VIEWS OF COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE S. 2482 establishes three new programs: the first would assist local educational agencies in meeting the special needs of Indian students; the second would provide funds for special programs and projects to improve Indian educational opportunities; and the third would support the improvement of adult Indian education. An Office of Indian Education in the Office of Education and a National Advisory Council on Indian Education also would be established. Nonreserva­ tion Indians are eligible to participate in programs established under the bill, and community participation in programs for the specific benefit of Indian children is required. BACKGROUND In 1968 the special Subcommittee on Indian Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare was established, and funded by a Senate Resolution, to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of any and all matters pertaining to the education of Indian children. That subcommittee held hearings in all parts of the country, visited schools, examined studies and reports, and heard testimony from Indians, Government officials, and others with relevant expertise. In seven volumes of subcommittee hearings and five volumes of commit­ tee prints, the subcommittee documented the full details of the failure of Federal and State programs and policies relating to Indian education. In November 1969 the subcommittee issued its final report entitled “Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge” (S. Rept. 91-501), which recommended a number of legislative measures to raise Indian education to an exemplary level. The primary recom­ mendation in that report was: “That there be presented to the Con­ gress a comprehensive Indian education act to meet the special education needs of Indians both in the Federal schools and in the public schools.” S. 2482 is a vital first step in responding to this recommendation. S. 2482 was originally introduced as Amendment Number 6 to S. 659, the Education Amendments of .1971, and was reported favorably at Title IV of S. 659. On August 6, 1971, by unanimous consent, the Senate ordered Title IV deleted from S. 659 and that title was intro­ duced as an independent bill (S. 2482) and was referred jointly to the Labor and Public Welfare Committee and the Interior Committee. SCOPE OF PROBLEM AND NEED There are currently almost 200,000 Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts in this nation’s public schools. This constitutes over 70 percent of the total Indian student population, the remaining children being enrolled (13) 14 in private schools and schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In three states—South Dakota, Alaska, and New Mexico—Indian enrollment amounts to 5 percent or more of the total state public school enrollment. The public school education received by Indian students has been subsidized to some extent by the Federal Government since the 1890s. The purpose of the legislation appeared to be twofold. First, it gave legislative authority to the policy of integrating Indians into the white culture, thus establishing the goal of assimilation with the public schools as the vehicle for attaining that goal. Second, it established the precedent of providing subsidies to public schools in order to encourage them to assume the responsibility for Indian education. This approach, initially established by authorizing the Office of Indian Affairs to reimburse public schools for the extra expense in­ curred by instructing Indian children, was formalized by the enact­ ment of the Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934, which permitted the Bureau of Indian Affairs to contract with states to provide for the education of Indian students. Indian education was further subsidized in 1951 with the enactment of the federally impacted area legislation— Public Laws 815 and 874 of the Eighty-first Congress. Indian children have, since 1966, also benefited from specific participation in various programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In spite of these federal efforts, the Indian Education Subcommittee in 1969 found Indian education to be a national tragedy. Some of its general findings include the following: Dropout rates are twice the national average in both public and Federal schools. Some school districts have dropout rates ap­ proaching 100 percent; Achievement levels of Indian children are 2 to 3 years below those of white students; and the Indian child falls progressively further behind the longer he stays in school; One-fourth of elementary and secondary school teachers—by their own admission—would prefer not to teach Indian children; Indian children, more than any other minority group, believe themselves to be “below average” in intelligence, even though evi­ dence is contrary to this belief. While local school districts themselves must share part of the re­ sponsibility, the Indian Education Subcommittee concluded that the Federal Government had failed to live up to its responsibilities in pro­ viding funds and leadership for assisting public school districts to better understand and meet the special needs of Indian students. We have concluded that our national policies for educating American Indians are a failure of major proportions. They have not offered Indian children—either in years past or today—an educational opportunity anywhere near equal to that offered the great bulk of American children. Past generations of lawmakers and administrators have failed the American Indian. Our own generation thus faces a challenge—we can continue the unacceptable policies and programs of the past or we can recognize our failures, review our commitments, and reinvest our efforts with new energy. One general principle which applies to the range of Indian education programs established in this bill is that they are addressed to all Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts in this country. The bill generally recognizes that as to urban Indians, terminated tribes, and other non-Federal Indians, there exists a responsibility on the part of the 15 Federal Government—at minimum, remedial in nature—to provide educational assistance. Both the termination policies of the 1950s and the continuing relocation programs have intensified the im­ poverishment and educational deprivation of many of the so called non-Federal Indians. Thus the grant and entitlement provisions of this bill, by applying to all Indians, are directed in part at remedying the consequences of past Federal policies and programs.

ELEMENTARY* SECONDARY EDUCATION

How many Indiana are In elementary-secondary schoole?

247,000 (Fall 1968)

What klndi of achools enrolled these students?

NUM BER OF P U P IL S 200,000

177,500* afwdanfa 150,000

100,000

50,000 52,500 ttudanf a 17,000 • tudtn M 0 PRIVATE BIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOLS -SCHOOLS ^Includes 57,000 student identified as Indians by the Office fo’> Civil Rightfr Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not iocluder' in Byreau Of Indian Affairs statistic.-?.

Sources of Data: (1) Dept, of H.E.W. News Release, January 4,* 1970«

(2) Fiscal Year 1969 Statistics Concerning Indian Education, Bureau of Indian Atfalrs, Dept, of the Interior.

(3) Equality of Educational Opportunity, Office o£ Education, Dept, of H.E.W.

(4) Undergraduate enrollment by Ethnic Group In Federally Funded Institutions. Fall 1968. Office for Civil Rights, Dept, of H.E.W. 16 WHERE ARE PHE PUBLIC SCHOOL INDIANS ENROLLED? Indians enrolled In public elementary-secondary schools, by State, and percent of total Indian enrollment in the public schools: Fall 1968 U.S. : 177,500« 1007. (Data are shown only for States that enrolled.1,000 or more Indians)

Source: Dept, of H.E.W. News Release, January 4, 1970

WHAT IS THE CONCENTRATION OF INDIAN ENROLMENT IN EACH .STATE? Indian public school enrollment as a percent of total State public school enrollm ent: F all 1968 Percent for the Nation: 0.4Z

Indian enrollment amounted to 7.5% or more * 2 States 5Z or more of total State public 5.0 - 7.4% - t State school enrollment.in only three 2.5 - 4.97. - '4 States S tates: 0.4 - 2.4% » 10 States 1. South Dakota Less than 0.47« ■ 33 States 2. Alaska 3. New Mexico Source: Dept, of H.E.W. News Release, January 4, 1970 17

P a r t A .— S upplemental I n d ia n E d u c a t io n P r o g r a m s in P u b l ic S c h o o l s Public Law 874 was enacted in 1950 to provide financial assistance where Federal activities—especially military installations—resulted in loss of part of the tax base for local school systems. Indians were not included in Public Law 874 when first enacted, and its original purpose was unrelated to Indian education. This law is now, however, a major source of Federal funds for public school districts with substantial Indian enrollments. Many school districts, having large numbers of Indian children, have become heavily dependent upon funding under Public Law 874. Recent studies have indicated, however, that discriminatory allocation of educational services in local districts often means that 874 funds do little to improve educational opportunities of Indian children. Although a school district receives Impact Aid funds corresponding to a count of Indian children, this has not meant that Indians necessarily get their fair share of that money or of the district’s total revenues. Federal law does not require, for example, that Indian children receive a share of the Public Law 874 funds equal to that of all other children. Nor are there any present procedures for preventing discrim­ ination against Indian students in the allocation of state and local resources. Thus a recent Legal Defense Fund report on federal Indian education programs entitled “An Even Chance” found that in large districts where Indian enrollment is concentrated in certain schools close to reservations, there is usually a vast difference in the quality of education and facilities and resources offered in these schools from those offered in predominantly non-Indian schools. “The differences are so obvious,” concludes the report, “as to lead to the inescapable conclusion that Indian children are not receiving an equal share of anything.” In fact, public schools serving predominantly Indian children are often in greater need of assistance than other eligible schools because of the special remedial education requirements of Indian children. Yet Public Law 874 makes no distinction in their favor. Furthermore, the participation of Indian parents in the educational processes relating to their children is virtually nonexistent. Part A does not affect the funding provisions of Public Law 874 in - any way. It simply adds a new title III to be known as the “India Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act.” It is designed to provide new funds for special Indian education programs and to give Indian communities a voice in the use of those funds. Under this title, the Commissioner of Education is authorized to make grants to local educational agencies based on the number of Indian children in average daily attendance. Grants may be used for planning, including pilot projects to test the effectiveness of plans developed; and the establishment, mainte­ nance and operation of specially designed programs, including minor remodelling and acquisition of specially designed equipment, to meet educational needs of Indian children. They are authorized during a three-year period, from fiscal 1972 through 1975. Under section 305(b)(2)(B) the parents of children participating in the new entitlement program are to participate in each stage of planning, application, conduct, and evaluation of programs under 167-680 0 — 71--- 3 18 this part. The committee reaffirms its conviction that it is important that parents be afforded the opportunity to participate in the educa­ tional progresses affecting their children. Part A requires open con­ sultation by the local educational agency with parents of Indian chil­ dren to be served, including public hearings at which they will have full opportunity to understand the program; approval of the applica­ tion by a committee composed of a majority of such parents and selected by them; and continuing involvement in and evaluation of the programs set up under the grant. In order to enable the parent committee to function effectively with respect to its responsibilities under this part, funds may be allocated for their conducting necessary and pertinent business. Indians eligible for assistance under part A, as defined in section 9 of the bill include Alaska Natives and state-recognized, terminated, and urban Indians. The definition includes Indians recognized by the Secretary of Interior for any purpose, such as those residing in Cali­ fornia, and provides further that the Commissioner of Education may promulgate regulations under which groups or individuals other­ wise excluded would be included under part A programs, to allow for situations not presently forseen. The Committee intends that the definition be viewed as inclusive rather than exclusive; for example, one standard that the Commissioner may adopt in administering this part is one involving a community recognition mechanism, utilizing the parent committee to certify students as “Indians”. This approach might be particularly opposite in urban areas. Section 303(b) provides for an additional authorization of 5 per­ cent of the amounts appropriated for payments under part A to enable the Commissioner of Education to provide financial assistance to schools on or near reservations which are not local educational agen­ cies or have not been such for more than three years. The Committee intends that the funds provided under this section be used to support and encourage community run schools that may not be affiliated or may only be newly affiliated with the state system. In recent years sev­ eral innovative Indian-run schools have been established. Although these schools are run under different jurisdictions and administrative arrangements, they have proved that Indians can free themselves of non-Indian domination of their schools. And, more importantly these Indian efforts have proved educationally productive. One of the primary problems communities face when attempting to take over schools formerly run by the Federal Government is that of obtaining adequate funding. The funds authorized under this section should assist Indian communities in getting off the ground with locally controlled schools cr school districts. It is the intention of the Committee that funds under section 303(b) be used to support these efforts, and that the Commissioner actively solicit proposals for such Indian school development.

P a r t B — S p e c ia l P r o g r a m s The Indian Education Subcommittee studies indicate that Indian students in Federal schools score more than 2 years below national norms on achievement tests. Forty percent of the students drop out before graduation. Public schools enrolling Indians rarely include coursework which recognizes Indian history, culture, or language, and 19 in fact often use materials and approaches which are derogatory toward Indians. Clearly the educational opportunities for Indian children are in desperate need of improvement. Part B adds a new section 810 to title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which will authorize the Com­ missioner of Education to make grants for: planning, pilot, and demonstration projects to improve educa­ tional opportunities for Indian children; program to provide educational services not available in suffi­ cient quantity or quality for Indian children, and to establish exemplary programs and centers to enrich Indian education; training or retraining of educational personnel serving Indian children; and dissemination of information on Indian education and the evaluation of federally assisted programs. For these grants, $25,000,000 is authorized in fiscal 1972 and $35,- 000,000 for each of the three succeeding fiscal years. After June 30, 1972, funds for library resources, supplementary edu­ cational centers and services, and education of the handicapped—titles II, III, and IV of the Elementary and Secondarj’ Education Act— which were formerly allotted to the Department of Interior, will be discontinued. Funds for these purposes will be available under this new section of tit.e VIII. Schools serving Indian children will remain eligible to participate in bilingual programs under title VII, ESEA. Indian tribes, Indian educational agencies, and Indian organizations are eligible grantees under the various provisions of this part. Indian educational agencies, organizations, and institutions are to be given preference as grantees under this program. In the administration of these grants, the Commissioner should take affirmative action to insure that an adequate number and variety of applications from Indian sources have been filed for the funds available through this part. The Commissioner should assist Indian organizations and agencies in ap­ plying for these funds by providing information about the kinds of programs that can be funded, by providing technical assistance in writing proposals, and by providing all other appropriate assistance. There must be substantial participation by the parents of the children to be served and of tribal communities, where relevant, in the plan­ ning, development, operation, and evaluation of the project. Approval of applications or programs by tribal governments is not, however, required. In title III, ESEA, Congress provided that 15 percent of the funds appropriated be used for programs for handicapped children. To in­ sure maximum flexibility, the Committee has not required a fixed per­ centage set-aside for programs for the handicapped under this part. The Committee observes, however, that 15 percent is an appropriate figure to be allocated for such programs, and the Committee will re­ view grants made under this section after its first year of operation to determine whether the needs of handicapped Indian children are being met to the extent feasible without specific direction of a set percentage of the funds. It is contemplated that Indian institutions of higher education will be preferred applicants among institutions of higher education, and that Indian controlled local educational agencies be preferred appli­ cants among such agencies. 20 Increased development of culturally relevant and bilingual cur­ riculum materials should also be emphasized through grants made under this part.

P a r t C — A d u l t E d u c a t io n f o r A m e r ic a n I n d ia n s The Commission on the Eights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian observed in 1961: Indian parents, without a tradition of formal education behind them, find it hard to understand its needs or benefits. Poor families must sacrifice to keep their young ones in school. They have a hard time earning enough money for clothes and shoes and are loath to surrender the potential wage the chil­ dren might earn. Such parents rarely give youngsters the in­ centive to attend school regularly or to continue to higher levels. In such cases, adult education, which benefits not only the parents but indirectly the child, is called for. About 75,000 Indian adults have not completed a fifth grade educa­ tion. Less tban one-fifth of the adult Indian population has completed high school. Functional illiteracy is one of the major causes of Indian poverty and unemployment, and almost nothing is being done about it. The Indian Education Subcommittee observed: A major commitment should be made to the adult educa­ tion programs for American Indians. The national need for such a commitment is all too evident in the low economic status, rise in alcoholism, lack of employment capabilities, the inability of too many Indian adults to read and write, and the general lack of fulfillment of Indian adults on reservations. Part C of title IV adds a new section to the Adult Education Act. It would authorize the Commissioner of Education to make grants to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects, the dissemination of information, and the evaluation of adult Indian education pro­ grams. In addition, the Commissioner is authorized to assist in the establishment and operation of adult Indian basic education programs, to support a major research and demonstration effort in their field, and to determine accurately the extent of illiteracy and lack of high school completion of Indian adults. Again, as in part B providing for special programs at the elementary and secondary level, this part gives preferende to Indian applicants; requires participation by tribal communities and individuals to be served in the planning, operation, and evaluation of the project; and includes reservation Indians as eligible participants. Five million dollars is authorized for fiscal 1972 and eight million dollars for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.

P a r t D — Of f ic e o f I n d ia n E d u c a t io n : N a t io n a l A d v is o r y C o u n c il o n I n d i \ n E d u c a t io n Part D establishes an Office of Indian Education 'within the Office of Education to administer Indian education programs under the jurisdiction of that Office. It also provides for the appointment by the 21 President of an all Native 15 member National Advisory Council on Indian Education, to oversee and participate in administration of Office of Education programs in which Indians participate. The Dep­ uty Commissioner is to be appointed by the Commissioner from a list of names provided by the National Council. The Nation Council is subject to part C of the General Education Provisions Act. In administering this title, the Office of Education should establish a responsive complaint mechanism which would permit complaints of alleged violations of law or regulations to be brought to the highest appropriate level for consideration. This Committee believes that in the past the Office of Education has not recognized the priorities needed in Indian education and has failed to keep adequate data in this field. Furthermore, evaluation of programs funded by OE and dissemination of program information has likewise proved inadequate. It is believed that the centralization of authority and responsibility in a new bureau will go far towards rem­ edying these past inadequacies. Section 462 of the bill establishes the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. One of the primary findings of the Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education and the Education Subcommittee hearings was evidence of an overriding paternalism in Federal policy, resulting in programs and administration which crushed Indian cul­ ture and values. The Committee intends that the National Council, composed of Indians and Alaska Natives, shall have sufficient policy voice in the Office of Education to reverse this paternalism. The National Council is to participate in all facets of the operation of the Office of Indian Education, through advising the Commissioner regarding administration of programs affecting Indians, advising the Commissioner on the budget and funding process, reviewing applica­ tions submitted to the Bureau, evaluating Indian education programs funded through the Bureau, and reporting directly to Congress, with recommendations for improvements of Federal Indian education pro­ grams. Indian programs should thus be fashioned to meet Indian needs and preserve Indian culture, language, and traditional values. The Committee also intends that through review of the use of section 303(b) funds, and by technical assistance, the Council will strengthen and expand Indian participation and influence educational government at the local level.

P a r t E — M iscellaneous P r o v is io n s Various provisions of the Education Professions Development Act— title V of the Higher Education Act—are amended to reflect the edu­ cational personnel needs of Indian children and schools. Title III of the Higher Education Act, designed to strengthen developing institu­ tions of higher education, is amended in section 122 of this act so as to include recently created institutions on or near Indian reservations, in order to increase the availability of higher education for Indians. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Testimony before the Education Subcommittee indicated that the needs for construction of school facilities in public school districts im­ pacted by substantial numbers of reservation Indians has become acute. The extent of these needs can be seen from the fact that 22 the Indian applications under PL 815 last year were over $11 million, while appropriations, although at an alltime high, per­ mitted allocation of only $5 million for Indian applications; the backlog reflected in unfunded PL 815 applications if over $30 million; the immediate Indian needs were estimated last year by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at over $80 million. Public Law 81-815 is the only existing program to meet the need for facilities in these districts, and Indians must compete with military, territorial, and disaster-area needs for these meager funds. Since in the past two years funding of 815 has been increasing substantially, it was believed that funding of school construction on or near reservations should continue under that law with highest priority being given to Indian needs. Further legislation providing additional funds for Indian school construction would also appear desirable. AMERICAN INDIANS BY STATE— NUMBER1 AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION: FALL, 1970 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY

American Indians attending

100 percent 0-49.9 percent 50-100 percent 80-100 percent 90-100 percent 95-100 percent 99-100 percent minority American Indian minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools schools

State, 1970 Total pupils Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Continental United States___ ... 44,877,547 197,109 .4 131,014 66.5 66,095 33.5 42,147 21.4 27,474 13.9 13,466 6.8 3,810 1.9 3,490 786,975 39 0 32 81.9 7 18.1 7 18.1 0 0 0 0 OO 0 78,138 10,070 12.9 6,204 61.6 3,866 38.4 3,005 29.8 1,417 14.1 1,031 10.2 777 7.7 640 433,595 19,575 4.5 6,974 35.6 12,601 64.4 10,595 54.1 6,197 31.7 1,287 6.6 9 0 0 430,100 497 .1 492 99.0 5 1.0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 4,550,501 16,842 .4 13,966 82.9 2,877 17.1 633 3.8 332 2.0 219 1.3 74 .4 37 Colorado...... 536,237 1,219 .2 1,033 84.7 186 15.3 90 7.4 34 2.8 13 1.1 0 0 0 Connecticut...... 654,024 410 .1 370 90.2 40 9.8 23 5.6 12 2.9 5 1.2 1 .2 0 Delaware...... 132,560 76 .1 76 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 District of Columbia...... 145,330 7 0 4 57.1 3 42.9 3 42.9 3 42.9 2 28.6 1 14.3 0 ... 1,437,554 1,394 .1 1,305 93.6 89 6.4 18 1.3 10 .7 0 0 0 O 0 Georgia...... - ...... 1,098,990 406 0 401 98.8 5 1.2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 0 O 0 Idaho______174,556 2,192 1.3 2, 064 94.2 128 5.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illinois...... 2,310,784 2, 526 .1 2,148 85.0 378 15.0 151 6.0 101 4.0 45 1.8 26 1.0 5 23 Indiana...... - ______... 2,129,518 679 .1 641 94.4 38 5.6 31 4.6 17 2.5 6 .9 0 0 0 Iowa...... - ...... - 653,241 529 .1 517 97.7 12 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kansas...... 500,362 '1,468 .3 1,438 98.0 29 2.0 14 1.0 14 1.0 0 0 0 0 O Kentucky...... 721,078 48 0 44 91.7 4 8.3 4 8.3 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 Louisiana...... 842,469 250 0 210 84.0 40 16.0 1 .4 1 .4 0 0 O 0 0 Maine...... 235,674 564 .2 516 91.5 48 8.5 48 8.5 48 8.5 48 8.5 48 8.5 48 Maryland...... 911,618 373 0 366 98.1 7 1.9 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 Massachusetts...... 1,164,295 504 0 472 93.7 32 6.3 13 2.6 4 .8 4 .8 O 0 0 Michigan.-...... 2,148,736 4,375 .2 4,199 96.0 177 4.0 80 1.8 33 .8 25 .6 5 . 1 0 Minnesota...... 886,367 7,172 .8 6,801 94.8 371 5.2 37 .5 37 .5 37 . 5 37 . 5 37 Mississippi...... 535,089 103 0 83 80.6 20 19.4 14 13.6 14 13.6 11 10.7 1 1.0 0 Missouri...... 991,539 1,372 .1 1,347 98.2 25 1.8 17 1.2 8 .6 8 . 6 8 .6 7o Montana...... - 148,737 8,434 5.7 4, 364 51.7 4,070 48.3 2,317 27.5 1,520 .18.0 372 4.4 72 .9 72 Nebraska...... 276,433 2,134 .8 986 46.2 1,148 53.8 67 3.1 58 2.7 11 . 5 0 0 0 Nevada...... 127,750 2,839 2.2 2,122 74.7 717 25.3 502 17.7 255 9.0 88 3.1 88 3.1 88 New Hampshire...... 155,224 68 0 68 100.0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O New Jersey...... 1,457,887 471 0 334 71.0 136 29.0 23 4.9 10 2.1 7 1.5 0 0 „ 0 New Mexico...... 281,233 19,216 6.8 3,182 16.6 16,033 83.4 12,120 63.1 8,657 45.1 3,675 19.1 557 2.9 553 New York...... 3,498,522 5,669 .2 4,252 75.0 1,417 25.0 1,143 20.2 527 9.3 479 8.5 399 7.0 375 North Carolina...... 1,196,294 14,168 1.2 3,115 22.0 11,053 78.0 6,913 48.8 5,108 36.1 4,038 28.5 250 1.8 225 North Dakota...... 119,708 1,133 .9 1,133 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Ohio...... 2,442,550 1,118 0 1,061 94.9 57 5.1 20 1.8 18 1.6 14 1.3 4 .4 0 Oklahoma...... 550,963 28,647 5.2 26,679 93.1 1,969 6.9 28 .1 26 .1 15 .1 8 0 0 Oregon...... 458,989 3,721 .8 3. 286 88.3 435 11.7 433 11.6 432 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania...... 2,332,310 511 0 508 99.4 3 .6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 See footnotes at end of table, p. 24. AMERICAN INDIANS BY STATE— NUMBER 1 AND PERCENTAGE ATTENDING SCHOOL AT INCREASING LEVELS OF ISOLATION: FALL, 1970 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL SURVEY— Continued

