Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1103419
label
Policy Issues
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1103419
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Policy Issues
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Indians of North America
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1103419
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-12-01
month
12
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a182dfe999da5bb0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 5, folder "Policy Issues" of the Bradley H.
Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 5 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
UNITED
STATES
GENERN ACCOUNTIA OFFICE
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DIVISION
DEC 17 1974
Mr. Norman Ross
Domestic Council
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Ross:
At the request of Senator Paul J. Fannin, the General
Accounting Office is making a review of Federal benefits provided
to American Indians (Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts), including
individuals, tribes, bands, groups, and businesses. In this re-
gard, we need to determine the total obligations for each Federal
program providing benefits to American Indians for fiscal years
1969 through 1974, and the portion of these obligations which
benefited Indians.
Also, for those programs designed exclusively for Indians
or programs which have funds set aside to be used only for the
benefit of Indians, we need:
FORD
&
--a description of each program,
GERALD
LIBRARY
- information on the number of people involved in the
operation of each program, and the number involved
in program planning as opposed to program operations,
- the names of similar programs of other Federal
agencies, regardless of whether or not these
programs are designed exclusively for Indians,
agency procedures for coordinating its program with
similar programs of other Federal agencies, and
a list of congressional committees and subcommittees,
other than appropriations committees, that are involved
in program oversight for the program.
12/20
Because the activities of the National Council on Indian
Opportunity (NCIO) were designed exclusively to benefit American
Indians, we would like to receive information on all NCIO obliga-
tions for the period under review. We have enclosed pro forma
sheets for your use in providing the information we are requesting
and instructions on how they should be completed. We would
appreciate receiving the requested information within 45 days from
the date of this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please con-
tact the following representatives of the Resources and Economic
Development Division on 343-4594.
Mr. Frank V. Subalusky, Assistant Director
Mr. David L. Jones, Supervisory GAO Auditor
Please forward the requested information to Mr. Subalusky
at:
Interior South Building
Room 312
1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20245
Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
UL fore
Victor L. Lowe
Director
Enclosures - 3
FORD
- 2 -
1/3/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
2
of
Reacquertion c Indian of laud
not with Pas bounday
Sab Marginal lavels
Drinking Water
FORD LIBRARY is 079
aunu Any majo mal and
with transport septure
,
)
we ground water
A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Coal 8 gord are
every plactates
1
Steep - must
Coal leases
Suate
hereey lambiquous" requested
protector
Bane geologue data
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
School coustruction
S1017 appropriators
Health
James
paguid twe
Claims turer in ICC
THE
WHITE
HOUSE
Nover WASHINGTON for Roads
States for travifection
DOT nover to
of ther of the handerapped.
Water regats + water
investory
Fenther sutoprowA ssier
THE WHITE HOUSE
have information WASHINGTON
(Cand Indias aforms
Pretrocesnos
Pobe facebter
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Indian trebs " x a
their assets to
publec ! with
raire ready.
Rechel bill?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 9, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
TED MARRS
NORM ROSS
ANNE RAMSEY
SUBJECT:
Indian Policy Issues
Following up our luncheon conversation.
With only memory (but no files) the attached list of issues occurs to me
as some of the principal matters which a new sub-Cabinet policy coordination
group should address. All of them are interdepartmental issues, crossing
several agency boundary lines.
I think we should challenge Indian organizations to do some thinking and
make their own contributions to the pros and cons in some of these issues,
and also to add other issues which are on their minds.
A final note: supplementing my remarks at lunch I recommend that any
sub-Cabinet group include representation as needed from multiple points
in some Departments: Interior (BIA, Solicitor), HEW (ONAP, OE,
Indian Health, perhaps others ad hoc), Agriculture (Forest Service,
Rural Development), Justice (Civil Rights, Lands, on occasion CRS, LEAA,
Solicitor-General's office), OMB (Natural Resources, Human Resources),
Commerce (EDA, OMBE).
Brad
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
INDIAN POLICY ISSUES
GERALD
LIBRARY
(As the "agenda" of a sub-Cabinet group on Indian affairs)
1.
Adding Land to Indian Reservations
When Indians claim or desire parcels of federal land presently
outside the boundaries of existing Indian Reservations and want them
added to Reservations or otherwise put into trust status, what criteria,
terms or standards should be established for deciding which of these
claims or desires are justified and for governing testimony, vetoes or
administrative actions? Forest Service, BLM, military or other
agency surplus -- are the lands involved. White House long ago asked
Interior to do a study of this question, with research on how many
parcels were involved and what the policy options are. Study has been
mostly done but not looked at formally outside of Interior. Meanwhile
Agriculture, remembering the alleged "non-precedents" of Blue Lake,
Yakima, Yavapai Apache etc, is sweating out a constant nibbling
away at Forest Service acres and wondering where the long-promised
standards are. The new Congress will undoubtedly again present us
with a full hopper of special land-transfer bills and again testimony
will be required.
