DOCONENT RESUME ED 190 307 RC 012 155 TITLE Meetings of the American Indian PolicyReview Commission (Washington, D.C. and Denver,Colorado, February 20, May 8 and 9, 1976). Volume 2. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. SenateSelect Committee on Indian Affairs. MONT NO Senate-92-595 PUB DATE 77 NOTE 357p.: Paper copy not available due to smallprint size. For related documents, see RC 012 154 and RC 012 156-159. EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Availablefrom EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Agency Role; Alaska Natives: American Indian Education: *American Indians: Compliance (Legal); Delivery Systems: Economic Development;*Evaluati.on: *Federal Indian Relationship: Government'Role:Health Services: Hearings: NonTeservation American Indians: Organizational Effectiveness: *Policy: Reservation American Indians: Rural American Indians;Tribal Sovereignty: Tribes: *Trust Responsibility (Government): Urban American Indians /DENTIFIEPS *American Indian Policy Review Commission;American Indian Task Forces: *Bureau of IndianAffairs; Tribal Government ABSTRACT The American Indian Policy ReviewCommissioL convened a hearing on February 20,1976, to determine progress made by the task forces. The chairman of Task Force No. 1 began the testimony by explaining that his group had been involvedwith the determination of just what the rights of the Indian areand what the implica+ions are for future national commitments toIndian people. Goals stated by other chairmen were: define the rights andneeds of terminated and nonfederally recognized Indians: clarifylurisdictions so that various lawsuits could be settled: defineIndian education by and with the Indian people, describe the presentstatus of Indian education and develop a series of position papers onrecurring problems: examine the structure andfunction of tribal governments and their ability to fulfill theneeds and desires of tribal members: and elevate the health of AmericanIndians and Alaskan Natives. Other goals stated were: examine in depth the problemof Indian alcoholism; look at the total federal delivery system of Indianservices and Indian participation: examine resource areas:and review Federal-Indian law. On May 8, 1976, theCommission met in Denver to gather evidence from various triballeaders and members for determining whether the governmental structures servethe Indian people. (AN) ******************t**************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are thebest that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** ifRottwkd ee_r )icq [COMMITTEE PRINT] NJ re\ tEr, U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS WI MEETINGS OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FEBWARY 20, MAY 8 AND 9, 1976 WASHINGTON, D.C. AND DENVER, COLORADO VOLUME 2 U S DEPARTMENT Cr, HEALTH EDUCATION 6 WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RI PRO. DuCED EXACTiV AS RECEIvED F ROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS Or VIEW OW OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE- SENT ()FL ICIAL NATIONAL II9STI TU YE :Mu( ATION POSIT iON OR POLCY Printed for the use of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Indiah Affairs U.S. GOVERNMr.NT PRINTING OFFICE 92-595 WASHINGTON : 1977 .1 SELECT COMbITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS (Created* B. Rea. 4, 95th Cong.] JA)LES ABOUREZIC, South Dakota, Chairman HOWARD METZENBAUM, Ohio DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma ZORN MELCHER, Montana MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon MIDST L. SUMS, Staff Director 'foal 4 CONTENTS MEETINGS 01 THZ MUSICIAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION Page rebruarY 20, line 1 May 8, 1976 118 Afternoon session May 9, 1976 ,+P.--- 245 Afternoon session ;44... 800 MEETINGS OF THEAMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1976 AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION, TVa8hington, D.C. The Commission met, pursuantto notice, at 9 :30 a.m.,in room 8110, Dirksen Senate Office Building,Senator James Abourezk(chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Abourezk,Metcalf, and Hatfield;Congressmen Yates, Meeds, and Steiger,and CommissionersBorbridge, Deer, Bruce, Whitecrow, andDial. Also present: Ernest L.Stevens, staff director;Kirke Kickingbird, general counsel ; TomFassett, public relations;and Max Richtman, professional staff member. Review Commis- Chairman ABOUREZR. TheAmerican Indian Policy sion meeting will come toorder. We do not, at this time,have a quorum. However,there are no votes official business to beconducted, and this is to be taken. There is no de- more in theform of a hearing, specificallfwith regard to trying to termine task force progress. meeting with So, we can convene becauseof that fact, and begin our members will be driftingin as time goes on. the assurance that other like Senators, The Commissioners, bythe way, are beginning to act now. For a longtime, I was worried aboutthem. They all showed up on time and never missed ameeting. I wenld like to welcomeCommissioner Now, just a brief statement. to Ada Deer and CommissionerLouis