American Indians attending

100 percent 0-49.9 percent 50-100 percent 80-100 percent 90-100 percent 95-100 percent 99-100 percent minority American Indian minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools minority schools schools

State, 1970 Total pupils Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number

Rhode Island...... 186,062 160 .1 160 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Carolina...... 638,033 295 0 171 58.0 124 42.0 7 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Dakota...... 150,566 7,536 5.0 5,263 69.8 2,273 30.2 1,324 17.6 677 9.0 368 4.9 0 0 0 Tennessee...... 895,185 305 0 299 98.0 6 2.0 3 1.0 2 .7 0 0 0 0 0 Texas...... 2,633,296 3, 588 .1 2,205 61.5 1,382 38.5 1,186 33.1 1,135 31.6 1,063 29.6 988 27.5 957 Utah...... 304,431 4,733 1.6 4,059 85.8 674 14.2 537 11.4 151 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 Vermont...... 84,616 12 0 12 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virginia...... 1,076,365 975 .1 717 73.5 258 26.5 124 12.7 108 11.1 108 11.1 0 0 0 Washington...... 805,122 10,611 1.3 8,932 84.2 1,679 15.8 72 .7 18 .2 18 .2 0 0 0 West Virginia...... 402,133 88 0 88 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wisconsin...... 989,987 7,069 .7 5,404 76.4 1,665 23.6 533 7.5 489 6.9 467 6.6 456 6.5 452 Wyoming...... 75.820 916 1.2 910 99.3 6 .7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Minute differences between sum of numbers and totals are due to computer rounding. Source: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Second National Survey of Racial and Ethnic Enrollment in the Public Schools (June 18,1971). 25

C oncentration of I nd ia n E nro llm ent in L arge C it ies 1. In Fall 1968 about 15% of the public school Indians were in the large cities (100,000 or more population) and another 15 to 20% were in metropolitan areas surrounding these cities. The following cities accounted for about half the large- city enrollment:

Number of Percent of Indians total city City enrolled enrollment

Tulsa, Okla _____ , _____ 3,196 4.0 Albuquerque, N. Mex______1,704 2.1 New York, N.Y______. . ______1,526 .1 Minneapolis, Minn ------. ------. ------1,490 2.1 Los Angeles, Calif ------1,204 .2 Chicago,III------826 .1 Phoenix, Ariz. (elementary and union high systems) ...... 619 1.6 Seattle,Wash ----- ... 603 .6 Milwaukee, Wis 501 .4

Source: Tabulated from the Directory of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Selected Districts, fall 1968, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 2. Only 42 school districts including the 9 large cities above enrolled as many as 500 Indian children.

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS UNDER PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC LAW 874 IN S. 659 FOR FINAN­ CIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF INDIAN CHILDREN, FISCAL YEAR 1974

Number of Average Indian per pupil children expenditure Totaj

Alaska 2,801 $1,154.86 $3,234,763 Arizona______26,426 767.78 20,289,354 California______2,975 858,91 2,555,257 Colorado - - 1,572 760.69 1,195,805 Florida - . - ...... 336 774.82 260,340 Idaho 2,032 612.11 1,243,808 Iowa 208 837.55 174,210 K a n s a s ' . ' . . . - I . 288 793.85 228,629 Michigan.. 263 936.11 246,197 Minnesota ______3,353 950.09 3,185,652 Montana ______8,825 802.93 7,085,857 Nebraska ...... --- 975 805.94 785,792 Nevada______- ______2,110 801.77 1,691,735 New Mexico 28,233 684.37 19,321,818 North Carolina...... 444 571.37 253,688 North Dakota 2,477 679.27 1,682,552 Oklahoma...... - ...... 11,042 637.50 7,039.275 Oregon______1,204 930.43 1,120,238 South Dakota ...... - 8,267 680.39 5,624,784 Utah... 3,084 642.06 1,980,112 Washington . ... 7,173 847.39 6,078,328 Wisconsin______1,600 913.56 1,461.696 Wyoming______2,023 854,41 1,728,741

Total...... — ...... --- 117,711 88,468,632

67-680 O—------711 26

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS UNDER PROPOSED AM ENDM EN T TO PUBLIC LAW 874 IN S. 659 FOR FIN AN CIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF INDIAN CHILDREN, FISCAL YEAR 1975

Number of Average Indian per pupil

Alaska _____ 2,801 $1,154.86 $3,234,763 Arizona..______26,426 767.78 20,289,354 California...... 2,975 858.91 2,555,257 Colorado... ______1,572 760.69 1,195,805 Florida ...... 336 774.82 260,340 Idaho _____ 2,032 612.11 1,243,808 Iowa ______208 837.55 174,210 Kansas ______288 793.85 228,629 Michigan ______263 936.11 246,197 Minnesota ...... 3,353 950.09 3,185,652 Montana.. ______8,825 802.93 7,085,857 Nebraska.. ______975 805.94 785,792 Nevada ______2,110 801.77 1,691,735 New Mexico...... 28,233 684.37 19,321,818 North Carolina...... 444 571.37 253,688 North Dakota______2,477 679.27 1,682,552 Oklahoma ______11,042 637.50 7,039,275 O regon... _____ . ______1,204 930.43 1,120,238 South Dakota _____ 1...... 8,267 680.39 5,624,784 Utah... _____ 3,084 642.06 1,980,113 Washington______7,173 847.39 6,078,328 Wisconsin______1,600 913.56 1,461,696 Wyoming______2,023 854.41 1,728,741

Total 117,731 88,468,632 VIEWS OF COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS On August 6, 1971, by unanimous consent agreement, Title IV of S. 659 (the provisions on Indian Education as included in the Higher Education Act) was stricken from the bill and the language in that title was introduced as S. 2482, which was jointly referred to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and Labor and Public Welfare with instructions that it be reported back to the Senate not later than October 1, 1971. Sponsors of S. 2482 -are Senators Pell, Allott, Burdick, Fannin, Jackson, Kennedy, Metcalf and Mondale. S. 2482 is identical to Title IV as reported by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. It does not contain the provision which would have eliminated impact aid funds from public schools on or near reservations. Deletion of this provision had been agreed to by the Labor Committee before Title IV was reported. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a hearing on S. 2482 on September 20, 1971, to receive testimony from spokesmen for the National Congress of American Indians, the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association, the National Indian Education Association, and the All-Pueblo Council. The witnesses proposed several amend­ ments which were subsequently agreed to by the Committee. The Committee met in executive session on September 23, 1971, and after considering S. 2482, ordered it reported favorably to the Senate. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs continues its long history of concern for improving the educational opportunity of Indian children and adults. This concern encompasses those Indians who have left the reservations as well as those who remain. The Committee is convinced that education, along with resource develop­ ment of Indian lands, is essential if the Indian people are to secure the full measure of self-determination to which, as citizens, they are entitled. The Committee believes that as a matter of national policy, the Federal Government must maximize educational achievement and opportunity for all Indian children, regardless of what schools they attend. We believe that any Indian education program must provide for meaningful involvement of the Indian people in planning and carrying out the educational program. Only through this procedure will the program be effective. For too many years the Indian people have had things done to them. It is the Committee’s conviction that the time is overdue for the Indian people to be given the means to determine for themselves what their needs are, and the wherewithal to meet these needs. S. 2482, with the amendments proposed by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, as concurred in by the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, is a step in that direction. (27) 28 The Interior Committee is proposing only three substantive changes in S. 2482. Believing that a law entitled the “Indian Education Act” should not, in fact, deprive some Indian children of benefits currently available, the Committee proposes to amend S. 2482 to restore programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to those children who are enrolled in Federal schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Further, in keeping with the desire of Indian people for self-deter­ mination, the Committee proposes to amend the bill to assure that funds under the Act will be directly available only to public education agencies or to Indian tribes, organizations and institutions, with preference, where appropriate, to the Indian groups. A third amendment extends the benefits of the Act to Indian children in small, isolated rural areas, where the need is often the greatest. All but one of the other amendments are primarily editorial, or clarifying in nature. An amendment to Section 5 of Public Law 874, 81st Congress, proposed by the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare was not considered by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee takes no position on the amendment. The Committee was impressed by the ability and sincerity of the Indian witnesses who testified on September 20. The Committee’s belief that the Indian people, through their leaders, should have a chance to express their views on the bill before it was considered by the Senate was justified. The Indian spokesmen proposed the type of amendments which the Interior committee subsequently approved. The report of the Secretary of the Interior dated September 29 states that the “National Congress of American Indians and other Indian groups generally opposed” S. 2482 in the hearings held Sep­ tember 20 by the Committee. This is apparently a misunderstanding on the part of the Assistant Secretary. A letter from the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians addressed to this point follows:

N a t io n a l C o n g r e s s o f A m e r ic a n I n d ia n s , Washington, D.C., October 1, 1971. Hon. H enry M. Jackson, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. D e a r M r . C h a ir m a n : We have been advised that the report of the Department of the Interior of September 29, 1971, on S. 2482 states that, during the September 20th hearings by your committee, the “National Congress of American Indians and other Indian groups generally opposed” S. 2482. We are extremely sorry that the Department has chosen to distort and misconstrue our testimony before your committee in order to bolster their own opposition to S. 2482. We take this opportunity to reiterate and reaffirm the position we took in our written statements presented at the September 20th hear­ ings. We are in general support of the concept and philosophy of S. 2482. However, we could not support S. 2482 without the amendments we presented to the Committee. We understand the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare have, generally, adopted 29 our amendments. In such case, we, NCAI, support S. 2482. Copies of this letter are being sent to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for their information. Sincerely yours, L e o W. V o c u , Executive Director During the September 20 hearings the Indian leaders also urged that the Congress enact a truly comprehensive Indian education act as soon as possible. The Committee is giving serious consideration to this request. The Committee staff has been directed to draft a proposal for further consideration by the Indian leaders of all groups of Indians, reservation and off-reservation, rural and urban. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE “INDIAN EDUCATION ACT OF 1971” . (S. 2482, as proposed to be amended by the Committee Amendments) S. 2482 amends Public Law 874 of the Eighty-first Congress, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Adult Edu­ cation Act, and related Acts to improve legislative authority for the education of Indians.