A special category: CENA. Do we agree as a policy matter how to
handle CENA's requests for Eastern Indians elegibility or Reservations?
2.
Tribal Sovereignty over Non-Indian Fee Lands Within the Boundaries
of Indian Reservations
Many reservations are characterized by inholdings of private, non-Indian
fee lands within Reservation boundaries. Tribal Councils are trying to
pass zoning, taxing, water rights and other ordinances and have long
stated that we support tribal "self-determination"", but no one has really
examined the question of tribal authority over these non-Indian lands. The
Senate-passed version of the land-use planning bill incorporated a Jackson
amendment specifying that tribal land-use planning authority would extend
to the non-Indian fee land; the House called for a "study" but the bill died
in the House Rules Committee. It is a constitutional as well as a policy
question: if non-Indians are absolutely excluded from all participation in the
processes of Indian tribal governments, can those same governments pass
laws affecting non-Indians' property and rights? Patterson did the outline
of a policy paper on this subject and Reid Chambers has worked on the issue
but that is all.
- 2 -
3.
Indian Civil Rights
Should the Indian Civil Rights act be amended to require that local
Tribal rules and processes be exhausted before federal remedies are
imposed? Some Indian leaders believe that we are moving too quickly to
impose Federal and Federal Court solutions without insisting onfirst
using and exhausting tribal governmental channels and arrangements.
Should PL 280 be amended?
4. Should We Create an Independent Agency for Indian Affairs?
If Interior should become a DENR, where should BIA go? Some
Indian people (Mrs. Harris) are already asking that we consider creating
an independent agency but we have not heard from the other major Indian
organizations and we should have their views before we move on the matter.
If Indian leaders generally began to push for this, what elements of the
Executive Branch would a new agency contain (ONAP? Indian Health?
any of Labor or OMBE or Justice's Lands Division or HUD or SBA?) All
we are sure of at present is that it would not be part of the Executive Office.
5. Appellate Strategy re Indian Claims
Should Justice be instructed (at the most) to cease appealling
Indian Claims Commission decisions except in the cases of egregious
errors or (at the least) to coordinate its appellate strategy with Interior
(which it never does now) with disagreed issues coming to OMB/White
House?
6.
Indian Education
What is the outcome of the joint BIA-USOE study of possible duplication
in funding Indian education? What action should be taken on the recommen-
dations?
Whould there not be a review of what is happening with the new
Johnson-O'Malley regulations?
What kinds of regulations (and policy issues in them) will the newly-passed
bill require?
- 3 -
7. Trust Counsel
Before this bill moves very far on the Hill, the House Committee
staff will want to know whether we will accept some changes in out bill,
e.g. to set standards or "triggering points" under which the Counsel
and staff will take over Indian legal matters from Justice with other
Indian cases staying with Justice. We need to ascertain what we will
accept here.
8. Water Rights
Do we need to amend the existing legislation on Indian water rights
to overcome any possible treats to these rights stemming from the
Eagle County decision? (Justice has done some bill-drafting on this
point.)
9. Indian-Non Indian Relationships
Aside from the issue in # 2, what is the situation, and what policy
questions does it present, in places like South Dakota between Indian
and non-Indian populations? There are reports of continuing tension
between these two sets of communities. Where are we on strengthening
tribal law enforcement? On using the Community Relations Service? On
ascertaining the proper division of responsibility between State, local
and tribal law enforcement groups? On coordination among them?
10. Great Plains Coal
Where are we on supporting the creation of Indian tribal business
entities to manage the leasing (production maybe?) of coal on Indian
Reservation lands? Coordination needed here among BIA, Interior/
Solicitor, EDA and OMBE.
11. Recognition of Indian Tribal Governments as Service Providers
There is an important but unresolved internal controversy about the
extent to which this Administration wants to treat recognized Indian Tribal
Governments as the direct recipients of Federal assistance programs
(e.g. as they are now for General Revenue-Sharing, Manpower Special
Revenue-Sharing, Housing and Community Development) or as units of
FORD
- 4 -
government which will receive federal assistance only through State
governments (Assistance for Aging, for Social Services). We are
following two sets of inconsistent policies and we should resolve this
inconsistency.