Bruce ; and a brief statement as why this meeting is called. the Commission is not entirelycertain yet t f the exact progressand of the exact direction inwhich the task forces are going incompiling the reports. I think it is essentialat this point for theCommission to find out just exactly wl-ere you areheaded. Because, if you aregoing in the wrong directionand searching out the wrongthings, there is now time to correctthat direction and change it sothat we can com- plete the reports on time.We have expressed ourintention not to go back to Congress to ask for anyextension of time. We Mtend to finish this in thetime allotted by the statute. So.it really boils down to this. Thatthis is going to be Ole onechance of the century for the Indianpeople to establish AmericanIndian policy on behalf of the Federal Government. If the Indian people miss this chance. it isnot. going tacome around /lain for quitesome time. I hope that all of the task force people and all, of the Commission willreaaze the extreme importance of getting ts work done. I guess we all have inour minds approximately what st be done, but of course,our job is to detemine exactly what has to be done. Now, the first task force thatwe want to hear from is task force No. 8. Is there any representative of task force No.8 here? Are any of .the nienthers with you, Al? Mr. &tux. Mr. Jim Bhtestone,our task force specialist is with us, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Aeoramx. I wonder if you would,as concisely as possible, relate to the Commission some of the things thatyou have been doing since you have gone into existence. STATEMENT OF ALFRED ELGIii, CHAIRMAN, TASK FORCENO. 8; ACCOMPANIED EY JAMES BLUESTONE Mr. ELGIN. As you know,our end result is going to be the final report that will be our part of an assignment givento us by the Commission. Some of the areas that we are very concerned about is thenon- recognition or the noninvolvement of American people formany, many years, as we have stated before, having little or no visibilityin the past, and having no legal basis tO be involved inmany areasro& no appropriations being set in motionthe minute legal implications. We have st,t out, as our task force assignment, togam that visibility, and to have that direct contact with the constituents that wefor the 1.sake of the Commissionidentifiedas urban and rural nonreservation. We find a strong opposition to the further dividing of those kinds of terms. We have explained toour peoples that that has only been given our geographic or our terminologyas applied to how we would be involved with the total Commission. Chairman Anotnumc. 'Would you tell us, ina couple of sentences or a short paragraph, exactly what. you believe are the objectives of your task force? What will the rerommendation be? What. doyou tItink the objective of your task force should be? Mr. acitx. Recognition of the base population of urban Indians; and somehow, include into that the mechanism of service delivery of all agencies of the Government. now. Chairman Ant/Um:MK. Br recognition : Do you mean that they should be recognized by the Feaeral Governmentas an Indian population and Indian entity, separate and apart. from reservation Indians? Mr. ELGIN. No: I think the jurisdiction needs to be identified here. In many cases, we are finding thuit there is little or no jurisdiction. Once the Indian leaves the reservation, either that Federal kind of involvement ceases, or there is no respeet for time interedmmunicational coordination nrooTam between Federal and State. Once the Indian leaves the reservation, he is no longer a tribal person. For the sake of involvement and programs, he heroines swal- lowea up into a minoritieF, type of program involvement. And.conse- quently. t his is a two-way street here. .: 3 We are trying now to identify wherethat jurisdiction ends and begins. A lot of this is coming back to the Sny1er Act,and whether or not we need newlegislation or whether we just needimplementa- tion of past legislation that has neverbeen put into effect for many people that are off the reservation. Chairman ABOUBEZK. Specifically, are youtalking about delivery of Federal services What is your specificobjective in regard to that statement ? Mr. &ow. Only that under the presentauthorities that full bene- fits be given to those people that are declaredto be eligible. A lot of people are assumed to be ineligible becauseof the false assumption that the Bureau of Indian Affairs take careof Indians wherever they migjt be, and we know that not to be thefact. airman Azommzix. You say it shouldbe the fact and is not the fact I Mr. ELGIN. We are not siying that should bethe fact because we realize that the Bureau of Indian Affairsonly operates under its au- thority:, and most of that authority is on aland-based type of problem. Chairnian Anounzzic. Has your research told youyet whether or not the Bureau of Indian Affairs doeshave that statutory authority I -Mr. &ors. Seemingly, and inhearings that we have held in our review with certain elements of ourconstituents, they assume that the Snyder Act can cover people andthe Bureau has not put that into effect yet.