P a r t A — R e v is io n o f I m p a c t e d A r e a s P ro g ra m as it R e l a t e s to I n d ia n C h il d r e n Section 2.—Amendment to Public Law 874, Eighty-First Congress This section amends Public Law 874 of the Eighty-first Congress as it relates to Indian children, by inserting a new title III to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies for the Education of Indian children. CREATION OF A NEW TITLE III OF PUBLIC LAW 874, EIGHTY-FIRST c o n g r e s s Subsection (a) of section 2 redesignates the present title III of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress as title IV, makes appropriate redesignations of section numbers, and inserts a new title III, which entitles local educational agencies to financial assistance for programs and projects designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children. The amount of the financial' assistance to which local edu­ cational agencies are entitled is based on a computation of the number of Indian children for whom the local educational agency is providing free public education, and the amount of the average per-pupil ex­ penditure for free public education in the United States. Such new title III contains the following provisions: TITLE III—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCA­ TIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF INDIAN CHILDREN Section 801. (Short Title). This section provides that title III of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, as added by section 401(a) 30 of the bill, may be cited as the “Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act”. Section 302. (Declaration oj Policy). This section states a declaration of national policy with respect to the special educational needs of Indian children, and directs the Commissioner to carry out a program to meet these needs. Subsection (a) of such section 302 states that in recognition of the special educational needs of Indian children in the United States Con­ gress hereby declares it to be a policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and carry out elementary and secondary school programs specially designed to meet these special educational needs. Subsection (b) of such section 302 directs the Commissioner, in order to effectuate the policy set forth in subsection (a) of section 302, to carry out a program of making grants to local educational agencies which are entitled to payments under title III, and which have sub­ mitted, and have had approved, applications therefor, in accordance with the provisions of title III. Subsection (b) of section 302 entitles local educational agencies to grants in amounts computed under section 303. A local educational agency becomes eligible for the grant to which it is entitled when its application therefor is approved under section 305; such approval vests the entitlement with the local educational agency. Section 303. (Grants to Local Educational Agencies). This section sets forth the method by which the amounts of grants to which local edu­ cational agencies are entitled are to be computed. Subsection (a) re­ lates to entitlements for local educational agencies, while subsection (b) authorizes other grants under special circumstances. Subsection (a) of section 303 provides for a determination of the number of Indian children which forms the basis for payments to local educational agencies and of the amount which is to be paid for each child counted. Paragraph (1) of section 303 makes provision for determining the number of Indian children which forms the basis for entitlements. Entitlements based on determinations of numbers of children pursuant to paragraph (1) are limited to fiscal years ending prior to July 1, 1975. For the purpose of computing the amount to which a local educational agency is entitled under title III for any fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1975, the Commissioner must determine the number of Indian children who were enrolled in the schools of such agency and for whom such agency provided free public education. Paragraph (2) of section 303(a) controls the amount of funds for which a local educational agency is entitled, after determining the number of children upon whom the entitlement of that local educa­ tional agency is based. The amount of the grant to which a local educational agency is entitled under title III for any fiscal year shall be equal to— (1) the average per-pupil expenditure for such agency as deter­ mined under subparagraph (C) of section 303(a)(2) multiplied by— (2) the number of Indian children determined under sub- paragraph (1). Subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (2) provides that no local educational agency shall be entitled to a grant under title III for any 31 fiscal year unless the number of children determined under sub- paragraph (A) or subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of section 303(a) is— (1) is at least ten, or (2) constitutes at least 50 percent of the total number of children in average daily attendance at the schools of such agency. Subparagraph (B) contains a proviso which exempts from the requirements of subparagraph (B) local educational agencies serving Indian children in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma, and local educational agencies serving Indian children located on, or in proximity to an Indian reservation. Subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of such section 303(a) defines the term “average per-pupil expenditure for a local educational agency”. Such term means the aggregate current expenditures of all the local educational agencies in the State in which such agency is located, plus any direct current expenditures by such State for the operation of such agencies, for the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the computation is made, divided by the aggregate number of children who were in average daily enrollment for whom such agencies provided free public education during such preceding fiscal year. In computing the amount of current expenditures by a local educational agency or by a State, all such expenditures are to be included without regard for the sources of the funds from which such expenditures are made. Subsection (b) of section 303 provides for a special authorization of appropriations for grants to local educational agencies which cannot establish eligibility under subsection (a) of section 303, and for schools located on or near Indian reservations which cannot qualify as local educational agencies. Such subsection (b) provides that in addition to the sums appropriated for any fiscal year for grants to local educa­ tional agencies under title III, there is authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year an amount not in excess of 5 per centum of the amount appropriated for payments on the basis of entitlements com­ puted under subsection (a) of section 303 for that fiscal year, for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to provide financial assistance to schools located on or near Indian reservations which are not local educational agencies or which have not been local educational agencies, for more than three years, in accordance with the appropriation pro­ visions of title III. Eligibility for assistance under subsection (b) by a local educational agency does not deprive it of eligibility under sub­ section (a). Section 30 f. (Uses of Federal Funds). This section sets forth a statement describing the activities for which funds appropriated under title III may be used. Grants made pursuant to entitlements or under section 303(b) of title III may be used in accordance with applica­ tions approved under section 305 for— (1) planning for and taking other steps leading to the develop­ ment of programs specifically designed to meet the special educa­ tional needs of Indian children, including pilot projects designed to test the effectiveness of plans so developed; and (2) the establishment, maintenance, and operation of programs specially designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children. Operational programs under clause (2) of section 304(a) may include the minor remodeling of classroom or other space and the acquisition 32 of necessary equipment, if such space and equipment are used for special programs designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children assisted under title III. The requirement in subsection (a) that funds be used for “special programs” must be carried out in the light of any special circumstances existing in the schools of any local educational agency. The degree to which the programs must be “special” depends upon the percentage of children in the school who are Indian children: the higher the percentage of Indian children in the enrollment of the school, the greater the specialization of the program or project. In instances where the number of Indian children constitutes a majority of the children in a school, the upgrading of the quality of that school and the introduction of educational practices, techniques, and methods specially suited for Indian children in attend­ ance at such schools would constitute special programs under clause (2) of section 304(a). Section 805. (Application for Grants; Conditions for Approval). This section provides for applying for grants under title III, contains a statement of conditions for approval, and provides for amendments to applications. An entitlement of a local educational agency does not vest in that agency until an application from that agency has been submitted and approved by the Commissioner. Subsection (a) controls the content of an application. The first sentence of subsection (a) provides that a grant under title III may be made only to a local educational agency or agencies, and only upon application to the Commissioner at such time or times, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Commis­ sioner determines necessary. Such sentence contains an exception in the case of non-local educational agencies under section 303(b). The second sentence of section 305(a) contains seven clauses which set forth the required content of applications under title III. Clause (1) in such second sentence provides that applications shall insure that the activities and services for which assistance is sought under title III will be administered by or under the supervision of the applicant. Clause (2) provides that applications shall set forth a program for carrying out the purposes of section 304, and shall provide for such methods of administration as are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of such program. Clause (3) requires that in the case of an application for payments for planning, (A) the planning was or will be directly related to pro­ grams or projects to be carried out under title III, and has resulted, or is reasonably likely to result, in a program or project which will be carried out under title III, and (B) the planning funds are needed because of the innovative nature of the program or project, or because the local educational agency lacks the resources necessary to plan adequately for programs and projects under title III without such assistance. Clause (4) requires that applications make provision for adoption of effective procedures, including provisions for appropriate objective measurement of educational achievement, for evaluating at least annually the success and effectiveness of the programs and projects assisted under title III in meeting the special educational needs of Indian children. Clause (5) provides that applications shall set forth policies and procedures which assure that Federal funds made available under 33 title III for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement, and to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available by the applicant for the education of Indian children, and in no case supplant such funds. Clause (6) requires that applications provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to the appli­ cant under title III. Clause (7) requires that applications provide for making annual reports and such other reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to carry out his functions under title III and to determine the extent to which funds provided under title III have been effective in improving the educational opportunities of Indian children in the area served. Such clause (7) also requires applications to provide for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commissioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. Subsection (b) of section 305 sets forth the conditions for approval of applications under title III. Such an application may be approved only if it is consistent with the applicable provisions of title III, if it meets the requirements of subsection (a), and if it provides that the program or project for which application is made— (1) will utilize the best available talents and resources (in­ cluding persons from the Indian community), and will substan­ tially increase the educational opportunities of Indian children in the area tc be served by the applicant; and (2) has been developed— (i) in open consultation with parents of Indian children, teachers, and, where applicable, secondary school students, including public hearings at which such persons have had a full opportunity to understand the program for which assistance is being sought and to offer recommendations thereon, and (ii) with the participation and approval of a committee composed of, and selected by, parents of children to partic­ ipate in the program for which assistance is sought, teachers, and where applicable, secondary school students, of which at least half the members shall be such parents; and (3) sets forth such policies and procedures as will insure that the program for which assistance is sought will be operated and evaluated in consultation with, and the involvement of, parents of the children and representatives of the area to be served, in­ cluding the committee established under clause (ii) of section 305(b)(2)(B). Subsection (c) of section 305 provides that amendments to appli­ cations under title III shall be approved in the same manner as orig­ inal applications, except as the Commissioner may otherwise provide by or pursuant to regulations. Section 306. {Payments). This section sets forth the manner of making pajunents under title III, and places limitations on payments. Subsection (a) provides that the Commissioner shall pay, from time to time, to each local educational agency which has had an application 67-6S0 o—71------5 34 approved under section 305, an amount equal to the amount expended or to be expended by such agency in carrying out activities under such application. The direction for payments under subsection (a) is subject to the provisions relating to adjustments where necessitated by appro­ priations in section 307. Subsection (b) of section 306 contains limitations on payments. There are two limitations: one relates to reductions for State aid, and the other relates to maintenance of effort. Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) provides that no payments may be made under title III for any fiscal year to any local educational agency in any State, if such State has taken into consideration payments under title III in determining the eligibility of such local educational agency for State aid, or the amount of that aid, with respect to free public education of children during that year or the preceding year. Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of section 306 provides that no payment shall be made under title III to any local educational agency for any fiscal year, unless the State educational agency finds that the combined fiscal effort (as determined in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner) of that agency and the State, with respect to the provision of free public education by that agency for the preceding fiscal year, was not less than such combined fiscal effort for that pur­ pose for the second preceding fiscal year. Section 307. (Adjustments Where Necessitated By Appropriations). This section provides for making adjusted payments on a ratably reduced basis to local educational agencies when appropriations are insufficient to fully pay all entitlements for any fiscal year, creates an exception with respect to ratable reduction of payments, and provides for the method of increasing payments, should additional funds become available for such fiscal year. The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 307 states that if the sums appropriated for any fiscal year for making payments under title III are not sufficient to pay in full the total amounts which all local educational agencies are eligible to receive under title III for that fiscal year, the maximum amounts which all such agencies are eligible to receive under such title for such fiscal year shall be ratably reduced. The second sentence of section 307(a) states that if additional funds become available for making such payments for any fiscal year to which the first sentence of section 307 (a) applies, the amounts, the amounts which were reduced shall be increased on the same basis as they were reduced. Subsection (b) of section 307 provides that, during the fiscal year of any ratable reduction, the Commissioner shall fix dates prior to which local educational agencies shall report to him with respect to amounts of funds available to them under sections 306(a) and 307(a) and expected to be expended under approved applications; and he shall allocate the portions of such funds which he determines will not be used for the period of their availability, to local educational agencies whose maximum entitlements have been ratable reduced under sub­ section (a) of section 307, to whom additional amounts have not been made available to pay in full such maximum amounts as provided in such subsection (a), and who the Commissioner determines will therefore need additional funds to carry out approved applications. One exception is created: no local educational agency shall receive an amount under subsection (b) which, when added to the amount avail­ 35 able to it under subsection (a), exceeds its entitlement under section 303. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1968 Subsection (b) of section 2 amends title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 with respect to payments of title I funds to the Secretary of the Interior for title I projects designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children. Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) amends the second sentence of section 103(a) (1) (A) of title I. Under present law, such second sentence requires the Commissioner of Education to allot from the amounts reserved under section 103(a)(1)(A) to the Secretary of the Interior the amount necessary to make payments for out-of-State students under subparagraph (B) of section 103(a)(1), and the amount neces­ sary to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior. This authority expires July 1, 1972. As amended, the second sentence would continue the authority to allot funds through June 30, 1973. Paragraph (2) of such subsection (b) relates to the amount of, and terms upon which, payments are made to the Secretary of the Interior from the amount allotted under the second sentence of section 103(a)(1)(A). Subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) creates a new subparagraph (C) of section 103(a)(1) of title I. Such new subparagraph (C) controls the amount of, and terms upon which, payments are made to the Secretary of the Interior. The first sentence of such subparagraph (C) provides that the maximum amount allotted for payments to the Sec­ retary of the Interior under clause (ii) in the second sentence of sec­ tion 103(a)(1)(A) of title I for any fiscal year shall be the amount necessary to meet the special educational needs of educationally de­ prived Indian children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior. Such amount shall be determined pursuant to criteria established by the Commissioner. The second sentence of such subparagraph (C) provides that such payments to the Secretary of the Interior shall he made pursuant to an agreement between the Commissioner and the Secretary which contains such assurances and terms as the Commissioner determines will best achieve the purposes of part A of title I. The third sentence of subparagraph (C) provides that such agree­ ment shall contain— (1) an assurance that payments made pursuant to subpara­ graph (C) will be used solely for programs and projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior which meet the applicable re­ quirements of section 141(a) of title I (section 141 relates to applications for grants), (2) an assurance that the Department of the Interior will com­ ply in all other respects with the requirements of title I, and (3) provision for carrying out the applicable provisions of sec­ tions 141(a) and 142(a)(3) of title I (section 142 relates to assur­ ances from States). 36 Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) contains a conforming amend­ ment to the second sentence of section 103(a)(1)(A). EFFECTIVE DATE Paragraph (8) of subsection (b) of section 2 provides that the amend­ ments made by such subsection (b) shall be effective on and after July 1, 1972. AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT AID PROGRAM Subsection (c) of section 2 amends Public Law 874 with respect to the participation of Indian children in schools receiving payments under the Impacted Areas Program. Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) amends section 5 of Public Law 874 of the 81st Congress by adding a new paragraph (2), which provides in clause (A) that applications for payments on the basis of children determined under section 3(a) or 3(b) who reside, or reside with a parent employed, on Indian lands shall set forth adequate assurance that Indian children will participate on an equitable basis in the school program of the local educational agency. Clause (B) of the new paragraph (2) clarifies the definition of Indian lands for the purposes of paragraph (2). Indian lands means that property included within the definition of Federal property under clause (A) of section 303(1). Such clause (A) of section 303(1) de­ scribes as Federal property real property held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes upon which the United States has imposed restrictions on. Paragraph (2 ) of subsection (c) relates to parental participation in federally funded education programs and dissemination of information. Such paragraph (2) requires that the Commissioner exercise his au­ thority under section 415 of the General Education Provisions Act to encourage local parental participation with respect to payments under Public Law 874, 81st Congress, which are based on determinations of children who reside on, or reside with a parent employed on, Indian lands. P a r t B—Special Programs and Projects T o Improve Educa­ tional Opportunities for Indian Children Section 3.—Amendment to title VIII of the Elementary and Sec­ ondary Education Act of 1965 This section, in subsection (a), adds a new section 810 to title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which authorizes financial assistance for the improvement of educational opportunities for Indian children, and provides as follows: Section 810. (Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Indian Children). Subsection (a) of such new section 810 authorizes the Commissioner to carry out a program of making grants for the im­ provement of educational opportunities for Indian children— (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects, in accordance with subsection (b), which are designed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of programs for improving educational opportunities for Indian children; 37 (2) to assist in the establishment and operation of programs, in accordance with subsection (c), which are specifically designed to stimulate the provision of educational services not available to Indian children in sufficient quantity or quality, and the development and establishment of exemplary educational pro­ grams to enrich regular school programs in which Indian children are educated; (3) to assist in the establishment and operation of preservice and inservice training programs, in accordance with subsection (d), for persons serving Indian children as educational personnel; and (4) to encourage the dissemination of information and materials relating to, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of, education programs which may offer educational opportunities to Indian children. The second sentence of section 810(a) provides that, in the case of activities of the type described in clause (3) of section 810(a), pref­ erence shall be given to the training of Indians. Subsection (b) of such section 810 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants to State and local educational agencies and elementary and secondary schools for Indian children, and to Indian tribes, organizations, and institutions, to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed as a test and demon­ stration of the effectiveness of programs for improving educational opportunities for Indian children, including— (1) innovative programs related to the educational needs of educationally deprived children; (2) bilingual and bicultural education programs and projects; (3) special health and nutrition services, and other related activities, which meet the special health, social, and psychological problems of Indian children; and (4) coordination of the operation of other federally assisted programs which may assist in meeting the needs of such children. Subsection (c) of section 810 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants to State and local educational agencies and to tribal and other Indian community organizations to assist and stimulate them in the development, establishment, and operation of educational services and programs specifically designed to improve educational oppor­ tunities for Indian children. Grants may be used— (1) to provide educational services not available to such children in sufficient quantity or quality, including— (A) remedial and compensatory instruction, school health, physical educational, psychological, and other services designed to assist and encourage Indian children to enter, remain in, or reenter elementary or secondary school; (B) comprehensive academic and vocational instruction; (C) instructional materials (such as library books, text­ books, and other printed or published or audiovisual ma­ terials) and equipment; (D) comprehensive guidance, counseling, and testing services; (E) special education programs for handicapped; (F) preschool programs; 38 (G) bilingual and bicultural education programs; and (H) other services which meet the purposes of this sub­ section; and (2) for the establishment and operation of exemplary and innovative educational programs and centers, involving new educational approaches, methods, and techniques designed to enrich regular programs of elementary and secondary education for Indian children. Subsection (d) of such section 810 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants to institutions of higher education and to State and local educational agencies, in combination with institutions of higher education, for carrying out programs and projects— (1) to prepare persons to serve Indian children as teachers, teacher aides, social workers, and ancillary educational personnel; and (2) to improve the qualifications of such persons who are pres­ ently serving Indian children in such capacities. The second sentence of such subsection (d) of such section 810 states additional uses of grants, including the establisment of fellowship programs leading to an advanced degree, and seminars, symposia, workshops, and conferences which are part of a continuing educational program. Subsection (e) of such section 810 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants and contracts. Such grants and contracts shall be for the purposes (1) of dissemination of information concerning education programs, services, and resources available to Indian children, in­ cluding evaluations thereof, and (2) of evaluation of the effectiveness of federally assisted programs, in which Indian children may par­ ticipate, in achieving the purposes of such programs with respect to such children. Subsection (f) of such section 810 relates to applications for grants under section 810. The first sentence of subsection (f) states that applications for a grant under section 810 shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and containing such information, and shall be consistent with such criteria, as may be established as requirements in regulations promulgated by the Commissioner. The second sentence of subsection (f) states that such applications shall— (1) set forth a statement describing the activities for which assistance is sought; (2) in the case of an application for the purposes of subsection (c), subject to such criteria as the Commissioner shall prescribe, provide for the use of funds available under section 810, and for the coordination of other resources available to the applicant, in order to insure that, within the scope of the purpose of the proj­ ect, there will be a comprehensive program to achieve the purposes of such section 810; (3) in the case of an application for the purposes of subsection (c), make adequate provision for the training of the personnel participating in the project; and (4) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project in achieving its purposes and those of section 810. The third sentence of subsection (f) sets forth certain requirements for approval by the Commissioner of an application for a grant under 39 subsection (b) or (c). The Commissioner shall not approve an ap­ plication for a grant under subsection (b) or (c) unless he is satisfied that such application, and any documents submitted with respect thereto, show that there has been adequate participation by the parents of the children to be served and tribal communities in the planning and development of the project, and that there will be such a participation in the operation and evaluation of the project. The fourth sentence of subsection (f) states that in approving applications under section 810, the Commissioner shall give priority to applications from Indian educational agencies, organizations, and institutions. Subsection (g) of such section 810 authorizes appropriations. Such subsection authorizes to be appropriated, for the purpose of making grants under section 810, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $35,000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. PAYMENTS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Subsection (b) of section 3 relates to payments to the Secretary of the Interior under titles II and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Education of the Handicapped Act. Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) amends titles II and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Education of the Handicapped Act to extend for one year payments to the Secretary of the Interior under the programs authorized by such Acts. Paragraph {2) of subsection (b) provides that for the purposes of titles II and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and part B of title VI of Public Law 91-230, the Department of the Interior shall have the same duties and responsibilities with respect to funds paid to it under such titles, as it would have if such Department were a State educational agency having responsibility for the administration of a State plan under such titles.

P a r t C — S p e c ia l P r o g r a m s R e l a t in g t o A d u l t E d u c a t io n f o r A m e r ic a n I n d ia n s This part amends the Adult Education Act by adding a new section which authorizes a special program of assistance to improve educa­ tional opportunities for American Indian adults. Section 4.—Amendment to the Adult Education Act This section redesignates sections 314 and 315 of the Adult Educa­ tion Act as sections 315 and 316, respectively, and inserts after section 313 thereof a new section 314 with the caption head: “Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Adult American Indians”, which new section provides as follows: Subsection (a) of such section 314 directs the Commissioner to carry out a program of making grants to State and local educational agencies and other appropriate public and private educational and research agencies, organizations, and institutions, Indian tribes and other Indian organizations, to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed to plan for, and test and demonstrate the 40 effectiveness of, programs for providing adult education for American Indians— (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of programs for improving employment and educational opportu­ nities for adult American Indians; (2) to assist in the establishment and operation of programs which are designed to stimidate (A) the provision of basic literacy opportunities to all nonliterate Indian adults, and (B) the provision of opportunities to all Indian adults to qualify for a high school equivalency certificate in the shortest period of time feasible; (3) to support a major research and development program to develop more innovative and effective techniques for achieving the literacy and high school equivalency goals; (4) to provide for basic surveys and evaluations thereof to define accurately the extent of the problems of illiteracy and lack of high school completion on Indian reservations; (5) to encourage the dissemination of information and materials relating to, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of, education programs which may offer educational opportunities to Indian adults. Subsection (b) of section 314 authorizes the Commissioner to make grants, contracts for— (1) the dissemination of information concerning educational programs, services, and resources available to Indian adults, including evaluations thereof; and (2) the evaluation of the effectiveness of federally assisted programs in which Indian adults may participate in achieving the purposes of such programs with respect to such adults. Subsection (c) of section 314 provides that applications for a grant under section 314 must be submitted at such time, in such manner, and contain such information, and are to be consistent with such criteria, as may be established as requirements in regulations promul­ gated by the Commissioner. Such applications must— (1) set forth a statement describing the activities for which assistance is sought; (2) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project in achieving its purposes and those of this section. The Commissioner may not approve an application for a grant under subsection (a) of section 314, unless he is satisfied that such applica­ tion, and any documents submitted with respect thereto, indicate that there has been adequate participation by the individuals to be served and tribal communities in the planning and development of the project, and that there will be such a participation in the operation and evaluation of the project. In approving applications under sub­ section (a) of section 314, the Commissioner shall give priority to applications from Indian educational agencies, organizations, and institutions. Subsection (d) of section 314 authorizes to be appropriated for the purposes of section 313, $5 million for fiscal year 1973, and $8 million for fiscal years 1974 and 1975. 41

P a r t D — O f f ic e o f I n d ia n E d u c a t io n Section 5.—Office of Indian Education This section establishes an Office of Indian Education which is to be responsible for the administration of the programs created by S. 2482. Subsection (a) of section 5 establishes in the Office of Education, a bureau to be known as the “Office of Indian Education” which, under the direction of the Commissioner, is to have the responsibility for administering the provisions of title III of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), as added by the Act, section 810 of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­ cation Act of 1965, as added by the Act, and section 314 of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, as added by the Act. The Office is to be headed by a Deputy Commis­ sioner of Indian Education, who shall be appointed by the Commis­ sioner of Education from a list of nominees submitted to him by the National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Subsection (b) of section 5 provides that the Deputy Commis­ sioner of Indian Education shall be compensated at the rate pre­ scribed for, and shall be placed in, grade 18 of the General Schedul- set forth in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, and shall per­ form such duties as are delegated or assigned to him by the Commis­ sioner. The position created by this subsection shall be in addition to the number of positions placed in grade 18 of such General Schedule under section 5108 of title 5, United States Code. Section 6.—National Advisory Council on Indian Education Subsection (a) of section 6 establishes the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (referred to in this title as the “Na­ tional Council”), consisting of fifteen members who are Indians and Alaskan Natives appointed by the President of the United States. Such appointments are to be made by the President from lists of nominees furnished, from time to time, by Indian tribes and orga­ nizations, and shall represent diverse geographic areas of the country. Subsection (b) of section 6 provides that the National Council shall— (1) advise the Commissioner of Education with respect to the administration (including the development of regulations and of administrative practices and policies) of any program in which Indian children or adults participate from which they can benefit, including title III of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), and section 810, title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and with respect to adequate funding thereof; (2) review applications for assistance under title III of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Con­ gress), section 810 of title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and section 314 of the Adult Education Act, and make recommendations to the Commissioner with respect to their approval; (3) evaluate programs and projects carried out under any pro­ gram of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in

167-680 o— 71- 42 which Indian children or adults can participate or from which they can benefit, and disseminate the results of such evaluations; (4) provide technical assistance to local educational agencies and to Indian educational agencies, institutions, and organizations to assist them in improving the education of Indian children; (5) assist the Commissioner in developing criteria and regula­ tions for the administration and evaluation of grants made under section 303(b) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 814, Eighty-first Congress); and (6) to submit to the Congress not later than March 31 of each year a report on its activities, which shall include any recommen­ dations it may deem necessary for the improvement of Federal education programs in which Indian children and adults par­ ticipate, or from which they can benefit, which report shall include statement of the National Council’s recommendations to the Commissioner with respect to the funding of any such programs. Subsection (c) of section 6 vests with the National Council the authority, with respect to its functions under clauses (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (b), to contract with any public or private nonprofit agency, institution, or organization for assistance in carrying out such functions. Subsection (d) of section 6 provides that from the sums appropriated pursuant to section 401(c) of the General Education Provisions Act which are available for the purposes of section 411 of such Act and for part C of such Act, the Commissioner shall make available such sums as may be necessary to enable the National Council to carry out its functions under section 6.