12. Indian Civil Disobedience
Senior White House and Interior officials should satisfy themselves
that appropriate intelligence-gathering is being conducted by Justice
to give maximum early warning of civil disobedience and maximum
support to later prosecutions (notable, recent,less-than-satisfactory
performances were the BIA building occupation, Wounded Knee trials).
We should be consulted on results of Justice's general study of political trials.
13. Indian Judicial System Reform
One of the complaints at Pine Ridge which in part led to the Wounded
Knee confrontation was the feeling on the part of individual Indians that
the Judicial and Executive Branches of their tribal government were in
part combined, and that they had no separate, judicial appellate channel.
For how many tribes is this still true? What reform is needed, what
legislation?
14. Indian Cultural Autonomy
Did the Oklahoma feathers issue open up more than just an example
of poor federal coordination -- is there also a question involving
administrative or even legislative alleviation? (The NTCA drew up
a position-paper on this subject but in the end it was not clear as to
what specific executive or statutory remedies were being requested.)
15. A-95 Procedure and Indian Projects
An issue has been left fuzzy here -- Indian projects are exempt from
the actual clearance requirement but data on contemplated Indian projects
must go to State and local governments for information. If objections
come in in response to such informational alerts, how are the objections
handled? What weights are assigned and who decides?
16. Urban Indians
Who has the ball here and who does not? How far runs the federal
responsibility -- outreach? advocacy? facilitation into local service-points?
creating duplicate facilities? How shall federal agencies coordinate their
urban efforts in the field? Role of Regional Councils? Urban Indian Advisory
Committees? Effectiveness of efforts up to now?
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FORD
July 6, 1976
LIBRARY
Dear Mr. Begay:
The President asked me to reply to your March 12 letter
concerning the allocation of. funds for all Federal domestic
programs through State governments.
The Federal Government uses a variety of methods in support-
ing domestic programs, including formula grants to States
and/or local governments, project grants directly to in-
dividual local institutions, and direct support for individual
persons and families. The selection of methods for any par-
ticular program area may depend on the nature and extent of
the Federal participation in that program area, the nature
of the program area itself, and other factors. Because of
these variations in program designs, the participation by
units of governments in Federal programs varies among these
programs. In this regard, federally-recognized tribal
governments are no exception since their participation can
range from direct receipt of Federal assistance by the tribal
government, as in the case of General Revenue Sharing, to
little or no direct participation as in the case of certain
Federal income maintenance programs. In between these two
extremes, there are multiple patterns that have been developed,
including instances where Federal legislation has designated
State governments as primary recipients of Federal assistance
for use in programs serving all State citizens, including
Indians and non-Indians alike. There are, as you are aware,
other instances in which special provisions have been made
for direct Federal assistance to Indian tribes in programs
which otherwise are operated by States. In short, there is
no one method used for all programs because programs differ
in purpose.
In his fiscal year 1977 budget message to the Congress,
President Ford stressed the need to achieve a balance
-2-
"between Federal control and direction to assure achievement
of common goals and the recognition that State and local
governments and individuals may do as well or better without
restraints". One of the decisions made by the President to
achieve this balance is his proposal to replace fifty-nine
grant programs with broad block grants to States in the areas
of health, education, child nutrition, and community social
service programs. This proposal continues the policy of
consolidating and simplifying Federal grant programs.
It should be emphasized, however, that these program con-
solidations and simplifications are not intended to reduce
Federal support for Indian communities or to redefine the
relationships between the Federal Government and Indian
reservation communities. First, none of the major Federal
programs specifically directed toward Indian communities are
affected by these four program consolidations.
Secondly, there are provisions within the four consolidation
proposals which will help assure access and participation
by Indian communities, e.g., compliance with civil rights
laws; required development of State plans for the use of
Federal funds and public comment on those plans; and com-
pliance audits and annual evaluations of the implementation
of the plans.
A somewhat new approach to assuring equitable treatment of
Indian persons and communities is embodied in the Older
Americans Amendments of 1975 (P.L. 94-135). That Act pro-
vides that when the Commissioner on Aging determines that
members of a tribe are not receiving benefits from the State
equivalent to benefits provided to other State citizens he
has authority to grant such funds directly to a tribal
organization or other entity to serve those Indian persons.
The Indian Self-Determination Act, P.L. 93-638 provides
that, to the extent feasible, preferences be given to
Indians and Indian organizations and enterprises in training,
employment, subcontracts, subgrants in any contract or grant
-3-
made pursuant to a Federal law authorizing contracts with
or grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of
Indians.