P a r t E — M iscellaneous P r o v is io n s Section 7.—Amendments to title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 Subsection (a) of section 481 amends section 503 of the Education Professions Development Act to include language relating to the needs of Indians, specifically. Subsection (b) of section 481 amends part D of the Education Pro­ fessions Development Act by adding a new section which provides that of the sums made available for the pruposes of part D, not less than 5 percent must be used for grants to, and contracts with, insti­ tutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations for the purpose of preparing persons to serve as teachers of children living on reservations serviced by elemen­ tary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or supported by the Department of the Interior. Section 8.—Amendment to title VII of the Elementary and Sec­ ondary Education Act of 1965 This section amends section 706(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide as follows: For the purpose of carrying out programs pursuant to title VII for individuals on or from reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated on or near such reservations for Indian children, a nonprofit institution or organization of the Indian tribe concerned which oper­ ates any such school and which is approved by the Commissioner for 43 the purpose of section 706, may be considered to be a local educational agency, as such term is used in title VII. Section 9.—Definition This section defines the term “Indian” to mean any individual who (1) is a member of a tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes, bands, or groups terminated since 1940 and those recognized now or in the future by the State in which they reside, or who is a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any such member, or (2) is considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose, or (3) is an Eskimo or Aleut or other Alaska Native, or (4) is determined to be an Indian under regulations promulgated by the Commissioner, after consultation with the National Advisory Council on Indian Education, which regulations shall further define the term “Indian”.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): PUBLIC LAW 874, 81ST CONGRESS ****** * METHOD OF MAKING PAYMENTS APPLICATION Sec. 5. (a)(1) No local educational agency shall be entitled to any payment under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title for any fiscal year except upon application therefor, submitted through the State educational agency and filed in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner, which application gives adequate assurance that the local educational agency will submit such reports as the Commissioner may reasonably require to determine the amount to which such agency is entitled under this title. (2) (A) Applications for payment on the basis of children determined under section 3(a) or 3(b) who reside, or reside with a parent employed, on Indian lands shall set forth adequate assurance that Indian children will participate on an equitable basis in the school program of the local educational agency. (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, Indian lands means that prop­ erty included within the definition of Federal property under clause (A) of section 303(1). TITLE II—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDU­ CATIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES * * * * * * * TITLE III—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCA­ TIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF INDIAN CHILDREN SHORT TITLE Sec. SOI. This title may be cited as the “Indian Elementary and Secondary School Assistance Act”. (45) 46 DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 302. (a) In recognition of the special educational needs of Indian students in the United States, Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and carry out elementary and secondary school programs specially designed to meet these special educational needs. (b) The Commissioner shall, in order to effectuate the policy set forth in subsection (a), carry out a program of making grants to local educational agencies which are entitled to payments under this title and which have submitted, and had approved, applications therefor, in accordance with the provisions of this title. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES Sec. 303. (a)(1) For the purpose of computing the amount to which a local educational agency is entitled under this title for any fiscal year end­ ing prior to July 1, 1975, the Commissioner shall determine the number of Indian children who were enrolled in the schools of a local educational agency, and for whom such agency provided free public education, during such fiscal year. (2) (A,) The amount of the grant to which a local educational agency is entitled under this title for any fiscal year shall be an amount egual to (i) the average per pupil expenditure for such agency (as determined under subparagraph (C)) multiplied by (B) the sum of the number of children determined under paragraph (1). (B) A local educational agency shall not be entitled to receive a grant under this title for any fiscal year unless the number of children under subsection (a), with respect to such agency, is at least ten or constitutes at least 50 per centum of its total enrollment: Provided, That the require­ ments of this subparagraph shall not apply to any such agencies serving Indian children in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma or located on, or in proximity to, an Indian reservation. (C) For the purposes of this subsection, the average per pupil expendi­ ture for a local educational agency shall be the aggregate current expendi­ tures, during the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the computation is made, of all of the local educational agencies in the State in which such agency is located, plus any direct current expenditures by such State for the operation of such agencies (without regard to the sources of funds from which either of such expenditures are made), divided by the aggregate number of children who were in average daily enrollment for whom such agencies provided free public education during such preceding fiscal year. (b) In addition to the sums appropriated for any fiscal year for grants to local educational agencies under this title, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year an amount not in excess of 5 per centum of the amount appropriated for payments on the basis of entitle­ ments computed under subsection (a) for that fiscal year, for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to provide financials 'stance •’ to schools on or near reservations which are not local educational agencies or have not been local educational agencies for more than three years, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this title. USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS Sec. 304. Grants under this title may be used, in accordance with applications approved under section 305,— for 47 (1) planning for and taking other steps leading to the development of progra„ is specifically designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children, including pilot projects designed to test the effec­ tiveness of plans so developed; and (2) the establishment, maintenance, and operation of programs, including, in accordance with special regulations of the Commissioner, minor remodeling of classroom or other space used for such programs and acquisition of necessary equipment, specially designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children. APPLICATION FOR GRANTS; CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL Sec. 305. (a) A grant under this title, except as provided in section 303(b), may be made only to a local educational agency or agencies, but only upon application to the Commissioner at such time or times, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Commissioner deems necessary. Such application shall— (1) provide that the activities and services for which assistance under this title is sought will be administered by or under the super­ vision of the applicant; (2) set forth a program for carrying out the purposes of section 30 j, and provide for such methods of administration as are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the program; (3) in the case of an application for payments for planning, provide that (A) the planning was or will be directly related to pro­ grams or projects to be carried out under this title and has resulted, or is reasonably likely to result, in a program or project which will be carried out under this title, and (B) the planning funds are needed because of the innovative nature of the program or project or because the local educational agency lacks the resources necessary to plan adequately for programs and projects to be carried out under this title; (Jf) provide that effective procedures, including provisions for ap­ propriate objective measurement of educational achievement, will be adopted for evaluating at least annually the effectiveness of the programs and projects in meeting the special educational needs of Indian students; (5) set forth policies and procedures which assure that Federal funds made available under this title for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available by the applicant for the 'education of Indian children and in no case supplant such funds; (6) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to the applicant under this title, and (7) provide for making an annual report and such other reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to carry out his functions under this title and to determine the extent to which funds provided under this title have been effective in improving the educational opportunities of Indian students in the area served, and for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commissioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. 48 (b) An application by a local educational agency or agencies for a grant under this title may be approved only if it is consistent with the applicable provisions of this title and— (1) meets the requirements set forth in subsection (a); (2) provides that the program or project for which application is made— (A) will utilize the best available talents and resources (including persons from the Indian community) and will substantially increase the educational opportunities of Indian children in the area to be served by the applicant, and (.B) Ims been developed— (i) in open consultation with parents of Indian children, teachers, and, where applicable, secondary school students, including public hearings at which such persons have had, a full opportunity to understand the program for which assistance is being sought and to offer recommendations thereon, and (ii) with the participation and approval of a committee composed of parents of children participating in the program for which assistance is sought, teachers, and, where applicable, secondary school students, of which at least half the members shall be such parents; (G) sets forth such policies and procedures as will insure that the program for which assistance is sought will be operated in consultation with, and the involvement of, parents of the children and representatives of the area to be served, including the committee established for the purposes of clause ) (2(JB) (ii). (3) has been submitted to the appropriate State educational agency for comment and recommendations. (c) Amendments of applications shall, except as the Commissioner may otherwise provide by or pursuant to regulations, be subject to approval in the same manner as original applications. PAYMENTS Sec. 306. (a) The Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of section307, from time to time pay to each local educational agency which has had an application approved under section305, an amount equal to the amount expended by such agency in carrying out activities under such application. (b)(1) No payments shall be made under this title for any fiscal year to any local educational agency in a State which has taken into considera­ tion payments under this title in determining the eligibility of such local educational agency in that State for State aid, or the amount of that aid, with respect to the free public education of children during that year or the preceding fiscal year. (2) No payments shall be made under this title to any local educational agency for any fiscal year unless the State educational agency finds that the combined fiscal effort (as determined in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner) of that agency and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by that agency for the preceding fiscal year was not less than such combined fiscal effort for that purpose for the second preceding fiscal year. 49 ADJUSTMENTS WHERE NECESSITATED BY APPROPRIATIONS S ec. 307. (a) If the sums appropriated for any fiscal year for making payments under this title are not sufficient to pay in full the total amounts which all local educational agencies are eligible to receive under this title lor that fiscal year, the maximum amounts which all such agencies are eligible to receive under this title for such fiscal year shall be ratably reduced. In case additional funds become available for making such payments for any fiscal year during which the first sentence of this subsection is applicable, such reduced amounts shall be increased on the same basis as they were reduced. (b) In the case of any fiscal year in which the maximum amounts for which local educational agencies are eligible have been reduced under the first sentence of subsection (a), and in which additional funds have not been made available to pay in full the total of such maximum amounts under the second sentence of such subsection, the Commissioner shall fix dates prior to which each local educational agency shall report to him on the amount of funds available to it, under the terms of section 806(a) and subsection (a) of this section, which it estimates, in accordance with regulations of the Commissioner, that it will expend under approved applications. The amounts so available to any local educational agency, or any amount which would be available to any other local education agency if it were to submit an approvable application therefor, which the Commissioner determines will not be used for the period of its availability, shall be available for allocation to those local educational agencies, in the manner provided in the second sentence of subsection (a), which the Commissioner determines will need additional funds to carry out approved applications, except that no local educational agency shall receive an amount under this sentence which, when added to the amount available to it under subsection (a), exceeds its entitlement under section 303. TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES P a r t A — B a s ic G r a n t s DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 101. In recognition of the special educational needs of children of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low- income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance (as set forth in this part) to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs). which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children. 50 DURATION OF ASSISTANCE S ec . 102. The Commissioner shall, in accordance with the provisions of this part, make payments to State educational agencies for grants to local educational agencies for the period beginning July 1, 1965, and ending June 30, 1973. GRANTS AMOUNT AND ELIGIBILITY Sec. 103. (a)(1)(A) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for the purpose of this paragraph an amount equal to not more than 3 per centum of the amount appropriated for such year for payments to States under section 107(a) (other than payments under such section to jurisdictions excluded from the term “State” by this subsection). The Commissioner shall allot the amount appro­ priated pursuant to this paragraph among Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective need for such grants. [In addition he shall allot from such amount to the Secretary of the Interior the amount necessary to make payments pursuant to sub- paragraph (B) of this paragraph, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,and each of the succeeding fiscal years ending prior to July 1, 1972,the amount necessary to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior]. In addition, he shall allot from, such amount to the Secretary of the Interior— (i) the amount necessary to make payments pursuant to subpara­ graph (B); and (ii) in the case of fiscal years ending prior to July 1, 1973, the amount necessary to make payments pursuant to subparagraph (C). The maximum grant which a local educational agency in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands shall be eligible to receive [and the terms upon which payment shall be made to the Department of the Interior] shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Com­ missioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this part. (B) The terms of which payments shall be made to the Depart­ ment of the Interior shall include provision for payments by the Secretary of the Interior to local education agencies with respect to out-of-State Indian children in the elementary or secondary schools of such agencies under special contracts with that Department. The amount of any such payment may not exceed, for each such child, one-half the average per pupil expenditure in the State in which the agency is located. (C) The maximum amount allotted for payments to the Secretary of the Interior under clause (ii) in the second sentence of subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall be the amount necessary to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived Indian children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, as determined pursuant to criteria established by the Commissioner. Such payments shall be made pursuant to an agree­ ment between the Commissioner and the Secretary containing such assur­ ances and terms as the Commissioner determines will best achieve the 51 purposes of this part. Such agreement shall contain (1) an assurance that payments made purusant to this subparagraph will be used solely for programs and projects approved by the Secretary of Interior which meet the applicable requirements of section 141(a) and that the Department of the Interior will comply in all other respects with the requirements of this title, and (2) provision for carrying out the applicable provisions of sections 141(a) and 142(a) (3). (2) In any case in which the Commissioner determines that satis­ factory data for that purpose are available, the maximum grant which a local educational agency in a State shall be eligible to receive under this part for any fiscal year shall be (except as provided in paragraph (3)) an amount equal to the Federal percentage (estab­ lished pursuant to subsection (c)) of the average per pupil expenditure in that State or, if greater, in the United States multiplied by the number of children in the school district of such agency who are aged five to seventeen, inclusive, and are (A) in families' having an annual income of less than the low-income factor (established pursuant to subsection (c)), (B) in families receiving an annual income in excess of the low-income factor (established pursuant to subsection (c)) from payments under the program of aid to families with dependent children under a State plan approved under title IV of the Social Security Act, or (C) living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children (other than such institutions operated by the United States) but not counted pursuant to paragraph (7) of this subsection for the purpose of a grant to a State agency, or being supported in foster homes with public funds. In any other case, the maximum grant for any local educational agency in a State shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate maximum amount of such grants for all such agencies in the county or counties in which the school district of the particular agency is located, which aggregate maximum amount shall be equal to the Federal percentage of such per pupil expenditure mul­ tiplied by the number of children of such ages in such county or counties who are described in clauses (A), (B), or (C) of the previous sentence, and shall be allocated among those agencies upon such equitable basis as may be determined by the State educational agency in accordance with basic criteria prescribed by the Commissioner. (3) (A) If the maximum amount of the grant determined pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) for any local educational agency for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, is greater than 50 per centum of the sum budgeted by that agency for current expenditures for that year (as determined pursuant to regulations of the Commissioner), such maximum amount shall be reduced to 50 per centum of such budgeted sum. (B) In the case of local educational agencies which serve in whole or in part the same geographical area, and in the case of a local educational agency which provides free public education for a sub­ stantial number of children who reside in the school district of another local educational agency, the State educational agency may allocate the amount of the maximum grants for those agencies among them in such manner as it determines will best carry out the purposes of this part. (4) For purposes of this subsection, except paragraph (5), the term “State” does not include Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 52 (5) In the case of a State agency which is directly responsible for providing free public education for handicapped children (including mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or other health impaired children who by reason thereof require special education), the maximum basic grant which that agency shall be eligible to receive under this part for any fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the Federal percentage of the average per pupil expenditure in that State or, if greater, in the United States multiplied by the number of such children in average daily attendance, as determined by the Commissioner, at schools for handicapped children operated or supported by that State agency, in the most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data are available. Such State agency shall use payments under this part only for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equipment and where necessary the construction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of such children. (6) A State educational agency which has submitted and had approved an application under section 105(c) for any fiscal year shall be entitled to receive a grant for that year under this part for establish­ ing or improving programs for migratory children of migratory agricultural workers. The maximum total of grants which shall be available for use in any State for any fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the Federal percentage of the average per pupil expenditure in that State or, if greater, in the United States multiplied by (A) the estimated number of such migratory children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, who reside in the State full time, and (B) the full-time equivalent of the estimated number of such migratory children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, who reside in the State part time, as de­ termined by the Commissioner in accordance with regulations. (7) In the case of a State agency which is directly responsible for providing free public education for children in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, the maximum grant which that agency shall be eligible to receive under this title for any fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the Federal percentage of the average per pupil expenditure in that State or, if greater, in the United States multiplied by the num­ ber of such children in average daily attendance, as determined by the Commissioner, at schools for such children operated or supported by that State agency in the most recent fiscal year for which satisfactory data are available. Such State agency shall use payments under this part only for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equip­ ment and where necessary the construction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of such children. (b) A local educational agency shall be eligible for a basic grant for a fiscal year under this part only if it meets the following requirements with respect to the number of children aged five to seventeen, inclu­ sive, described in clauses (A), (B), and (C) of the first sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection (a): (1) In any case (except as provided in paragraph (3)) in which the Commissioner determines that satisfactory data for the pur­ pose of this subsection as to the number of such children are available on a school district basis, the number of such children in the school district of such local educational agency shall be at least ten. 53 (2) In any other case, except as provided in paragraph (3), the number of such children in the county which includes such local educational agency’s school district shall be at least ten. (3) In any case in which a county includes a part of the school district of the local educational agency concerned and the Com­ missioner has not determined that satisfactory data for the pur­ pose of this subsection are available on a school district basis for all the local educational agencies for all the counties into which the school district of the local educational agency concerned ex­ tends, the eligibility requirement with respect to the number of such children for such local educational agency shall be deter­ mined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commis­ sioner for the purposes of this subsection. (c) For the purposes of this section, the “Federal percentage” shall be 50 per centum and the “lcw-income factor” shall be $2,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. Except as otherwise provided in section 108, for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1968, June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970, they shall be 50 per centum and $3,000, respectively. (d) For the purposes of this section, the Commissioner shall deter­ mine the number of children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, of fam­ ilies having an annual income of less than the low-income factor (as established pursuant to subsection (c)) on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data available from the Department of Commerce. At any time such data for a county are available in the Department of Commerce, such data shall be used in making calculations under this section. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall de­ termine the number of children of such ages from families receiving an annual income in excess of the low-income factor from payments under the program of aid to families with dependent children under a State plan approved under title IV of the Social Security Act, and the number of children of such ages living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children, or being supported in foster homes with pub­ lic funds, on the basis of the caseload data for the month of January of the prece ding fiscal year. When requested by the Commissioner, the Secretary of Commerce shall make a special estimate of the number of children of such ages who are from families having an annual income less than the low-income factor (establish pursuant to subsection (c)) in each county or school district, and the Commissioner is authorized to pay (either in advance or by way of reimbursement) the Secretary of Commerce the cost of making this special estimate. The Secretary of Commerce shall give consideration to any request of the chief executive of a State for the collection of additional census information. (e) For the purpose of this section, the “average per pupil expendi­ ture” in a State, or in the United States, shall be the aggregate current expenditures, during the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the computation is made, of all local educational agencies as defined in section 303 (6) (A) in the State, or in the United States (which for the purposes of this subsection means the fifty States and the District of Columbia), as the case may be, plus any direct current expenditures by the State for operation of such agencies (without re­ gard to the sources of funds from which either of such expenditures are made), divided by the aggregate number of children in average daily attendance to whom such agencies provided free public education during such preceding year. 54 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (P.L. 89-10) AN ACT To strengthen and improve educational quality and educational op­ portunities in the Nation’s elementary and secondary schools Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.” * * * * * * * TITLE II—SCHOOL LIBRARY RESOURCES, TEXTBOOKS, AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED S ec . 201. (a) The Commissioner shall carry out a program for making grants for the acquisition of school library resources, text­ books, and other printed and published instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools. ******* ALLOTMENT TO STATES S e c . 202. (a)(1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for the purposes of this paragraph an amount equal to not more than 3 per centum of the amount appropriated for such year for payments to States under section 201(b). The Commissioner shall allot the amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph among Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective needs for assistance under this title. In addition, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and each of the succeeding fiscal years ending prior to July 1, [1972,3 1973, he shall allot from such amount to (A) the Secretary of the Interior the amount necessary for such assistance for children and teachers in elementary and sec­ ondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, and (B) the Secretary of Defense the amount necessary for such assistance for children and teachers in the overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense. The terms upon which pay­ ments for such purpose shall be made to the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Defense shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this title. (2) From the sums appropriated for carrying out this title for any fiscal year pursuant to section 201(b), the Commissioner shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the total of such sums as the number of children enrolled in the public and private elementary and secondary schools of that State bears to the total number of children so enrolled in such schools in all of the States. The number of children so enrolled shall be determined by the Commis­ sioner on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data available to 55 him. For purposes of this subsection, the term “State” shall not include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (b) The amount of any State’s allotment under subsection (a) for any fiscal year which the Commissioner determines will not be required for such fiscal year shall be available for reallotment from time to time, on such dates during such year as the Commissioner may fix, to other States in proportion to the original allotments to such States un­ der subsection (a) for that year but with such proportionate amount for any of such other States being reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Commissioner estimates such State needs and will be able to use for such year; and the total of such reductions shall be similarly reallotted among the States whose proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amounts reallotted to a State under this subsection during a year from funds appropriated pursuant to section 201 shall be deemed part of its allotment under section (a) for such year. STATE PLANS Sec. 203 (a) Any State which desires to receive grants under this title shall submit to the Commissioner a State plan, in such detail as the Commissioner deems necessary, which— (1) designates a State agency which shall, either directly or through arrangements with other State or local public agencies, act as the sole agency for administration of the State plan; (2) sets forth a program under which funds paid to the State from its allotment under section 202 will be expended solely for (A) acquisition of library resources (which for the purposes of this title means books, periodicals, documents, audio-visual mate­ rials, and other related library materials), textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools in the State, and (B) administration of the State plan, including (i) the development and revision of standards relating to library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials furnished for the use of children and teachers in the public elementary and secondary schools of the State, and (ii) the distribution and control by a local educational agency of such library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials in carrying out such State plan for the use of children and teachers in schools referred to in clause (A), except that the amount used for administration of the State plan for any fiscal year shall not exceed an amount equal to 5 per centum of the amount paid to the State under this title for that year or $50,000, whichever is greater; (3) sets forth the criteria to be used in allocating library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials provided under this title among the children and teachers of the State, which criteria shall— (A) take into consideration the relative need, as determined from time to time, of the children and teachers of the State for such library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials, 56 (B) provide assurance that to the extent consistent with law such library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials will he provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private elementary and secondary schools in the State which comply with the compulsory at­ tendance laws of the State or are otherwise recognized by it through some procedure customarily used in the State, and (C) provide assurance that, in order to secure the effective and efficient use of Federal funds, there will be appropriate coordination at both State and local levels between the pro­ gram carried out under this .title with respect to library re­ sources and the program (if any) carried out under the Library Services Construction Act (20 U.S.C. ch. 16); (4) sets forth the criteria to be used in selecting the library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials to be pro­ vided under this title and for determining the proportions of the State’s allotment for each fiscal year which will be expended for library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials, respectively, and the terms by which such library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials will be made available for the use of children and teachers in the schools of the State; (5) sets forth policies and procedures designed to assure that Federal funds made available under this title for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of State, local, and private school funds that would in the absence of such Federal funds be made available for library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials, and in no case supplant such State, local, and private school funds; (6) sets forth such fiscal control and fund accounting pro­ cedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to the State (including any such funds paid by the State to any other public agency) under this title; and (7) provides for making such reports, in such form and con­ taining such information, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to carry out his functions under this title, and for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commis­ sioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. (b) The Commissioner shall approve any State plan and any modi­ fication thereof which complies with the provisions of subsection (a). PAYMENTS TO STATES Sec. 204. (a) From the amounts allotted to each State under sec­ tion 202 the Commissioner shall pay to that State an amount equal to the amount expended by the State in carrying out its State plan. Such payments may be made in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, with necessary adjustments on account of overpay­ ments or underpayments. (b) In any State which has a State plan approved under section 203(b) and in which no State agency is authorized by law to provide library resources, textbooks, or other printed and published instruc­ 57 tional materials for the use of children and teachers in any one or more elementary or secondary schools in such State, the Commissioner shall arrange for the provision on an equitable basis of such library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials for such use and shall pay the cost thereof for any fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1973, out of that State’s allotment. TITLE III—SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTERS AND SERVICES * * * * * $ #

ALLOTMENT AMONG STATES Sec. 302. (a)(1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for the purposes of this paragraph, an amount equal to not more than 3 per centum of the amount appropriated for such year for grants under this title. The Commissioner shall allot the amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph among Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective needs for assist­ ance under this title. In addition for each fiscal year ending prior to July 1, [1972,]1973, he shall allot from such amount to (A) the Secre­ tary of the Interior the amount necessary to provide programs and projects for the purpose of this title for individuals on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, and (B) the Secretary of Defense the amount necessary for such assistance for children and teachers in the overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense. The terms upon which payments for such purpose shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this title. (2) From the sums appropriated for making grants under this title for any fiscal year pursuant to section 301(b), the Commissioner shall allot $200,000 to each State and shall allot the remainder of such sums among the States as follows: (A) He shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum of such remainder as the number of children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, in the State bears to the number of such children in all the States, and (B) He shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum of such remainder as the population of the State bears to the population of all the States. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” does not include the Commonwelath of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (b) The number of children aged five to seventeen, inclusive, and the total population of a State and of all the States shall be determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data available to him. (c) The amount allotted to any State under subsection (a) for any fiscal year, which the Commissioner determines will not be required for the period for which that amount is available, shall be available for 58 grants pursuant to section 306 in such State, and if not so needed may be reallotted or used for grants pursuant to section 306 in other States. Funds available for reallotment may be reallotted from time to time, on such dates during that period as the Commissioner may fix, among other States in proportion to the amounts originally allotted among those States under subsection (a) for that year, but with the proportionate amount for any of the other States being reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Commissioner estimates that State needs and will be able to use for that period; and the total of these reductions may be similarly reallotted among the States whose proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any amount reallotted to a State under this subsection from funds appropriated pursuant to section 301 for any fiscal year shall be deemed to be a part of the amount allotted to it under subsection (a) for that year. (d) The amounts made available under the first sentence of sub­ section (c) for any fiscal year shall remain available for grants during the next succeeding fiscal year. ******* TITLE VI—EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (Repealed) * * * $ * * $ TITLE VII—BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS SHORT TITLE S ec. 701. This title may be cited as the “Bilingual Education Act”. DECLARATION OF POLICY S ec . 702. In recognition of the special educational needs of the large numbers of children of limited English-speaking ability in the United States, Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and carry out new and imaginative elementary and secondary school programs designed to meet these special educational needs. For the purposes of this title, “children of limited English-speaking ability” means children who come from environments where the dominant language is other than English. AUTHORIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS Sec. 703. (a) For the purposes ofmaking grants under this title, there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970. (b) In determining distribution of funds under this title, the Com­ missioner shall give highest priority to States and areas within States having the greatest need for programs pursuant to this title. Such priorities shall take into consideration the number of children of limited English-speaking ability between the ages of three and eighteen in each State. 59' USES OF FEDERAL FUNDS Sec. 704. Grants under this title may be used, in accordance with applications approved under section 705, for— (a) planning for and taking other steps leading to the develop­ ment of programs^ designed to meet the special educational needs of children of limited English-speaking ability in schools having a high concentration of such children from families (A) with incomes below $3,000 per year, or (B) receiving payments under a program of aid to families with dependent children under a State plan approved under title IV of the Social Security Act, including research projects, pilot projects designed to test the effectiveness of plans so developed, and the development and dissemination of special instructional materials for use in bilingual education programs; and (b) providing preservice training designed to- prepare persons to participate in bilingual education programs as teachers, teacher- aides, or other ancillary education personnel such as counselors, and inservice training and development programs designed to en­ able such persons to continue to improve their qualifications while participating in such programs; and (c) the establishment, maintenance, and operation of programs, including acquisition of necessary teaching materials and equip­ ment, designed to meet the special educational needs of children of limited English-speaking ability in schools having a high concentration of such children from families (A) with incomes below $3,000 per year, or (B) receiving payments under a pro­ gram of aid to families -with dependent children under a State plan approved under title IV of the Social Security Act, through activities such as— (1) bilingual education programs; (2) programs designed to impart to students a knowledge of the history and culture associated with their languages; (3) efforts to establish closer cooperation between the school and the home; (4) early childhood educational programs related to the purposes of this title and designed to improve the potential for profitable learning activities by children; (5) adult education programs related to the purposes of this title, particularly for parents of children participating in bilingual programs; (6) programs designed for dropouts or potential dropouts having need of bilingual programs; (7) programs conducted by accredited trade, vocational, or technical schools; and (8) other activities which meet the purposes of this title. APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL S ec. 705. (a) A grant under this title may be made to a local educa­ tional agency or agencies, or to an institution of higher education applying jointly with a local educational agency, upon application to the Commissioner at such time or times, in such manner and contain­ ing or accompanied by such information as the Commissioner deems necessary. Such application shall— 60 (1) provide that the activities and services for which assist­ ance under this title is sought will be administered by or under the supervision of the applicant; (2) set forth a program for carrying out the purpose set forth in section 704 and provide for such methods of administration as are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the program; (3) set forth a program of such size, scope, and design as will make a substantial step toward achieving the purpose of this title; (4) set forth policies and procedures which assure that Federal funds made available under this title for any fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the extent practicable, increase the level of funds (including funds made available under title I of this Act) that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available by the applicant for the purposes described in section 704, and in no case supplant such funds; (5) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting proce­ dures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for Federal funds paid to the applicant under this title; (6) provide for making an annual report and such other re­ ports, in such form and containing such information, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to carry out his functions under this title and to determine the extent to which funds pro­ vided under this title have been effective in improving the educa­ tional opportunities of persons in the area served, and for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commis­ sioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports; (7) provide assurance that provision has been made for the participation in the project of those children of limited English speaking ability who are not enrolled on a full-time basis; and (8) provide that the applicant will utilize in programs assisted pursuant to this title the assistance of persons with expertise in the educational problems of children of limited English-speaking ability and make optimum use in such programs of the cultural and educational resources of the area to be served; and for the purposes of this paragraph, the term cultural and educational resources” includes State educational agencies, institutions of higher education, nonprofit private schools, public and nonprofit private agencies such as libraries, museums, musical and artistic organizations, educational radio and television, and other cultural and educational resources. (b) Applications for grants under this title may be approved by the Commissioner only if— (1) the application meets the requirements set forth in sub­ section (a); (2) the program set forth in the application is consistent with criteria established by the Commissioner (where feasible, in coop­ eration with the State educational agency) for the purposes of achieving an equitable distribution of assistance under this title within each State, which criteria shall be developed by him on the basis of a consideration of (A) the geographic distribution of chil­ dren of limited English-speaking ability, (B) the relative need of 61 persons in different geographic areas within the State for the kinds of services and activities described in paragraph (c) of sec­ tion 704, and (C) the relative ability of particular local educa­ tional agencies within the State to provide those services and activities; (3) the Commissioner determines (A) that the program will utilize the best available talents and resources and will substan­ tially increase the educational opportunities for children of lim­ ited English-speaking ability in the area to be served by the appli­ cant, and (B) that, to the extent consistent with the number of children enrolled in nonprofit private schools in the area to be served whose educational needs are of the type which this program is intended to meet, provision has been made for participation of such children; and (4) the State educational agency has been notified of the appli­ cation and been given the opportunity to offer recommendations. (c) Amendments of applications shall, except as the Commis­ sioner may otherwise provide by or pursuant to regulations, be subject to approval in the same manner as original applications. CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS ON RESERVATIONS [S ec. 706. (a) For the purpose of carrying out programs pursuant to this title for individuals on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated on such reservations for Indian chil­ dren, a nonprofit institution or organization of the Indian tribe con­ cerned which operates any such school and which is approved by the Commissioner for the purposes of this section, may be considered to be a local educational agency as such term is used in this title.] S e c . 706. (a) For the purpose of carrying out programs pursuant to this title for individuals on or from reservations serviced by elemen­ tary and secondary schools operated on or near such reservations for Indian children, a nonprofit institution or organization of the Indian tribe concerned which operates any such school and which is approved by the Commissioner for the purpose of this section, may be considered to be a local educational agency, as such term is used in this title. (b) From the sums appropriated pursuant to section 703, the Com- missoner may also make payments to the Secretary of the Interior for elementary and secondary school programs to carry out the policy of section 702 with respect to individuals on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded by the Department of the Interior. The terms upon which payments for that purpose may be made to the Secretary of the In­ terior shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commis­ sioner determines will best carry out the policy of section 720. PAYMENTS Sec. 707. (a) The Commissioner shall pay to each applicant which has an application approved under this title an amount equal to the total sums expanded by the applicant under the application for the purposes set forth therein or, in the case of payments to the Secretary of Interior, an amount determined pursuant to section 706(b), 62 (b) Payments under this title may be made in installments and in advance or by way of reimbursement, with necessary adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayments. ADVISORY COMMITTEE S ec . 708. (a) The Commissioner shall establish in the Office of Education an Advisory Committee on the Education of Bilingual Children, consisting of nine members appointed, without regard to the civil service laws, by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary. The Commissioner shall appoint one such member as Chairman. At least four of the members of the Advisory Committee shall be educators experienced in dealing with the educational problems of children whose native tongue is a language other than English. (b) The Advisory Committee shall advise the Commissioner in the preparation of general regulations and with respect to policy matters arising in the administration of this title, including the development of criteria for approval of applications thereunder. The Commissioner may appoint such special advisory and technical experts and con­ sultants as may be useful and necessary in carrying out the functions of the Advisory Committee. T i t l e VIII— G eneral Provisions DEFINITIONS S e c. 801. As used in titles II, III, V, VI, and VII of this Act, except when otherwise specified— (a) The term “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Education. (b) The term “construction” means (1) erection of new or expan­ sion of existing structures, and the acquisition and installation of equipment therefor; or (2) acquisition of existing structures not owned by any agency or institution making application for assistance under this Act; or (3) remodeling or alteration (including the ac­ quisition, installation, modernization, or replacement of equipment) of existing structures; or (4) a combination of any two or more of the foregoing. (c) The term “elementary school” means a day or residential schools which provides elementary education, as determined under State law. (d) The term “equipment” includes machinery, utilities, and built- in equipment and any necessary enclosures or structures to house them, and includes all other items necessary for the functioning of a particular facility as a facility for the provision of educational services, including items such as instructional equipment and neces­ sary furniture, printed, published, and audio-visual instructional ma­ terials, and books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials. (e) The term “institution of higher education” means an educational institution in any State which— (1) admits as regular students only individuals have a cer­ tificate of graduation from a high school, or the recognized equiva­ lent of such a certificate; (2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a pro­ gram of education beyond high school; 63 (3) provides an educational program for which it awards a bachelor’s degree, or provides not less than a two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or offers a two-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the physical or biological sciences which is designed to prepare the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific, or other technological fields which require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles or knowledge; (4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association listed by the Commissioner pursuant to this para­ graph or, if not so accredited, is an institution whose credits are accepted, on transfer, by net less than three institutions which are so accredited, for credit on the same basis as if transferred from an institution so accredited: Provided, however,'That in the case of an institution offering a two-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the physical or biological sciences which is de­ signed to prepare the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific, or technological fields which requires the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles or knowledge, if the Commissioner determines that there is no nationally rec­ ognized accrediting agency or association qualified to accredit such institutions, he shall appoint an advisory committee, com­ posed of persons specially qualified to evaluate training provided by such institutions, which shall prescribe the standards of con­ tent, scope, and quality which must be met in order to qualify such institutions to participate under this Act and shall also de­ termine whether particular institutions meet such standards. For the purposes of this paragraph the Commissioner shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of education or training offered. (f) The term “local educational agency” means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a serv­ ice function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or such combination of school districts or counties as are recog­ nized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary or secondary schools. Such terms also includes any other public insti­ tution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary or secondary school. (g) The term “nonprofit” as applied to a school, agency, organiza­ tion, or institution means a school, agency, organization, or institution owned or operated by one or more nonprofit corporations or associa­ tions no part of the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. (h) The term “secondary school” means a day or residential school which provides secondary education, as determined under State law, except that it does not include any education provided beyond grade 12. 64 (i) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (j) The term “State” includes, in addition to the several States of the Union, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Colum­ bia, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands and for purposes of titles II, III, V, VI, and VII such term also includes the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (k) The term “State educational agency” means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary schools, or, if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law.

LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS UNDER THIS ACT S ec. 805. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this Act, or under any Act amended by this Act, for religious worship or instruction. * * * * * * *

RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN CORRECTION EDUCATION SERVICES S ec. 809. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to State and local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other public and private nonprofit research agencies and organi­ zations for research or demonstration projects, relating to the academic and vocational education of antisocial, aggressive, or delinquent persons, including juvenile delinquents, youth offenders, and adult criminal offenders, including the development of criteria for the iden­ tification for specialized educational instruction of such persons from the general elementary and secondary school age population and spe­ cial curriculums, and guidance and counseling programs. All projects shall include an evaluation component. (b) The Commissioner is authorized to appoint such special or technical advisory committees as he may deem necessary to advise him on matters of general policy relating to the education of persons intended to be benefited by this section, and shall secure the advice and recommendations of the Director, Bureau of Prisons, of the Director, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, the Director of the Teacher Corps, the head of the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and such other persons and organizations as he, in his discretion, deems necessary before making any grant under this section. IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIAN CHILDREN Sec. 810.(a) The Commissioner shall carry out a program of making grants for the improvement of educational opportunities for Indian children— (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects, in accordance with subsection (b), which are designed to test and 65 demonstrate the effectiveness off programs ffor improving educational opportunities ffor Indian children; (2) to assist in the establishment and operation off programs, in accordance with subsection (c), which are designed to stimulate (A) the provision off educational services not available to Indian children in sufficient quantity or quality, (andB) the development and establishment off exemplary educational programs to serve as models ffor regular school programs in which Indian children are educated; (3) to assist in the establishment and operation off preservice and inservice training programs, in accordance with subsection (d),ffor persons serving Indian children as educational personnel; and, (4) to encourage the dissemination off information and materials relating to, and the evaluation off the effectiveness off, education programs which may offer educational opportunities to Indian children. In the case off activities off the type described in clause (3), preference shall be given to the training off Indians. (b) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to State and local educational agencies and other appropriate public and private educa­ tional and research agencies, federally supported elementary and secondary schools ffor Indian children and to Indian tribes, organizations, and institutions to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed to plan ffor, and test and demonstrate the effectiveness off, programs ffor improving educational opportunities ffor Indian children, including— (1) innovative programs related to the educational needs off educa­ tionally deprived children; (2) bilingual and bicultural education programs and projects; (3) special health and nutrition services, and other related activi­ ties, which meet the special health, social, and psychological problems off Indian children; and (4) coordinating the operation off other federally assisted programs which may be used to assist in meeting the needs off such children. (c) The Commissioner is also authorized to make grants to State and local educational agencies and to tribal and other Indian community organizations to assist and stimulate them in developing and establishing educational services and programs specifically designed to improve educational opportunities ffor Indian children. Grants may be— used (.1) to provide educational services not available to such children in sufficient quantity or quality, including— (A) remedial and compensatory instruction, school health, physical educational, psychological, and other services designed to assist and encourage Indian children to enter, remain in, or reenter elementary or secondary school; (B) comprehensive academic and vocational instruction; (C) instructional materials (such as library books, testbooks, and other printed or published or audiovisual materials) and equipment; 0 ) comprehensive guidance, counseling, and testing services; (E) special education programs ffor handicapped; (F) preschool programs; 66 (G) bilingual and bicultural education programs; and (H) other services which meet the purposes of this subsection; and, (2) for the establishment and operation of exemplary and innova­ tive educational programs and centers, involving new educational approaches, methods, and techniques designed to enrich programs of elementary and secondary education for Indian children. (d) The Commissioner is also authorized to make grants to institutions of higher education and to State and local educational agencies, in com­ bination with institutions of higher education, for carrying out programs and projects— (.1) to prepare persons to serve Indian children as teachers, teacher aides, social workers, and ancillary educational personnel; and (2) to improve the qualifications of such persons who are serving Indian children in such capacities. Grants for the purposes of this subsection may be used for the establish­ ment of fellowship programs leading to an advanced degree, for insti­ tutes and, as part of a continuing program, for seminars, symposia, workshops, and conferences. (e) The Commissioner is also authorized to make grants to, and con­ tracts with, public agencies and institutions, and Indian tribes, institu­ tions, and organizations —for (1) the dissemination of information concerning education pro­ grams, services, and resources available to Indian children, includ­ ing evaluations thereof; and (2) the evaluation of the effectiveness of federally assisted pro­ grams in which Indian children may participate in achieving the purposes of such programs with respect to such children. (f) Applications for a grant under this section shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and shall contain such information, and shall be consistent with such criteria, as may be established as requirements in regulations promulgated by the Commissioner. Such applications— shall (1) set forth a statement describing the activities for which assistance is sought; (2) in the case of an application for the purposes of subsection (c), subject to such criteria as the Commissioner shall prescribe provide for the use of funds available under this section, and for the coordination of other resources available to the applicant, in order to insure that, within the scope of the purpose of the project, there will be a comprehensive program to achieve the purposes of this section; (8) in the case of an application for the purposes of subsection (c), make adequate provision for the training of the personnel participating in the project; and (4) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project in achieving its purposes and those of this section. The Commissioner shall not approve an application for a grant under subsection (6) or (c) unless he is satisfied that such application, and any documents submitted with respect thereto, show that there has been adequate participation by the parents of the children to be served and tribal communities in the planning and development of the project, and that there will be such a participation in the operation and evaluation of the project. In approving applications under this section, the Com­ 67 missioner shall give priority to applications from Indian educational agencies, organizations, and institutions. (g) For the purpose of making grants under this section there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $35,000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. PUBLIC LAW 91-230 * $ * * $ * s|r TITLE VI—EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED P a r t A—G eneral Provisions SHORT TITLE S ec. 601. This title may be cited as the “Education of the Handi­ capped Act”. * * * * * * * P a r t B — A s s is t a n c e t o S t a t e s f o r E d u c a t io n o f H a n d ic a p p e d C h il d r e n AUTHORIZATION Sec. 601. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants pur­ suant to the provisions of this part for the purpose of assisting the States in the initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects for the education of handicapped children at the preschool, elementary school, and secondary school levels. (b) For the purpose of making grants under this part there is authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $210,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $220,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS S e c. 612. (a)(1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for the purposes of this paragraph an amount equal to not more than 3 per centum of the amount appropriated for such year for payments to States Under section 611(b). The Com­ missioner shall allot the amount appropriated pursuant to this para­ graph among— (A) Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, according to their respective needs, and (B) for each fiscal year ending prior to July 1, [1972,] 1973, the Secretary of the Interior, according to the need for such assistance for the education of handicapped children on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian chil­ dren by the Department of Interior and the terms upon which payments for such purposes shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this part. 68 PUBLIC LAW 89-750 $ $ $ $ $ * * TITLE III—ADULT EDUCATION * * * * * * * IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADULT INDIANS Sec . SI 4• (a) The Commissioner shall carry out a program of making grants to State and local educational agencies and Indian tribes, institu­ tions, and organizations, to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed to plan for, and test and demonstrate the effectiveness of, programs for providing adult education for Indians— (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are designed, to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of programs for improving employment and educational opportunities for adult Indians; (2) to assist in the establishment and operation of programs which are designed to stimulate (A ) the provision of basic literacy oppor­ tunities to all nonliterate Indian adults, and (B) the provision of opportunities to all Indian adults to qualify for a high school equiv­ alency certificate in the shortest period of time feasible; (3) to support a major research and development program to develop more innovative and effective techniques for achieving the literacy and high school equivalency goals; (4) to provide for basic surveys and evaluations thereof to define accurately the extent of the problems of illiteracy and lack of high school completion on Indian reservations; (5) to encourage the dissemination of information and materials relating to, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of, education pro­ grams which may offer educational opportunities to Indian adults. (b) The Commissioner is also authorized to make grants to, and con­ tracts with, public agencies and institutions, and Indian tribes, institu­ tions, and organizations— for (1) the dissemination of information concerning educational pro­ grams, services, and resources available to Indian adults, including evaluations thereof, and (2) the evaluation of the effectiveness offederally assisted programs in which Indian adults may participate in achieving the purposes of such program with respect to such adults. (c) Applications for a grant under this section shall be submitted at such time, in such manner, and contain such information, and shall be consistent with such criteria, as may be established as requirements in regulations promulgated by the Commissioner. Such applications— shall (1) set forth a statement describing the activities for which assist­ ance is sought, (2) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the project in achieving its purposes and those of this section . The Commissioner shall not approve an application for a grant under subsection (a) unless he is satisfied that such application, and any documents submitted with respect thereto, indicate that there has been adequate participation by the individuals to be served and tribal com­ munities in the planning and development of the project, and that there will be such a participation in the operation and evaluation of the project. 69 In approving applications under subsection (a), the Commissioner shall give priority to applications from Indian educational agencies, organi­ zations, and institutions. (d) For the purpose of making grants under this section there are hereby authorized to be appropriated$5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June80, 1978,and $8,000,000for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

* * * $ sfc * TITLE V—EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT

P a r t A — Ge n e r a l P r o v is io n s * * * $ * * * APPRAISING EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDS Sec. 508. (a) The Commissioner shall from time to time appraise the Nation’s existing and future personnel needs in the field of education, eluding preschool programs, elementary and secondary education, voca­ tional and technical education, adult education, and higher education, including the need to provide such programs and education to Indians, and the adequacy of the Nation’s efforts to meet these needs. In developing information relating to educational personnel needs, the Commissioner shall consult with, and make maximum utilization of statistical and other related information of, the Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, State educational agencies, State employment security agencies, and other appropriate public and private agencies. (b) The Commissioner shall prepare and publish annually a report on the education professions, in which he shall present in detail his views on the state of the education professions and the trends which he discerns with respect to the future complexion of programs of education throughout the Nation and the needs for well-educated personnel to staff such pro­ grams. The report shall indicate the Commissioner’s plans concerning the allocation of Federal assistance under this title in relation to the plans and programs of other Federal agencies. *******

P a r t D — I m p r o v in g T r a i n i n g Opportunities fo r P e r s o n n e l S e r v in g i n P r o g r a m s of E d u c a t io n O t h e r T h a n H ig h e r E d u c a t io n ******* TEACHERS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN Sec. 532. Of the sums made available for the purposes of this part, not less than 5 per centum shall be used for grants to, and contracts with, institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations for the purpose of preparing persons to serve as teachers of children living on reservations serviced by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or supported by the Department of the Interior.

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MR. FANNIN The most commendable thing about S. 2482, as amended by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, is that it attempts to imple­ ment some of the recommendations of the Special Subcommittee on Indian Education of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. This Special Subcommittee, established in 1967 upon the passage of Senate Resolution 165, was a result of my own deep concern for the direction of Indian education programs and the evident nee'd to demonstrate through hearings, field investigations, and studies the necessity for new policies. The result of the work of the Special Subcommittee, of which I was a member from 1967 to January 1969, was contained in a lengthy but comprehensive report entitled, Indian Education: A National Tragedy—A National Challenge, published in November 1969. This report, after surveying the status of Indian education programs, made some sixty recommendations to strengthen these programs and adopt new approaches. Of all these recommendations, only one, Establishing a Senate Select Committee on the Human Needs of the American Indian, was severely questioned by the minority members. Yet, these very specific recommendations have not received the serious consideration they deserve. Currently, problems associated with Indian education receive only cursory treatment within the pur­ view of the appropriations for the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and related ESEA programs. This process, of course, is narrow and restrained in dealing with the broad problems of Indian education. S. 2482 has, however, refocused attention on the quality of education for our Indians and, in this sense, I have supported this effort. While this legislation is commendable, there are a number of questions and deficiencies which I feel should be noted. First, the most serious deficiency contained in S. 2482 is the complete lack of a set of educational goals for the Indian community. The Special Subcommittee itself in its report enunciated a set of National Goals, but to what extent these goals are shared by Indians in general is not known and which, of course, should be speedily determined. Clearly, if we are to break out of the maze of Indian education legisla­ tion, program duplications, agency overlaps, and misdirected efforts, there must be developed by both Congress and the Indians themselves a coherent set of goals. If we are, as a nation, to provide] quality education for Indian citizens, we must know where we are going. In addition, a set of educational goals would also provide an in­ dication as to what organizational structure will be necessary to achieve such goals. We must strive to avoid establishing a system of multiple agencies all working in the same problem area. Such a system encourages competition among institutions over budget needs, jurisdictions, and programs rather than spending their time, precious ( 71) 72 time, on the problems they were organized to solve. With resources growing scarce, such competition is something we can ill afford. To summarize: The word “relevance” has been much used and abused, but in relationship to Indian education, let us make those programs and organizat ons affecting Indian education “relevant.” Second, is amending PL 81-874 the best answer, legislatively, to insure that education funds will, in fact, reach Indian children? The Special Subcommittee reported that “many public school districts educating Indians use Public Law 81-874 funds for a good share of their operating budgets, which results in a situation where Indian students receive insufficient benefit.” This situation must obviously be rectified so that funds will support the programs for which they were intended. The provisions of S. 2482 would seem to meet these present objec­ tions by requiring Indian parental participation in determining the use of such funds. However, I think that we must be completely as­ sured that the funds designated for Indian education will be utilized for that purpose. In addition, it would seem advisable that we review other Indian education programs as well to see whether remedial legislation might be required to insure that the integrity of those programs are protected. We constantly speak today of revitalizing our “delivery systems” to adequately insure that funds and services reach their program ob­ jectives. What greater contributions could we make to Indian edu­ cation than to insure the proper use of such designated funds. We cannot ignore this basic legislative issue. Beyond the problems associated with delivery of services, however, is the more basic question of whether or not we should tie Indian edu­ cation funds to PL 81-874 or establish a separate legislative authority. This is an area requiring and deserving our attention. Third, any legislation affecting Indian education cannot overlook the BIA schools. No matter how many times we hear of the apparent difficulties in the BIA educational system, there must first be developed, with the complete assistance of the Indians themselves, an alternative system, should that be required, before we begin phasing out the BIA school system. Until an alternative system is developed, should that be required, it would be highly unfair to deprive the BIA schools of needed assistance. The children attending such schools deserve equal concern and attention. Thus, this legislation cannot be consider­ ed complete unless the comparable assistance grants, the special programs, and the provisions for participation as provided in S. 2482 are extended to those children and parents under the jurisdiction of the BIA schools. Fourth, one of the most serious deficiencies of S. 2482 is ignoring the need for a substantial increase in funds for construction of needed school facilities serving Indian children. By merely wishing that Indian needs should receive priority funding is to overlook the serious­ ness of the situation regarding PL 81-815 funds. Consider the following: A. The Special Subcommittee in its report noted that “lack of funding for Public Law 81-815 prevents any construction of public school facilities for Indian students.” B. The Special Subcommittee noted further: 1. Indians are not included in the sections of the law which are given priority funding. 73 2. Many public schools accepted Indian students under the impression they would receive federal money for constructing facilities necessary to educate those Indian students, yet such federal money has rarely been appropriated. To be considered complete, any legislation affecting Indian education must include funds for construction of needed educational facilities. This can be accomplished by amending PL 81-815 or by providing for a separate appropriation. Fifth, while S. 2482 emphasizes Indian parental participation in developing, approving, and evaluating educational programs, there is still a need to make permanent such Indian committees as a first step to instituting a local Indian school board system. Under S. 2482, Indian participation is limited to the discussion, approval, and evalua­ tion of programs receiving grants under this legislation. What is neces­ sary is legislation which expands this participation to include the curriculum, teacher recruitment, and other programs related to the school’s educational endeavors. Concurrently, legislation should also be developed which includes the development of Indian personnel for service on school boards. If Indian participation is to be real, it is time we began to move in that direction. A primary aim of Indians is self government, and the determination of an educational program by each Indian community is an essential part of self government. Sixth, S. 2482 should have included much needed provisions dealing with teacher recruitment, incentives to reduce high teacher turnover, the expansion of teacher and administrator preparation programs to enable schools to provide competent, trained personnel to specifically serve Indian children and to encourage Indians themselves to become teachers, administrators, and educational leaders. 1 Seventh, attention must also be directed toward achieving better federal funding levels and arrangements for those state public school systems that have accepted the additional educational responsibilities involved in enrolling Indian children. This review should encompass the evident difficulties of the states to obtain greater support for this effort through the Johnson-O’Malley program. The federal govern­ ment has an obligation to assist public schools which are educating Indian students, especially in the light of limited state educational aid. The congress, therefore, should reassess its present levels of financial support to public schools. In noting these deficiencies, I am convinced that S. 2482 is too limited in its approach. The broad problems associated with Indian education would seem to suggest a more comprehensive bill. In addi­ tion, the sixty recommendations of the Special Subcommittee deserve review to determine whether or not they are appropriate. Realizing how much is still left unattended, I can only conclude that what is necessary is the following: 1. A thorough review, with the representative Indian groups, of the sixty recommendations contained in the Report of the Special Subcommittee on Indian education. 2. A review, with Indian groups, of the role of either the BIA and/or HEW in the education of Indians. 3. The development of a more comprehensive Indian education legislation with full participation of Indian groups. Such legislation, in my opinion, should be developed with reference to: 74 A. Development of national goals for Indian education. B. Adequate funding with assurances that such appropriations will reach Indian children. C. Construction needs. D. Administrator and teacher training and recruitment. E. Indian school board development. F. Federal organization for implementing Indian education programs. It is time that we examine all aspects of Indian education so that we can enact a comprehensive bill. For too long we have handled Indian education on a piecemeal basis without enough reference to other problems and programs. The result of this approach has left us with a complex web of legislation which has both helped and hindered our efforts to provide quality education programs. A major comprehensive bill containing a set of educational goals will, I am sure, help us to overcome our current deficiences and provide a viable and relevant Indian educational program. P a u l F a n n in . o