Finally, we would also note that from fiscal year 1972
through fiscal year 1977, Federal grant outlays will have
averaged less than a quarter of State and local government
expenditures. What this means is that no matter what arrange-
ments are made concerning the Federal monies, Indian com-
munities need to assure that they, as State citizens, tax-
payers, and voters have equal access to the non-federally
funded programs which are operated by States and local
governments.
I trust the above information addresses your concerns and
thank you for your letter.
Sincerely,
Theodore C. Marrs
Special Assistant to the President
Mr. Eugene Begay
Executive Director
United Southeastern Tribes, Inc.
Oaks Tower
1101 Kermit Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37217
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
September 18, 1976
FORD
Mr. Brad Patterson
he hite House
Washington, D. 0.
In discussion with several trival leaders, all have concurred with the early
retirement approval by The President. Most have already made their positions
known.
Telegrams are also enroute promoting the timeliness of even stronger action
along the lines indicated in my previous correspondence, and projecting it
still further.
llany problems need attention on the Indian scene. The disasters reported in
the management of funds at Indian reservations are as much the fault of the
system and the divisiveness of separate federal agency reporting systems as it
is the lack of management experience and lack of internal controls within
tribal groups. A unified reporting system and funding management program as
promised in Joint Funding Simplification would do much to improve the entire
picture. The option of local tribal choice of lead agency would destroy the
creation of a monolithic "Indian Agency", while still providing uniform
management procedures.
You had earlier commented that the BIA's contracting provisions under Indian
Self-Determination Act would grant greater control. They do, but not to the
tribel An entire BIA empire is being built around the regulations - to the
exclusion of stimulating other avenues of local creative effort, or of de-
veloping broad cooperative arrangements with other agencies. Indeed, the
contract provisions being imposed on the tribes are more restrictive and
demanding than the performance required by the Bureau of itself.
In the telegrams coming forward from tribal leaders mention is made of "local
planning efforts, departmental program agreements, with annual review and
levaluation procedures set up in concert with relevant tribal leadership at
all levels. Nothing new on the surface of it. However, the current single-
minded move to totally "Indianize" the DIA is driving out empathetic people and
functions designed to stimulate cooperation, and attitudes are developing among
some outside resource agencies (and in some cases where former BIA employees
have flown) to "let the Indian SOB's do it themselves". Planning and cooperative
functions are being destroyed, and racism is emerging - thus the need to re-
emphasize broader philosophies and mutual planning.
The provision of "departmental program agreements" within the telegrams is an
idea attempting to get all federal agencies to commit themselves to a course of
action and performance with Indian tribes just as the Indian tribes are required
to do with DIA contracts. Thus everybody knows what is expected of them and how
they should act to achieve mutually planned goals.
Telegrams, I am told, went out from (1) Wendell Chino as both Chairman of NTCA
and Fescallero Apache Tribe; and (2) Delfin Lovato, Chairman of the All Indian
Pueblo Council. Charles Trimble of NCAI has yet to react to it, as has Feter
McDonald with the Navajo (he had earlier telegrammed his approval of HR 5465).
Mr. Brad Patterson
September 18, 1976
Page 2
Bob Lewis says "hi". He would very much like to see you in Albuquerque and
review the status of things and his ideas and see if you have some additional
suggestions. I, too, would like to see you.
Juny Jerry Sincerely, Tuttle Tuttle
12305 astridge Dr. I .E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Home Tele.: 298-9536
Office - Non VTS (505) 766-3610
TEIEGRAM
President Gerald R. Ford
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear President Ford:
In the interest of true Indian Self-determination I am requesting
you to:
1. Sign the HR 5465 bill into law for early retirement of
non-Indian employees of BIA and IHS.
GERALD
2. Require that all vacated positions not filled within one year
position celling
be placed within the coiling bank for retrieval at the discretion
of Indian tribal leadership.
3. Promote the flow of all lapse monies created by the vacancies
to Indian reservations for local discretionary use.
4. Require for FY1977 that all BIA and IHS programs be combined
with all other Indian-related programs into Joint Funding
Simplification for more manageable local control and accounting.
The option for choice of lead agency to direct the coordination
of these funds should be in the hands of the local tribal leadership.
5. Project the erection of local planning, agency program agree-
ments, annual review and evaluation of all departments with relevant
Indian leadership at all levels of Federal responsibility.
Your affirmative response to these requests would be appreciated.