LEGISLATIVE

chamber of commerce of hawaii established 1850 ACTION BULLETIN dillingham building/honolulu, hawaii 96613

ISSUE NO, 5 April 24, 1972 Phone: 533-7491

The Sixth Legislature which adjourned on schedule Friday night, April 14, will probably be best remembered for its expansion of individuals' rights. These include such accomplishments as the new penal code with its liberalized provisions on sexual conduct; social gambling, and revised drug penalties together with bills lowering the age of majority to 18; no-fault divorce; allowing minors 14 to 17 to get medical care (except surgery or abortions) without parental consent; and the ratification of the Federal "equal rights" amendment.

The new penal code legalizes all sexual conduct between consenting adults. The drug section is geared to hit the pushers harder and go easier on the users, especially where small amounts of marijuana are involved. The gambling section which legalizes "social gambling" refers to games where all the participants are players and no third party is the organizer or "house". The penal code is effective on January 1, 1973.

SB 1318, which lowered the age of majority to 18 and became effective on March 28, 1972, made 'Instant adults" of some 28,000 18 and 19 year olds here. All those in Hawaii who are 18 years of age and older have all the legal and civil rights of an adult ... but all the responsibilities and liabilities too.

The no-fault divorce bill simplifies the divorce proceedings by avoiding fault finding testimony "about adultery or "grievous mental suffering" and allows for a divorce upon the showing that the marriaee is irretrievablv broken.

It is hoped that the bill allowing minors (14 - 17 years old) to get medical care will curb much of the V.D. problem now existing in this age group.

Other accomplishments of the Sixth Legislature include an ethics law which requires legislators to make public disclosure of their financial interests: a code of landlord - tenant rights which rectifies many of the problem areas heretofore existing in the rental relationship; a medical and law school; and a Waikiki improvement program if the City fails to act.

Of the issues which died this session four stand out in their importance from the rest and may be expected to be important issues next session. The first is No- Fault automobile insurance which was the major issue this session. Tighter contr o l s w ill also be sought next year on political Campaign contributions and expenditures, which failed to pass this session. A bill w hich would require all island employers

(over) to supply prepaid health Insurance will undoubtably be pushed next year unless a Federal ruling preempts this area. Although a good bill (SB 1382), which furthers the enforcement of the anti-pollution laws was passed this year, you can expect environmentalist groups to push for more new and stricter legislation.

The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii testified on approximately 65 bills this year and worked directly with the legislators to assist them on many other bills and let the business viewpoint be known. Chamber positions may be obtained from our Legislative Department, 533-7491. 92d CONGRESS 1st Session S. 2482

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

O c t o b e r 12,1971 Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A N ACT To authorize financial support for improvements in Indian education and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be cited as the “Indian Education Act

4 of 1971” .

5 Part A—Revision op Impacted Areas Program as It

6 R e l a t e s to I n d ia n Ch il d r e n

7 AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 874, EIGHTY-FIRST

8 CONGRESS

9 Sec. 2. (a) The Act of September 30, 1950 (Public

10 Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by redesignat-

1 1 ing title III as title IV, by redesignating sections301 through

12 303 and references thereto as sections401 through 403, re- I 2

1 spectively, and by adding after title II the following new

2 title:

3 “TITLE III—FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL

4 EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES EOR THE EDUCA-

5 TION OF INDIAN CHILDREN

6 “ sh o r t t it l e

7 “Se c . 301. This title may be cited as the ‘Indian Ele-

8 mentary and Secondary School Assistance Act’.

9 “declaration of po lic y

10 “S e c . 302. (a) In recognition of the special educational

11 needs of Indian students in the United States, Congress

12 hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to

13 provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to

14 develop and carry out elementary and secondary school pro-

15 grams specially designed to meet these special educational

16 needs.

47 “ (b) The Commissioner shall, in order to effectuate

18 the policy set forth in subsection(a), carry out a program

19 of making grants to local educational agencies which are en-

20 titled to payments under this title and which have submitted,

21 and had approved, applications therefor, in accordance with

22 the provisions of this title.

23 “g r a n t s to lo c al educational a g e n c ie s

24 “ S e c . 303. (a) (1) For the purpose of computing the

25 amount to which a local educational agency is entitled 3

1 under this title for any fiscal year ending prior to July 1,

2 1975, the Commissioner shall determine the number of In-

3 dian children who were enrolled in the schools of a local 4 educational agency, and for whom such agency provided

5 free public education, during such fiscal year.

6 “ (2) (A) The amount of the grant to which a local

7 educational agency is entitled under this title for any fiscal

8 year shall be an amount equal to (i) the average per pupil

9 expenditure for such agency (as determined under subpara-

10 graph (C) ) multiplied by (ii) the sum of the number of

11 children determined under paragraph(1).

12 “ (B) A local educational agency shall not be entitled to

13 receive a grant under this title for any fiscal year unless

14 the number of children under subsection(a), with respect

15 to such agency, is at least ten or constitutes at least 50 per

16 centum of its total enrollment:Provided, That the require-

17 ments of this subparagraph shall not apply to any such

18 agencies serving Indian children in Alaska, California, and

19 Oklahoma or located on, or in proximity to, an Indian

20 reservation.

21 “ (C) For the purposes of this subsection, the average

22 per pupil expenditure for a local educational agency shall

23 be the aggregate current expenditures, during the second

24 fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the computa-

25 tion is made, of all the local educational agencies in the 4 1 State in which such agency is located, plus any direct cur-

2 rent expenditures by such State for the operation of such

3 agencies (without regard to the sources of funds from which

4 either of such expenditures aremade), divided by the aggre-

5 gate number of children who were in average daily en-

6 rollment for whom such agencies provided free public

7 education during such preceding fiscal year.

8 “ (b) In addition to the sums appropriated for any

9 fiscal year for grants to local educational agencies under

10 this title, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated

11 for any fiscal year an amount not in excess of 5 per centum

12 of the amount appropriated for payments on the basis of en-

13 titlements computed under subsection (a) for that fiscal year,

14 for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to provide

15 financial assistance to schools on or near reservations which

16 are not local educational agencies or have not been local edu-

17 cational agencies for more than three years, in accordance

18 with the appropriate provisions of this title.

19 “ u s e s o p f e d e r a l f u n d s

20 “Sec. 304. Grants under this title may be used, in

21 accordance with applications approved under section 305,

22 for—

23 “ (1) planning for and taking other steps leading

24 to the development of programs specifically designed to

25 meet the special educational needs of Indian children, 5

1 including pilot projects designed to test the effectiveness

2 of plans so developed; and

3 “ (2) the establishment, maintenance, and operation

4 of programs, including, in accordance with special regu­

5 lations of the Commissioner, minor remodeling of class­

6 room or other space used for such programs and acqui­

7 sition of necessary equipment, specially designed to meet

8 the special educational needs of Indian children.

9 “ap p lication s fo r gra n ts ; CONDITIONS POE APPEOVAL

10 “Sec. 305. (a) A grant under this title, exceptas pro­

11 vided in section303(b), may be made only to a local

12 educational agency or agencies, and only upon application

13 to the Commissioner at such time or times, in such manner,

1 4 and containing or accompanied by such information as the

15 Commissioner deems necessary. Such application shall—

16 “ (1) provide that the activities and services for

17 which assistance under this title is sought will be ad­

18 ministered by or under the supervision of the applicant;

19 “ (2) set forth a program for carrying out the pur­

20 poses of section 304, and provide for such methods

21 of administration as are necessary for the proper and

22 efficient operation of the program;

23 “ (3) in the case of an application for payments for

24 planning, provide that (A) the planning was or will be

25 directly related to programs or projects to he carr i ed out 6

1 under this title and has resulted, or is reasonably likely

2 to result, in a program or project which will be carried

3 out under this title, and (B) the planning funds are

4 needed because of the innovative nature of the program

5 or project or because the local educational agency lacks

6 the resources necessary to: plan adequately for programs

7 and projects to be carried out under this title;

8 “ (4) provide that effective procedures, including

9 provisions for appropriate objective measurement of edu-

10 cational achievement, will be adopted for evaluating at

11 least annually the effectiveness of the programs and proj-

12 ects in meeting the special educational needs of Indian

13 students;

14 “ (5) set forth policies and procedures which assure

15 that Federal funds made available under this title for any

16 fiscal year will be so used as to supplement and, to the

17 extent practical, increase the level of funds that would,

18 in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available

19 by the applicant for the education of Indian children

20 and in no case supplant such funds;

21 “ (6) provide for such fiscal control and fund

22 accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure

23 proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal

24 funds paid to the applicant under this title; and

25 “ (7) provide for making an annual report and such 7

1 other reports, in such form and containing such infor-

2 mation, as the Commissioner may reasonably require to

2 carry out his functions under this title and to determine

4 the extent to which funds provided under this title have

5 been effective in improving the educational opportunities

0 of Indian students in the area served, and for keeping

7 such record and for affording such access thereto as the

8 Commissioner may find necessary to assure the correct-

9 ness and verification of such reports.

40 “ (b) An application by a local educational agency or

44 agencies for a grant under this title may be approved only

42 if it is consistent with the applicable provisions of this title

4b and—

44 “ (1) meets the requirements set forth in subsec-

45 tion (a) ;

40 “ (2) provides that the program or project for which

47 application is made—

48 “ (A) will utilize the best available talents and

49 resources (including persons from the Indian com-

20 munity) and will substantially increase the educa-

24 tional opportunities of Indian children in the area

22 to be served by the applicant; and

23 “ (B) has been developed—

24 “ (i) in open consultation with parents of

25 Indian children, teachers, and, where applica- 8

1 ble, secondary school students, including public

2 hearings at which such persons have had a full

3 opportunity to understand the program for

4 which assistance is being sought and to offer

5 recommendations thereon, and

6 “ (ii) with the participation and approval of

7 a committee composed of, and selected by, par­

8 ents of children participating in the program for

9 which assistance is sought, teachers, and, where

10 applicable, secondary school students, of which

11 at least half the members shall be such parents;

12 “ (C) sets forth such policies and procedures as

13 will insure that the program for which assistance is

14 sought will be operated and evaluated in consultation

15 with, and the involvement of, parents of the children

16 and representatives of the area to be served, in­

17 cluding the committee established for the purposes of

18 clause (2) (B) (ii).

19 “ (c) Amendments of applications shall, except as the

20 Commissioner may otherwise provide by or pursuant to

21 regulations, be subject to approval in the same manner as 22 original applications.

23 “ p a y m e n t s

24 “Sec. 306. (a) The Commissioner shall, subject to the

25 provisions of section307, from time to time pay to each 9

1 local educational agency which has had an application

2 approved under section 305, an amount equal to the amount

3 expended by such agency in carrying out activities under

4 such application.

5 “ (b) (1) No payments shall be made under this title

6 for any fiscal year to any local educational agency in a

7 State which has taken into consideration payments under

8 this title in determining the eligibility of such local educa-

9 tional agency in that State for State aid, or the amount of

10 that aid, with respect to the free public education of children

11 during that year or the preceding fiscal year.

12 “ (2) No payments shall he made under this title to

13 any local educational agency for any fiscal year unless

14 the State educational agency finds that the combined fiscal

15 effort (as determined in accordance with regulations of the

16 Commissioner) of that agency and the State with respect to

17 the provision of free public education by that agency for the

18 preceding fiscal year was not less than such combined fiscal

19 effort for that purpose for the second preceding fiscal year.

20 “adjustments w h e r e necessitated by

21 APPROPRIATIONS

22 “Se c . 307. (a) If the sums appropriated for any fiscal

23 year for making payments under this title are not sufficient

24 to pay in full the total amounts which all local educational

25 agencies are eligible to receive under this title for that fiscal

S. 2482 ------2 10

1 year, the maximum amounts which all such agencies are

2 eligible to receive under this title for such fiscal year shall

3 be ratably reduced. In case additional funds become avail-

4 able for making such payments for any fiscal year during

5 which the first sentence of this subsection is applicable, such

6 reduced amounts shall be increased on the same basis as

7 they were reduced.

8 “ (b) In the case of any fiscal year in which the maxi-

9 mum amounts for which local educational agencies are eligi-

10 ble have been reduced under the first sentence of subsection

11 (a), and in which additional funds have not been made

12 available to pay in full the total of such maximum amounts

13 under the second sentence of such subsection, the Commis-

14 sioner shall fix dates prior to which each local educational

15 agency shall report to him on the amount of funds available

16 to it, under the terms of section 306 (a) and subsection (a)

17 of this section, which it estimates, in accordance with reg-

18 ulations of the Commissioner, that it will expend under

19 approved applications. The amounts so available to any local

20 educational agency, or any amount which would be available

21 to any other local education agency if it weresubmit to an 22 approvable application therefor, which the Commissioner

23 determines will not be used for the period of its availability,

24 shall be available for allocation to those local educational

25 agencies, in the manner provided in the second sentence of 11 . 1 subsection(a), which the Commissioner determines will need 2 additional funds to carry out approved applications, except

3 that no local educational agency shall receive an amount 4 under this sentence which, when added to the amount avail- 5 able to it under subsection(a), exceeds its entitlement under 6 section 303.”.

7 (b) (1) The second sentence of section 103 (a) (1) (A)

8 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

9 of 1965 is amended to read as follows: “In addition, he shall

10 allot from such amount to the Secretary of the Interior—

11 “ (i) the amount necessary to make payments pur-

12 suant to subparagraph (B) ; and

13 “ (ii) in the case of fiscal years ending prior to

14 July 1, 1973, the amount necessary to make payments

15 pursuant to subparagraph(C).”.

16 (2) (A) Section 103 (a) (1) of such title I is amended

17 by adding at the end thereof the following new subpara-

18 graph:

19 “ (C) The maximum amount allotted for payments to

20 the Secretary of the Interior under clause (ii) in the second

21 sentence of subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall be

22 the amount necessary to meet the special educational needs

23 of educationally deprived Indian children on reservations

24 serviced by elementary and secondary schools operated for

25 Indian children by the Department of the Interior, as deter- 12

1 mined pursuant to criteria established by the Commissioner.

: 2 Such payments shall be made pursuant to an agreement be­

3 tween the Commissioner and the Secretary containing such

4 assurances and terms as the Commissioner determines will

5 best achieve the purposes of this part. Such agreement shall

6 contain (1) an assurance that payments made pursuant to

.7 this subparagraph will be used solely for programs and proj­

8 ects approved by the Secretary of Interior which meet the

ū applicable requirements of section 141(a) and that the

10 Department of the Interior will comply in all other respects

11 with the requirements of this title, and (2) provision for

12 carrying out the applicable provisions of sections 141 (a) and

13 142(a)(3).”.

14 (B) The fourth sentence of section 103 (a) (1) (A) of

15 such title I is amended by striking out “and the terms upon

16 which payment shall he made to the Department of the

17 Interior.”.

18 (3) The amendments made hy this subsection shall be

19 effective on and after July 1, 1972.

20 (c) (1) Subsection (a) of section 5 of Public Law 874,

21 :81st Congress, as amended, is amended by inserting “ (1) ”

22 , after “ (a) ” and by inserting at the end thereof the following

23 new paragraph (2) : ' 24 “ (2) (A) Applications for payment on the basis of 25 children determined under section3(a) or 3(1)) who 13

1 reside, or reside with a parent employed,011 Indian lands

2 shall set forth adequate assurance that Indian children will

3 participate on an equitable basis in the school program of

4 the local educational agency.

5 “ (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, Indian lands

6 means that property included within the definition of Fed­

7 eral property under clause (A) of section 303(1).”.

8 (2) (A) The Commissioner shall exercise his authority

9 under section 415 of Public Law 90-247, to encourage local

10 parental participation with respect to financial assistance

11 under title I of Public Law 874, 81st Congress, based upon

12 children who reside on, or reside with a parent employed on,

13 Indian lands.

14 (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term

15 “Indian lands” means that property included within the

16 definition of Federal property under clause (A) of section

17 303 (1) of Public Law 874, 81st Congress.

18 Part B—Special Programs and ProjectsTo Im ­

19 prove Educational Opportunities for Indian

20 C h ild r e n '

21 AMENDMENT TO TITLE VIII OF THE ELEMENTARY AND

22 SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 19 65

23 Sec. 3. (a) Title VIII of the Elementaryand Sec­

24 ondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding to

25 the end thereof the following new section: 14

1 “IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OPPOETUNITIES FOR 2 INDIAN CHILDREN

3 “Sec. 810. (a) The Commissioner shall carry out a 4 program of making grants for the improvement of educa-

5 tional opportunities for Indian children—

6 “ (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstration 7 projects, in accordance with subsection(b), which are 8 designed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of pro-

9 grams for improving educational opportunities for In-

10 dian children;

11 “ (2) to assist in the establishment and operation of 12 programs, in accordance with subsection(c), which are 13 designed to stimulate (A) the provision of educational 14 services not available to Indian children in sufficient 15 quantity or quality, and (B) the development and estab- 16 lishment of exemplary educational programs to serve as 17 models for regular school programs in which Indian chil- 18 dren are educated; 19 “ (3) to assist in the establishment and operation of 20 preservice and inservice training programs, in accord- 21 ance with subsection (d), for persons serving Indian 22 children as educational personnel; and 23 “ (4) to encourage the dissemination of informa- 24 tion and materials relating to, and the evaluation of the 25 effectiveness of, education programs which may offer 26 educational opportunities to Indian children. | 15

1 In the case of activities of the type described in clause(3),

2 preference shall he given to the training of Indians.

3 “ (b) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants

4 to State and local educational agencies, federally supported

5 elementary and secondary schools for Indian children and

6 to Indian tribes, organizations, and institutions to support

7 planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are de-

8 signed to plan for, and test and demonstrate the effectiveness

9 of, programs for improving educational opportunities for

10 Indian children, including—

11 “ (1) innovative programs related to the educational

12 needs of educationally deprived children;

13 “ (2) bilingual and bicultural education programs

14 and projects;

15 “ (3) special health and nutrition services, and other

16 related activities, which meet the special health, social,

17 and psychological problems of Indian children; and

18 “ (4) coordinating the operation of other federally

19 assisted programs which may be used to assist in meet-

20 ing the needs of such children.

21 “ (c) The Commissioner is also authorized to make

22 grants to State and local educational agencies and to tribal

23 and other Indian community organizations to assist and

24 stimulate them in developing and establishing educational

25 services and programs specifically designed to improve edu- 16

1 cational opportunities for Indian children. Grants may he

2 used—

3 “ (1) to provide educational services not available

4 to such children in sufficient quantity or quality, in-

5 cluding—

6 “ (A) remedial and compensatory instruction,

7 school health, physical education, psychological,

8 and other sendees designed to assist and encourage

9 Indian children to enter, remain in, or reenter ele-

10 mentary or secondary school;

11 "(B) comprehensive academic and vocational

12 instruction;

13 "(C) instructional materials (such as library

14 books, textbooks, and other printed or published

15 or audiovisual materials) and equipment;

16 “ (D) comprehensive guidance, counseling, and

II testing services;

18 "(B) special education programs for handi-

19 capped;

20 “ (B) preschool programs;

21 “ (G) bilingual and bicultural education pro-

22 grams; and

23 “ (H) other services which meet the purposes

24 of this subsection; and

25 "(2) for the establishment and operation of exem- 17

1 plary and innovative educational programs and centers,

2 involving new educational approaches, methods, and

3 techniques designed to enrich programs of elementary

4 and secondary education for Indian children.

5 “ (d) The Commissioner is also authorized to make

6 grants to institutions of higher education and to State and

7 local educational agencies, in combination with institutions

8 of higher education, for carrying out programs and projects—

9 “ (1) to prepare persons to serve Indian children

10 as teachers, teacher aides, social workers, and ancillary

11 educational personnel; and

12 “ (2) to improve the qualifications of such persons

13 who are serving Indian children in such capacities.

14 Grants for the purposes of this subsection may be used for

15 the establishment of fellowship programs leading to an

10 advanced degree, for institutes and, as part of a continuing

17 program, for seminars, symposia, workshops, and confer-

18 ences.

19 “ (e) The Commissioner is also authorized to make

20 grants to, and contracts with, public agencies, and institutions

21 and Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations for—

22 “ (1) the dissemination of information concerning

23 education programs, services, and resources available to

24 Indian children, including evaluations thereof; and

25 “ (2) the evaluation of the effectiveness of federally 18

1 assisted programs in which Indian children may partici­

2 pate in achieving the purposes of such programs with

3 respect to such children.

4 “ (f) Applications for a grant under this section shall be

5 submitted at such time, in such manner, and shall contain

6 such information, and shall be consistent with such criteria,

7 as may be established as requirements in regulations promul­

8 gated by the Commissioner. Such applications shall—

9 “ (1) set forth a statement describing the activities

10 for which assistance is sought;

11 “ (2) in the case of an application for the purposes

12 of subsection(c), subject to such criteria as the Com­

13 missioner shall prescribe, provide for the use of funds

14 available under this section, and for the coordination of

15 other resources available to the applicant, in order to

16 insure that, within the scope of the purpose of the project,

17 there will be a comprehensive program to achieve the

18 purposes of this section;

19 “ (3) in the case of an application for the purposes

20 of subsection(c), make adequate provision for the train­

21 ing of the personnel participating in the project; and

22 “ (4) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness

23 of the project in achieving its purposes and those of this

24 section.

25 The Commissioner shall not approve an application for a 19 1 grant under subsection (b) or (c) unless he is satisfied that 2 such application, and any documents submitted with respect

3 thereto, show that there has been adequate participation 4 by the parents of the children to be served and tribal com-

5 munities in the planning and development of the project, and 6 that there will be such a participation in the operation and 7 evaluation of the project. In approving applications under 8 this section, the Commissioner shall give priority to applica-

9 tions from Indian educational agencies, organizations, and 10 institutions. 11 “ (g) For the purpose of making grants under this sec- 12 tion there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $25,000,-

13 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $35,000,- 14 000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years.”.

15 (b) (1) (A) The third sentence of section202(a) (1)

16 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

17 is amended by striking out “July 1, 1972,” and inserting

18 in lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”.

19 (B) The third sentence of section 302 (a) (1) of the

20 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is

21 amended by striking'out “July 1, 1972,” and inserting in

22 lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”.

23 (C) Clause (B) of section612(a) (1) of Public Law

24 91-230 is amended by striking out “July 1, 1972,” and

25 inserting in lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,”. 20

1 (2) Eor the purposes of titles II and III of the Elemen-

2 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and part B of

0 title VI of Public Law 91-230, the Secretary of the Interior

'I shall have the same duties and responsibilities with respect

5 to funds paid to him under such titles, as he would have if

G the Department of the Interior were a State educational

7 agency having responsibility for the administration of a State

8 plan under such titles.

9 P a r t C— Sp e c ia l P ro g ram s R e l a t in g to A d u l t

10 E d u c a t io n fo r I n d ia n s

11 AMENDMENT TO THE ADULT EDUCATION ACT

12 Sec. 4. Title III of the Elementary and Secondaiy

12 Education Amendments of 1966 (the Adult Education Act)

11 is amended by redesignating sections 314 and 315, and all

15 references thereto, as sections 315 and 316, respectively, and

I 9 by adding after section 313 the following new section:

1 7 “IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR

18 ADULT INDIANS

1 9 “Seo. 314. (a) The Commissioner shall carry out a pro-

20 gram of making grants to State and local educational agen-

21 cies, and to Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations, to

22 support planning, pilot, and demonstration projects which are

22 designed to plan for, and test and demonstrate the effective-

21 ness of, programs for providing adult education for Indians—

2ō « (1) to support planning, pilot, and demonstra- 21

1 tion projects which are designed to test and demonstrate

2 the effectiveness of programs for improving employment

3 and educational opportunities for adult Indians;

4 “ (2) to assist in the establishment and operation of

5 programs which are designed to stimulate (A) the pro­

6 vision of basic literacy opportunities to all nonliterate

7 Indian adults, and (B) the provision of opportunities to

8 all Indian adults to qualify for a high school equivalency

9 certificate in the shortest period of time feasible;

10 “ (3) to support a major research and development

11 program to develop more innovative and effective tech­

12 niques for achieving the literacy and high school equiv­

13 alency goals;

14 “ (4) to provide for basic surveys and evaluations

15 thereof to define accurately the extent of the problems of

16 illiteracy and lack of high school completion on Indian

17 reservations;

18 “ (5) to encourage the dissemination of information

19 and materials relating to, and the evaluation of the effec­

20 tiveness of, education programs which may offer educa­

21 tional opportunities to Indian adults.

22 “ (b) The Commissioner is also authorized to make

23 grants to, and contracts with, public agencies, and institu­

24 tions, and Indian tribes, institutions, and organizations for—

25 “ (1) the dissemination of information concerning 22

1 educational programs, services, and resources available

2 to Indian adults, including evaluations thereof; and

3 “ (2) the evaluation of the effectiveness of federally

4 assisted programs in which Indian adults may partici­

5 pate in achieving the purposes of such programs with

6 respect to such adults.

7 “ (c) Applications for a grant under this section shall he

8 submitted at such time, in such manner, and contain such

9 information, and shall be consistent with such criteria, as

10 may be established as requirements in regulations promul­

11 gated by the Commissioner. Such applications shall—

12 “ (1) set forth a statement describing the activities

13 for which assistance is sought;

14 “ (2) provide for an evaluation of the effectiveness

15 of the project in achieving its purposes and those of

16 this section.

17 The Commissioner shall not approve an application for a

18 grant under subsection (a) unless he is satisfied that such

19 application, and any documents submitted with respect

20 thereto, indicate that there has been adequate participation

21 by the individuals to be served and tribal communities in the

22 planning and development of the project, and that there

23 will be such a participation in the operation and evaluation

24 of the project. In approving applications under subsection

25 (a), the Commissioner shall give priority to applications 23

1 from Indian educational agencies, organizations, and insti-

2 tutions.

3 “ (d) For the purpose of making grants under this sec-

4 tion there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5-

5 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and

6 $8,000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years.”.

7 P a r t D — O f f ic e of I n d ia n E d u c a t io n

8 OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION

9 Sec. 5. (a) There is hereby established, in the Office

10 of Education, a bureau to be known as the “Office of Indian

11 Education” which, under the direction of the Commissioner,

12 shall have the responsibility for administering the provisions

13 of title III of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law

14 874, Eighty-first Congress), as added by this Act, section

15 810 of title V III of the Elementary and Secondary Educa-

16 tion Act of 1965, as added by this Act, and section 314 of

17 title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education

18 Amendments of 1966, as added by this Act. The Office shall

19 be headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education,

20 who shall be appointed by the Commissioner of Education

21 from a list of nominees submitted to him by the National

22 Advisory Council on Indian Education.

23 (b) The Deputy Commissioner of Indian Education

24 shall be compensated at the rate prescribed for, and shall be

25 placed in, grade 18 of the General Schedule set forth in see- 1 tion 5332 of title 5, United States Code, and shall perform

2 such duties as are delegated or assigned to him by the Coin-

3 missioner. The position created by this subsection shall be in

4 addition to the number of positions placed in grade 18 of such

5 General Schedule under section 5108 of title 5, United States

6 Code.

7 NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INDIAN EDUCATION

8 Sec. 6. (a) There is hereby established the National

9 Advisory Council on Indian Education (referred to in this

10 title as the “National Council”), which shall consist of fif-

11 teen members who are Indians and Alaska Natives ap-

12 pointed by the President of the United States. Such appoint-

13 ments shall be made by the President from lists of nominees

14 furnished, from time to time, by Indian tribes and organiza-

15 tions, and shall represent diverse geographic areas of the

16 country.

17 (b) The National Council shall—

18 (1) advise the Commissioner of Education with

19 respect to the administration (including the development 20 of regulations and of administrative practices and poli-

21 cies) of any program in which Indian children or adults

22 participate from which they can benefit, including title

23 H I of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874,

24 Eighty-first Congress), as added by this Act, and section

25 810, title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­ 1 cation Act of 1965, as added by this Act and with respect

2 to adequate funding thereof;

Q O (2) review applications for assistance under title

4 III of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874,

5 Eighty-first Congress) as added by this Act, section 810

6 of title V III of the Elementary and Secondary Educa­

7 tion Act of 1965, as added by this Act, and section 314

8 of the Adult Education Act, as added by this Act, and

9 make recommendations to the Commissioner with re­

10 spect to their approval;

11 (3) evaluate program and projects carried out

12 under any program of the Department of Health, Edu­

13 cation, and Welfare in which Indian children or adults

14 can participate or from which they can benefit, and dis­

15 seminate the results of such evaluations;

16 (4) provide technical assistance to local educational

17 agencies and to Indian educational agencies, institutions,

18 and organizations to assist them in improving the educa­

19 tion of Indian children;

20 (5) assist the Commissioner in developing criteria

21 and regulations for the administration and evaluation of

22 grants made under section 303 (b) of the Act of Septem­

23 ber 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Con­

2 4 gress); and

25 (6) to submit to the Congress not later than March 26

1 31 of each year a report on its activities, which shall

2 include any recommendations it may deem necessary for

3 the improvement of Federal education programs in

4 which Indian children and adults participate, or from

5 which they can benefit, which report shall include

6 statement of the National Council’s recommendations

7 to the Commissioner with respect to the funding of any

8 such programs.

9 (c) With respect to functions of the National Council

10 stated in clauses (2), (3), and (4) of subsection(b),the

11 National Council is authorized to contract with any public

12 or private nonprofit agency, institution, or organization for

13 assistance in carrying out such functions.

14 (d) From the sums appropriated pursuant to section

15 401 (c) of the General Education Provisions Act which are

16 available for the purposes of section 411 of such Act and

17 for part C of such Act, the Commissioner shall make avail-

18 able such sums as may be necessary to enable the National

19 Council to carry out its functions .under this section.

20 P a r t E — M iscellaneous P r o v is io n s

21 AMENDMENT TO TITLE V OP HIGHER EDUCATION ACT

22 OF 1 9 6 5

23 Sec. 7. (a) Section 503 (a) of the Higher Education

24 Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after “and higher edu-

25 cation,” the following: “including the need to provide such

26 programs and education to Indians,”. 27

1 (b) Part D of title V of the Higher Education Act of

2 1965 is amended adding after section 531 the following

3 new section:

4 “TEACHERS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN

5 “ S ec. 532. Of the sums made available for the pur-

6 poses of this part, not lessthan 5 per centum shall be used for

7 grants to, and contracts with, institutions of higher education

3 and other public and private nonprofit agencies and organiza-

9 tions for the purpose of preparing persons to serve as teachers

10 of children living on reservations serviced by elementary and

11 secondary schools for Indian children operated or supported

12 by the Department of the Interior.”.

13 AMENDMENT TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

14 EDUCATION ACT OF 1 9 65

15 S e c . 8. Section 706(a) of the Elementary .and Sec-

16 ondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows:

17 “ S e c . 706. (a) For the purpose of carrying out pro-

18 grams pursuant to this title for individuals on or from reser-

19 vations serviced by elementary and secondary schools

20 operated on or near such reservations for Indian children, a

21 nonprofit institution or organization of the Indian tribe con-

22 cerned which operate any such school and which is approved

23 by the Commissioner for the purpose of this section, may be

24 considered to be a local educational agency, as such term is

25 used in this title.”. 1 DEFINITION

2 Sec. 9. For the purposes of this Act, the term “Indian”

3 means any individual who (1) is a member of a tribe, band,

4 or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes,

5 bands, or groups terminated since1940 and those recog­

6 nized now or in the future by the State in which they reside,

7 or who is a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any

S such member, or (2) is considered by the Secretary of the

9 Interior to be an Indian for any purpose, or (3) is an

10 Eskimo or Aleut or other Alaska Native, or (4) is deter­

11 mined to be an Indian under regulations promulgated by the

12 Commissioner, after consultation with the National Advisory

13 Council on Indian Education, which regulations shall fur­

14 ther define the term “Indian”.

Passed the Senate October 8, 1971.

Attest: FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary.

9 2 dCONGRESS 1st Session S. 2482 AN ACT To authorize financial support for improve­ ments in Indian education, and for other purposes.

O c to b e e 12, 1971 Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

92d Congress 2d Session} COMMITTEE PRINT

WELFARE REFORM

GUARANTEED JOB OPPORTUNITY

Explanation of Committee Decisions

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE UNITED STATES SENATE Russell B. Long,Chairman

APRIL 28, 1972

Prepared by the staff and printed for the use of the Committee on Finance

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 78-622 WASHINGTON : 1972

Explanation of Finance Committee Workfare Amendment Senator RussellB. Long(D., La.), Chairman of the Senate Com­ mittee on Finance, announced today that the Committee had agreed to substitute a guaranteed employment opportunity program for family heads in place of the guaranteed welfare income provisions of H.R. 1.The Committee’s substitute also includes wage supplements for family heads working at low wages and work bonuses for wage earners with low and moderate incomes who head families. Under the Committee’s workfare approach, families headed by able-bodied fathers and families headed by mothers with no child under age six would be ineligible for welfare. However, these families, as well as other families so desiring, would be able if they choose, to participate in an employment program guaranteed providing job a opportunity at a wage of $1.20 an hour ($2,400 a year). This contrasts with a guaranteed minimum income under H.R. 1 of $1,600 for a family of 2, $2,000 for a family of 3, and $2,400 for a family of 4. Family heads engaged in employment in the private sector at a wage paying at least $1.20 an hour would be wageprovided supplement a of three-fourths the difference between their pay and the minimum wage of $1.60 an hour. Jobs covered by the minimum wage would not be eligible for the supplement. Family heads employed in jobs covered by the social security or railroad retirement programs would receive a work bonus equal to 10 percent of their wage income up to $4,000. This produces a maximum work bonus of $400. As income continues to rise, this work bonus would be reduced until it vanished at a wage income level of $5,600. Like H.R. 1 and present law, the Committee amendment would not apply to single persons and childless couples; only families with chil­ dren would be eligible to benefits. In announcing the Committee decision, which was agreed to by a vote of 10 to 4,1 the Chairman observed that the principal defect of the present welfare system was that by providing recipients with con­ siderable income without regard to the work effort the relative value of work is sharply reduced, and, in some cases, is completely eliminated. He said that H.R. 1, as passed by the House, actually makes the situation worse by increasing the nilmbcr of people eligible for welfare and by guaranteeing an income level that makes it impossible to devise effective work incentives except at prohibitive cost. On the other hand, he said, the Committee amendments would substantially strengthen the work incentive by allowing needy families to keep all of the income they earn from private employment. If that income should come from jobs in the private sector paying less than the minimum wage, the wage supplement provided under the plan would make the job more financially rewarding than it is today. He noted that, under the welfare approach in the House bill, two-thirds of an individual’s earnings would be subtracted from his 1 Yeas: Long, Anderson, Talmadge, Byrd, Bennett, Curtis, Miller, Jordan, Fannin, and Hansen. Nays: Hartke, Ribicoff, Harris, and Nelson. (i) 2 welfare grant, and that this “tax” on the poor could stifle any in­ centive they might have to seek to better their condition, since they would retain only one-third of what they earned. Senator Long observed that the Committee’s decision represented the first concerted effort in Congress to try to break the cycle of dependency characterizing today’s welfare system. By relating benefits to work effort, as the Committee amendment proposes, he continued, it would be possible for welfare recipients to greatly improve their condition by working. The Chairman noted that, under the Committee provision, 40 percent of the almost three million families now receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children would no longer be eligible for welfare. Thus, the Committee bill would for the first time mark a substantial reversal in the trend of rapid increases in the AFDC caseloads in recent years. Senator Long noted that the Committee’s decision was in full accord when the President’s statement last December when he said: We are a nation that pays tribute to the working man and rightly scorns the freeloader who voluntarily opts to be a ward of the State. No task, no labor, no work is without dignity or meaning that enables an individual to feed and clothe and shelter himself and provide for his family. The Chairman stated that the Committee’s workfare substitute would provide substantially more income to families with low income wage earners than would the Administration’s Family Assistance Plan. He said the important difference was that, under the workfare approach, the additional money would go only to people who are working, whereas the Administration bill provided its benefits principally for people who are not working. The Chairman said that the Committee would now be devoting its attentions to working out the details of the guaranteed job opportunity program, including such matters as a children’s allowance for large families; the scope of benefits for families still eligible for welfare; child care; and effective dates. Senator Long stated that the combination of the Committee’s decisions with respect to workfare and child support would substan­ tially change the direction of the welfare system. With those who can work earning their own way and with deserting fathers contributing to the support of their abandoned children, the welfare system in the future would be able to better serve its purpose of assisting children who have no other means of support. There follows a brief outline of the major features of the Committee approach. Outline of the Approach Under the guaranteed employment program, persons considered em­ ployable would not be eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children but would be eligible on a voluntary basis to participate in a wholly Federal employment program. Thus, employable family heads would not be eligible for a guaranteed welfare income, but would be guaranteed an opportunity to work. 3 The following table shows which families would continue to be eligible for welfare and those which would no longer be eligible for welfare under the Committee proposal: Eligible for Welfare Not Eligible for Welfare1 1. Family headed by mother1. with Family headed by able-bodied child under age 6 father 2. Family headed by disabled2. Family headed by mother with father where mother is caringno child under 6 (unless the for father mother is attending school 3. Family headed by mother whofull time) is ill, incapacitated, or of advanced age 4. Families too remote from an employment program to be able to participate 5. Family headed by mother at­ tending school full time even if there is no child under 6 1 The heads of these families would be eligible to volunteer for a job in the guaranteed employment program. Heads of families eligible for welfare as well as heads of families no longer eligible for welfare could participate in the new employment program. An estimated 40 percent or 1.2 million of the 3 million families cur­ rently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children would no longer be eligible for welfare once the Committee provision became effective. Increasing the value of work under the Committee.—The plan Com­ mittee proposal is designed to increase the economic value of work to low-income persons; the table below shows the incentive effects under the guaranteed employment opportunity proposal. Three types of employment are compared: 1. Employment by the Federal Government at a wage of $1.20 per hour (three-quarters of the minimum wage); 2. Subsidized employment with a private employer in a job not covered by the Federal minimum wage which pays $1.20 per hour; and 3. Employment at the minimum wage of $1.60 per hour. The table also shows what happens to total family income under the proposal if the parent works 40 hodrs a week, 20 hours a week, or no hours a week. The sources of income shown for the Committee proposal are: (a) wages paid by the employer, (b) wages paid by the Government, either as employer or in the form of a wage subsidy to the employee (for those earning less than the minimum wage), and (c) the work bonus equal to 10 percent of wages covered under social security. The table shows these major points about the Committee plan: (1) Since the participant is paid for working, his wages do not vary with family size (although a transitional children’s allowance may be devised by the Committee as its work continues. Thus a family with one child would have no economic incentive to have another child. This feature of the Committee proposal also pre­ serves the principle of equal pay for equal work 4 (2) As the employee’s rate of pay increases, his total income increases. (3) As the employee’s income rises due to higher pay in a regular job, the cost to the Government decreases. $1.20-per-hour employment by the Government costs the taxpayer $48 for a 40-hour week; working the same 40 hours for a private employer at a $1.20 hourly rate gives the employee a $17 boost in income while cutting the cost to the Government by $31. Moving to an unsubsidized job at the minimum wage increases the employee’s income another $6 while saving the Government about $10 more. (4) The less the employee works, the less he gets. No matter what the type of employment, the employee who works 20 hours gets half of what he would get if he works 40 hours; he gets nothing if he fails to work at all. (5) The value of working is increased rather than decreased. Working 40 hours for the Government is worth $1.20 per hour; when a private employer pays $1.20, the value of working to the employee is $1.62 per hour; and working at the minimum wage is worth $1.76 per hour to the employee. This will assure that any participant in private employment will receive more than the minimum wage of $1.60. (Under H.R. 1, by way of contrast, the value of working is decreased rather than increased, since the family would be eligible for welfare benefits if the family head does nothing.

Actual value of forty hours of employment under— Wage paid by employer H.R. 1 Committee (cents) proposal

$1.20 63 $1.62 $1.60 1 76 1.76

1 83¢ for a family of 2. (6) Earnings from other employment do not decrease the wages received for hours worked. Thus an individual able to work in private employment part of the time increases his income and saves the Government money. Virtually no policing mechanism is necessary to check up on his income from work. (Similarly, child support payments do not reduce the wages received for hours worked; support payments thus benefit the family in their entirety.) 5 TABLE 1.—WORK INCENTIVES UNDER THE COMMITTEE PROPOSAL

Employed by—

Private Private Government employer employer at $1.20 at $1.20 at mini­ per hour per hour mum wage ($1.60 per hour)

40 hours worked: Wages paid by: Employer...... $48.00 $64.00 Government...... $48.00 12.00 Special 10-percent payment,,,. 4.80 6.40 Total Government payment... 48.00 16.80 6.40 Total income...... 48.00 64.80 70.40 20 hours worked: Wages paid by: Employer...... 24.00 32.00 Government...... 24.00 6.00 Special 10-percent payment, ,, ,2.40 3.20 Total Government payment... 24.00 8.40 3.20 Total income...... 24.00 32.40 35.20 No hours worked...... 0 0 0 Hourly value of working 40 hours... 1.20 1.62 1.76

Work disincentives under present law and administration.— proposal By way of contrast with the Committee proposal, under present law a mother who is eligible for welfare is guaranteed a certam monthly income (at a level set by the State) if she has no other source of income; if she begins to work, her welfare payment is reduced. Specifically, in addition to an allowance for work expenses, her welfare payment is reduced $2 for each $3 earned in excess of $30 a month. Generally, then, for each dollar earned and reported to the welfare agency, the family’s income is increased by 33 cents. Families headed by unem­ ployed fathers are currently eligible for Aid to Families with De­ pendent Children in 23 States. For these fathers, the same earnings exemption (work expenses plus $30 plus one-third of earnings above $30) applies if they work part-time, but once they are no longer unemployed (defined as working less than 100 hours a month), they are no longer eligible to receive any welfare assistance. 6 The Administration proposal uses the same basic approach as present law but substitutes a flat $60 exemption plus one-third of additional earnings for the present $30 plus work expenses plus one- third of additional earnings. For families headed by fathers, the same earned income exemption would apply as for mothers; thus even if a father worked full-time he would continue to be eligible for a welfare payment if total family income is not too high. For example, a family of four is guaranteed a minimum income of $2,400 annually; a family with earnings of $4,320 will no longer be eligible for welfare benefits. Kinds of employment.—Three kinds of employment would be envisioned: 1. Regular employment in the private sector or in jobs in public or nonprofit private agencies, with no subsidy; 2. Partially subsidized private or public employment; and 3. Newly developed jobs, with the Federal Government bearing the full cost of the salary. Placement in regular employment.—Some participants with little or no preparation could be placed immediately in regular employment involving no Government subsidy. These jobs would all pay at least the minimum wage (currently $1.60 an hour). Work bonus for low-income workers.—Low-income workers in regular employment who head families would be eligible for a work bonus equal to 10 percent of their wages taxed under the social security (or railroad retirement) program, if the wage income of the husband and wife is $4,000 or less. For families where the husband’s and wife’s wage income exceeds $4,000, the work bonus would be equal to $400 minus one-quarter of the amount by which this income exceeds $4,000. Thus there would be no work bonus once income reached $5,600 ($5,600 exceeds $4,000 by $1,600; one-quarter of $1,600 is $400, which subtracted from $400 equals zero). The size of the work bonus is shown on the table below for selected examples: Annual earnings of family taxed under social security Work bonus $2,000. $200 3.00 0 ...... 300 4.00 0 ...... 400 5,000.. ______150 5,600 ...... 0 The Committee plan incorporates the features of (1) not varying benefits by family size, but only by income, providing no economic incentive for having additional children; and (2) having a gradual phaseout of the amount of the payment as income rises above $4,000 so as not to create a work disincentive. The proposal would cost an estimated $1.1 billion and would provide work bonus payments to 5% million families. Subsidized public or private employment.—In this category wTould be jobs not covered by the Federal minimum wage law, in which the employer paid less than the minimum wage but at least three-quarters of the minimum wage (currently $1.60 per hour and $1.20 per hour, respectively). No subsidy would be paid if the employer reduced pay for the job because of the subsidy. Thus no jobs presently paying the minimum wage would be downgraded under the committee proposal, and the minimum wage itself would not be affected. Rather, the proposal relates solely to those jobs not covered today under the minimum wage law. Some of these include: Small retail stores: Outside salesmen in any industry. Sales clerk Public sector: Cashier Recreation aide Cleanup man Swimming pool attendant Park service worker Small service establishments: Environmental control aide Beautician assistant Ecology aide Waiter Sanitation aide Waitress Library assistant Busboy Police aide Cashier Fire department assistant Cook Social welfare service aide Porter Family planning aide Chambermaid Child care assistant Counterman Consumer protection aide Caretaker Domestic service: Home for the aged employee Gardener Handyman Agricultural labor: Cook Jobs picking, packing, sorting, Household aide and grading crops; spray­ Child attendant ing, fertilizing, and other Attendant for aged or dis­ preparatory work; milking abled person cows; caring for livestock For these jobs, the Federal Government would make a payment to any employee who is the head of a household equal to three quarters of the difference between what the employer pays him and the mini­ mum wage, for up to 40 hours a week. Thus if an employer paid $1.20 an hour the Federal subsidy would amount to 30 cents an hour (three-quarters of the 40-cent difference between $1.20 and $1.60). Federally funded jobs.1—For persons who could not be placed in either regular or subsidized public or private employment, jobs would be created which would pay at the rate of three-quarters of the minimum wage (that is, $1.20 per hour). An individual could work up to 40 hours a week (an annual rate of about $2,400), and would be paid on the basis of hours worked just as in any other job; special provision would be made for mothers whose children were in school and for whom no out-of-school child care was available to allow them to work part time (say 30 hours) and still receive a full salary. For these individuals who cannot be placed immediately in regular employment at a rate of pay at least equal to the minimum wage, or in subsidized private employment, the major emphasis would be on having them perform useful work which can contribute to the better­ ment of the community. A large number of such activities are currently going undone because of the lack of individuals or funds to do them. 1 During consideration of H.R. 1, the Chairman directed a telegram to the Governor of each State, re» questing information as to the type of work opportunities that could be made available to welfare recipients. Thirty-four States (not including the big welfare States of New York, California and Massachusetts) re» sponded, indicating that nearly 250,006 jobs could be made available in such fields as: clerical work, main­ tenance, teacher aides, library aides, recreation aides, park maintenance, sanitation, highway beautification, law enforcement, dispatchers, cashiers, timekeepers, tool clerks, meter maids, nursery school attendants, homemaking aides, school crossing guards, nurse aides, social work aides, child care aides, and community outreach workers. 8 With a large body of participants for whom useful work will have to be arranged, many of these community improvement activities could now be done. At the same time, it is recognized that safeguards are needed so that the program meets the goal of opening up new job opportunities and does not simply replace existing employees, whether in the public of private sector. Any job in the regular economy paying $1.20 per hour or more, even a part-time job, would yield a greater income than $1.20-per-hour Government employment and it would be anticipated that this would serve as an incentive for participants to seek regular employment. In addition, the cost to the Government would be substantially less for an individual in regular employment. Upgrading of skills through vocational—Participants training. in the employment program would be eligible to volunteer for training to improve their skills under the Work Incentive Program administered by the Department of Labor. Under the WIN program as it would be modified by the Committee amendment, the Labor Department would accept an individual for enrollment to the extent funds are available and only if they are satisfied that the individual is: 1. Capable of completing training; and 2. Able to become independent through employment at the end of the training and as a result of the training. Employees under the employment program who wished to partici­ pate in training under the Work Incentive Program would be strongly motivated, for they would be paid only $1.00 rather than $1.20 for each hour of training. Following the successful completion of training (which could not exceed 1 year in duration), the trainee would receive a lump-sum bonus for having completed training. Eligible for services.—Since the purpose of the proposal is to improve the quality of life for children and their families, any member of a family whose head participates in the work program could be provided services to strengthen family life or reduce dependency, to the extent funds are available to pay for the services. Open-ended funding would be provided for family planning and child care services. The agency administering the employment program would refer family members to other agencies in arranging for the provision of social and other serv­ ices which they do not provide directly. For example, a disabled family member might be referred to the vocational rehabilitation agency, or a 16-year-old out-of-school youth might be referred to an appropriate work or training program, even though the cost of the services them­ selves would not be borne by the employment program. Former participants in the work program would have access to free family planning services and to child care on a wholly or partly subsidized basis, depending on family income. Other services needed to continue in employment, including minor medical needs, could be provided by the agency administering the program. State supplementary payments.—No State supplementation would be required nor would there be Federal matching if it were provided. However, in order to prevent the State welfare program from under­ mining the objectives of the Federal employment program the State would have to assume that individuals eligible for the State supple­ ment who are also eligible to participate in the employment program (but no longer eligible for federally matched AFDC) are actually participating full time and thus receiving $200 per month. A similar rule would apply to mothers with children under age 6 who volunteer. 9 Furthermore, the State would be required to disregard any earnings between $200 a month and $300 a month (the amount an employee would earn working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage) to ensure that the incentive system of the alternative plan is preserved. These earnings disregards would be a flat requirement; States would not be required to take into account work expenses. States would be free to treat income above $300 monthly in any way they wished as long as the first $300 earned is treated as though it were $200. The effect of this requirement would be to give a participant in the work program a strong incentive to work full time (since earnings of $200 will be attributed to him in any case), and it would not interfere with the strong incentives he would have to seek regular employment rather than working for the Government at $1.20 per hour. The table below shows how wages under the employment program would be treated for State welfare purposes:

Hours worked per week...... None 20 40 40 Hourly wage...... $1.20 $1.20 $1.60 Approximate actual monthly income...... 0 $100 $200 $300 Income deemed available for State welfare purposes...... $200 $200 $200 $200

Ineligibility for food stamps.—Under H.R. 1, families eligible for welfare benefits would no longer be eligible to participate in the food stamp program. Under the Committee amendment, persons eligible to participate in the employment program would similarly not be eligible for food stamps, nor for surplus commodities. However, as in H.R. 1, States would be assured that there would be no additional expense to them if they adjust their supplementation levels to take into account loss of entitlement to food stamps. Developing jobs in the private .—Undersector present law, an employer hiring a participant in the Work Incentive Program is eligible for a tax credit as a way of developing employment opportunities in the private sector. The tax credit equals 20 percent of the employee’s wages during the first 12 months of employment, with a recapture of the credit if the employer does not retain the employee for at least 1 year in addition (unless the employee voluntarily leaves or is terminated for good cause). The Committee will be exploring ways of stimulating new job opportunities in the private sector in order to make the guaranteed employment program more effective. o

MEMORANDUM

To: Tom

Prom: Rock

Subject: Medicaid

Date: June 5, 1972

Two recent developements make the consideration of medicaid relative to Alaska a timely subject for legislation. The state is in the process of passing enabling legislation (it is my understanding that it has passed the State Senate) and Alaska has been declared a medical poverty area by the National Health Service Corps (which, however, doesn’t directly relate to medicaid as it is an acknoledgement of the l a c k o f institutions/rather than incomes).

The two major problems Alaska faces in adopting medicaid are the low federal participation rate for Alaska and the large native population that could elect to take benefits under medicaid rather than from the fully subsidized Indian Health Services program.

The method used to determine the federal participation rate (PER) for medicaid (as set forth in Title 42, U.S.C., section 1396d(b)) is based on income' using the following formula to determine the state share (with the federal share the residual): State Share _ .(State Per-Capita Income) 2 45% ' (U.S. Per-Capita Incoihe)2

The FPR also may not be less than 50$ nor more than 83$. Because of Alaska's high cost of living and subsequent "high" per-capitV income, the FPR is the minimum 50$. If Alaska’s per-capita income were adjusted for the high cost of living, the FPR would be about 60$. The only estimate I have now of the cost of the medicaid program to the state (I have not yet received a reply from them) is a statement in the Anchorage Times by Joe Josephson that the state would get back $4 million in federal funds if it participated in the medicaid program. Based on this estimate, adjusting Alaska's per-capita income for the cost of living would increase the federal share of the program by $800,000.

The justification for such a change is that the federal program was adopted to make health care available to all - with state funding related to the wealth of the state, vtB'l'n rnr was meant as a measure of that wealth, but it is not an accurate measure for Alaska. It is unfair that Alaska should pay a higher share not only in percentage terms, but in real dollars (adjusted for price differences), to provide its citizens with the same health car that the federal government funds in other states. BLS budget studies relfectsed in April of 1972 show that the cost of living is about 36% higher in Alaska than the national average-" , and that the cost of medical care is over 50% higher.

Precedents for cost of living adjustments and variable income floors for programs include: 1) 5 U.S.C. Section 5924 - Authorizing cost of living allowances to federal employees 2) 5 U.S.C. Section 5925 - Authorizing post differentials for recruitment and retention incentives 3) 5 U.S.C. Section 5941 - Authorizing "allowances based on living costs and conditions of environment; employees stationed outside the continental United States or in Alaska" 4) The food stamp program has a separate table for Alaska and Hawaii determined by price adjustments)(frora CPI figures for agricultural products and the agricultural department economy diet)of income levels.'

The methods of altering the altering the rate structure would be to enact legislation providing for full federal funding of medicaid, to allow a cost of living (or cost of , medical care) adjustment to all states, or to have Alaska (& Hawaii? ) treated as a special case as in the food stamp program. I would recommend that last proposal using the BLS budget studies comparative analysis of medical costs to adjust income before computation in the above formula to determine the FPR. This would result in an adjustment factor of decreasing Alaska's income by about 33% . This legislation could be an amendment to H.R.l or to the Social Security Act.

The problem of medicaid and native health services could only be solved by amending the Social Security Act to provide full faderal funding for Indian social s rvices (as proposed in the Metcalf Amendment -#395- to H . R . l . Under medicaid, natives will be able to choose whether th ey will seek help under its provisions or under the Indian Health Services program. For many natives where only Indian Health Services are available, there will be no choice. The IHS does not plan to decrease its funding or level of services in Alaska.

If we can get real income (or purchasing power) used as a standard in the Medicaid program, perhaps it would be easier to get it adopted in other welfare legislation.

H.R.l (Sec. 209) al s o sets up an income standard for payments under medicaid with a fixed earnings level included in computations. I will also check into it. i‘ j. Federal F.dorML Federal State medical Federal medical Federal State State f r ■? c«*-i /"»

«Colo.' 57.61 52.91 «Mich 50.00 50.00 *R.I. 50.26 50.00 «Conn. 50.00 50.CO «Minn. 56.82 52.02 S.C. 78.00 65.00 Del. 50.00 50.00 «Miss. 83.00 65.00 *S.D. 69.69 65.00 «D.C. 50.00 50.00 Mo. 59.53 55.03 Tenn.7^.35 65.00 Fla. 60.67 56.30 «Mont. 67.16 63.51 Texas 65.18 61.31 Ga. 69.67 65.00 Neb. 58.U8 53.86 «Utah 69.88 65.00 «Guam 50.00 — Nev. 50.00 50.00 «Vt. 6U.71 60.79 «Hawaii __50.83 50. CO «N.H. 59.36 5U.8U «V.I. 50.00 «Idaho 71.56 65.00 «N.J. 50.00 50.00 *Va. 6^.03 60.0H «111. 50.00 50.00 N.M. 72.63 65.00 «Wash. 50.00 50.00 Ind. 55.05 50.06 «N.Y. 50.00 50.00 «W. Va. 76.97 65.00 «Iowa 58.07 53. ia N.C. 72.8U 65.00 «Wis. 56.28 . 51.^2 «Kan. 59.06 5^.51 *N,D. 71.28 65.00 W/o. 62.73 58.59

These percentages are used as follows in determining the Federal share of assistance: 1 . Regular formula a. OAA, AB, APTD or AABD: The Federal Government pays $31 of the first $37 of the average monthly * payment per recipient. Of the amount in-the average payment above $37 and up to $75 , the Federal \ Government pays the "Federal percentage." ^ 1 b. AFDC; The Federal government pays five-sixths of the average monthly payment per recipient up / to $18." Of the amount of the average payment above $18 and up to $32 , the Federal Government pays y' the "Federal percentage." 2. Alternate formulas a. Under Section 1318 of the Social Security Act, those States operating an approved plan for Medical Assistance (Title XIXJ have the option of using the "Federal medical assistance percentage," with no idLa^cLoA. maximum, for the Federal share of ell these assistance categories also. The 33 States which had elected this option as of September 1971 are indicated by an asterisk («). b. Under Section 1121 of the Act, States making vendor payments to Intermediate Care Fa.cilities in OAA, & AB, APTD, or AABD have the option of including such payments with the money payments under the regular formula or using the Federal medical assistance percentages for the Federal share of the ICF payments as above. However, .January 1 , 1972, Sac. 1121 was repealed and such facilities were transferred as medical services to be ^id for under Title XIX.r Emergency Ass is.ince 8-lo,cts t? include emergency assistance in its elan for AFDC, the Federal Government pays 50 pore-:..., oi seen ass.usoanca for far.ul3.es w.vfch children not to exceed 30 days in any 12-r.cnth period. June 13, 1972

WATCH OUT FOR DENGUE

The presence of Dengue fever in American Samoa has been confirmed and there is possibility of its importation to Hawaii by someone exposed to dengue just before leaving Samoa for Hawaii. The incubation period is usually 5 or 6 days and the initial symptoms consist of sudden fever, a severe headache, pains behind the eyes, joint and muscle pains, and a rash on the 3rd or 4th day of fever. It is not transmitted from person to person except through the bites of certain mosquitoes of the Aedes family. Hawaii had _ thirty years ago which was imported from the South Pacific and spread initially by Aedes egyptii and later by Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. We have been quite successful in eliminating Aedes egyptii from most parts of Hawaii, but Aedes albopictus is still around in relatively small numbers. A susceptible mosquito, feeding on a patient anytime between the day before the fever starts and the 5th day of illness will become infective between 8 to 11 days later and remain infective for life. Aedes albopictus is a day-time biting mosquito, black in color with white bands on its legs and a white stripe on its back. Don't let it bite you if you have a fever.

TYPHOID AND TRAVELER'S DIARRHEA

Two memos have been received recently from the Foreign Quarantine Program, one about the presence of typhoid in Mexico, and the other about the frequent occurrence among travelers of diarrhea from a variety of causes.

Typhoid fever may be picked up in the Philippines as well as in Mexico, as was discovered by a few of those who visited Manila over the New Year's holiday period this winter. Immunization against typhoid may reduce the severity of the disease but does not give complete protection from infection. The only certain protection is to drink only boiled or carbonated water, well cooked foods served hot, no salads, and only fruit that one can peel oneself. Clean hands do not contaminate food,--the danger is from insufficient washing.

"Traveler's Diarrhea" is really a catch-all term which apparently includes the full array of Salmonella types, bacillary dysentery, and occasionally pathogenic or toxin producing strains of E. coli. It is a disease caused by contaminated water or food and may be avoided by staying with freshly boiled water, cooked foods served hot, and non-contaminated fruits that can be peeled, and by keeping away from raw water and green salads. Even brushing teeth or rinsing the mouth with contaminated water can result in illness.

The Foreign Quarantine Service warned against the use of iodochlorhydroxyquin, sold as Entero-Vioform, due to recent findings of severe neurologic disorders appearing in people who had taken this drug to reduce the symptoms of traveler's diarrhea.

TYPHOID EPIDEMIC IN MEXICO

An outbreak of typhoid resistant to chloramphenicol, tetracycline, streptomycin and sulfadiazine, but sensitive to ampicillin, cephalothin, gentamicin, kanamycin, malidixic acid and nitrofurantoin began in Central Mexico and now involves Mexico City and surrounding states. The phage lysis pattern, degraded Vi (A), has been identified in isolates from hospitalized patients. Mortality is relatively low. A high percentage of intestinal perforations has been reported.

Travelers to Mexico are advised to use the standard precautions regarding drinking water, brushing teeth, ice in drinks and foods as in less well developed countries, and to obtain fresh immunization against typhoid before visiting these areas.

I] ef Communicable Disease Division Hawaii State Department of Health Date of Release:.,..-I13 .1 9 ...... / 2 COMMUNICABLE DISEASE REPORT Department of Health STATE OF HAVjVAII Epidemiology Branch M o n th E n d i n g 31«... 1? . 7 y ee^s )

TOTAL F IV E Y EA R M ILITA R Y F IV E YEAR T H IS YEAR THIS M E D IA N AHU HAWAII KAUAI MOLOKAI LANAI ACTIVE DUTY MEDIAN T O D ATE MAUI PERIOD T O D A T E (INCLUDED IN TOTAL)

Total Population (April 1, 1970) S T A T E - 769,913 63C°J ,528 63,468 38,691 29,761 5,089 2,204 56,085

Amebiasis 0 2 Chickenpox 469 206 1429 861 399 40 7 23 Conjunctivitis, Infectious 6 2 13 14 2 4 Encephalitis, Primary & Post-lnfect. 1 1 2 Gonorrhea 164 95 853 370 47 3 13 1 49

Hepatitis, Infectious and Serum 36 11 152 46 18 4 12 2 5 Hookworm Disease (Ancylostomiasis) 8 3 45 16 8 3 6 2 Influenza 21 57 1260 1171 12 Leprosy 1 15 7 Leptospirosis (Weil’s Disease) ! 0 1 4

Malaria, Imported i i 13 8 47 1 1 Measles (Rubeola) 1 13 17 84 79 12 1 Measles, German (Rubella) 30 43 194 5 1 Meningitis, Aseptic and Viral ! I 8 9 24 2 1 Meningitis, Meningococcal 0 3 4 1 Meningitis, Bacterial (All Types) 2 2 14 18 1 1 Meningitis, Unspecified 1 3 Mononucleosis, Infectious 9 3 37 30 8 1 2 Mumps I «* 140 147 663 12 2 1 26 3 Pertussis (Whooping Cough) 0 1 0 1

Salmonellosis ; 66 41 189 190 32 34 4* Shigellosis (Bacillary Dysentery) ! 7 31 53 202 7 Strep Infections (Include Scarlet F.) ! 422 310 2434 1719 357 37 28 Syphilis, Primary and Secondary 2 0 18 7 2 Syphilis, Early Latent 1 1 10 6 1

Syphilis, Late and Late Latent 2 6 20 30 2 Tetanus 0 0 Trichinosis 0 0 Tuberculosis (Preliminary Report) 26 25 118 127 21 2 2 1 Typhoid Fever 0 3 1 Typhus Fever 1 1 1 *May include some military dependents

EPI 5 REV. 4-70 United S t ates Senate

MEMORANDUM

United States Senate

MEMORANDUM