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
6789389
label
Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
6789389
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (2)
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Civil service
Legislation
Retirement
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
6789389
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-01
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
13a5b2fa83053574
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Early Retirement Bill - H.R. 5465 (2)"
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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 2 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 19 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 5465 - Special retirement
benefits for non-Indian employees of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service
Sponsor - Rep. Henderson (D) North Carolina
FORD
Last Day for Action
&
September 24, 1976 - Friday
GERALD
LIBRARY
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Department of the Interior
Disapproval (Veto message
attached)
Department of Health, Education,
Disapproval (Veto message
and Welfare
attached)
Civil Service Commission
Disapproval (Veto messages
attached)
Discussion
Under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, American
Indians have long been given preference in initial appoint-
ment to jobs in BIA and IHS. As a result of decisions in
1974 by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, preference under the 1934
Act is now also applied in transfers, promotions, and re-
assignments, where at least minimally qualified Indian
employees are applicants for consideration. The effect of
the new policy mandated by the courts is to somewhat limit
career opportunities in BIA and IHS for non-Indian employees.
The primary purpose of H.R. 5465 is to offset the career
disadvantages for the non-Indian employees of these two
agencies. To accomplish this purpose, the bill would provide
optional early retirement for those non-Indian employees who
have twice been passed over for promotion, transfer, or
reassignment as a result of Indian preference. These employ-
ees could exercise this option up to December 31, 1985,
(a) at any age after 25 years of any type of Federal service,
or (b) at age 50 with 20 years of such service, provided they
have been continuously employed in BIA or IHS since the date
2
of the 1974 Supreme Court decision and they are not eligible
for regular retirement.
The annuities of such employees would be computed under a
more liberal formula than that provided most other Federal
employees. Federal employees generally may retire volun-
tarily at age 55 with 30 years of service, or at age 60
with 20 years, with annuities computed at 1 1/2% of "high-3"
average salary for the first 5 years, at 1 3/4% for the
next 5 years, with a maximum 2% multiplier used for years
over 10. Employees involuntarily separated with 25 years
of service at any age, or with 20 years of service at age
50, may retire with annuities computed under the regular
formula, but reduced by 2% a year for each year under age 55.
Under H.R. 5465, annuities of eligible non-Indian employees
would be computed at 2 1/2% of their "high-3" average salary
for the first 20 years of service, and at 2% for years over
20, without the customary reduction for retiring before age
55. Non-Indian employees already retired since the 1974
decision would be entitled, on the date of enactment of
the bill, to have their annuities recomputed under the more
favorable formula.
It is estimated that by 1986, when the special retirement
benefit would terminate, approximately 1,484 non-Indian
employees in BIA and 600 in IHS would be eligible for early
retirement under the enrolled bill. Approximately 2,500
non-Indian employees in BIA and 3,340 in IHS would not
qualify, for a variety of reasons.
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) estimates that the early
retirement benefits in H.R. 5465 would increase the un-
funded liability of the Civil Service Retirement Fund by
$136 million, which would have to be amortized in 30 equal
payments of approximately $8.4 million. Added budget outlays
are estimated at $2.9 million in fiscal year 1977, rising
to $19.9 million in fiscal year 1981.
H.R. 5465 was passed in both Houses by voice vote despite
very strong Administration opposition to its preferential
benefits. As enrolled, it is a modified version of bills
originally sponsored and supported in both the Senate and
House by Members with strong Indian constituencies. Bills
were sponsored or co-sponsored in the Senate by Senators
Stevens, Domenici, and Montoya, and in the House by
Representatives Steed, Runnels, and Pressler.
3
Arguments for approval
1. The bill is regarded by Indian employees as a
step toward fuller realization of Indian self-determination
because it would increase the number of jobs available
to Indians in the Indian service agencies, as non-Indians
are given an incentive to leave. In view of the Indian
preference situation, the Indian employees, as quoted in
the Senate report, believe it would be a disservice to
Indians and non-Indians alike, for Indian programs to be
administered by non-Indians who may be embittered by an
employment policy that blocks normal avenues of career
progression. The bill was endorsed in testimony by the
National Congress of American Indians and by individual
Indian and non-Indian employees who would benefit from it.
2. Proponents argue that liberalized retirement
benefits for non-Indian employees are warranted by their
unique position as a result of the new policy of absolute
Indian preference. Such benefits are necessary to induce
non-Indian employees to retire early and to redress the
economic burden they incur as a result.
3. The House Committee report states that the
central issue in this legislation is the Federal Govern-
ment's "good-faith treatment" of this group of adversely
affected employees "who were given assurance at the time of
hire that they would be able to compete equally with Indians
and all other groups of employees for career advancement.
"
4. It can be argued that historic policy towards
Indians in this country distinguishes the case of non-
GERALD FUND JBRARY
Indian employees from any other group; thus, this legis-
lation need not become a precedent for other groups of
Federal employees adversely affected by a change in Federal
personnel policy. On this point, the House committee
report states that "no other group of Federal employees
is subject to such legally sanctioned discrimination." The
contention is that the "dramatic" effect of the Supreme
Court decision that recognizes the obligation to Indians
as supervening the requirements of equal opportunity in
promotion, transfer, and other personnel actions, comes
after years of dedicated service by many non-Indian employees
who do not question the propriety of Indian preference,
and who have devoted their lives and careers to Indians.
5. The Committee reports recognize that both agencies
are making special efforts to place the affected employees
in other jobs, but the members were not convinced that
these efforts are sufficient.
4
Arguments against approval
1. The retirement system is not an appropriate means
of solving what is a personnel management problem. Not
only would the lack of long-term promotion ladders for
non-Indian employees become a charge against the retirement
fund, borne by all participants, but the proposed highly
preferential annuity formula might well encourage employees
to continue working in BIA and IHS in order to enhance
their retirement annuities between now and 1986.
2. Interior, HEW, and CSC all believe that the present
situation facing the non-Indian employees does not justify
the liberalized retirement benefits in the enrolled bill.
These employees are not in danger of losing their jobs.
Both Departments have special non-Indian placement programs
available to find suitable jobs elsewhere in the Departments
for those in BIA and IHS who are adversely affected by
Indian preference. CSC is also offering counseling and
placement assistance. It is not unlikely, however, that
many non-Indian employees have resisted these outplace-
ment efforts in anticipation of enactment of preferential
retirement benefit legislation, which was first introduced
in the 93rd Congress.
3. The annuity formula for eligible non-Indians under
the bill is discriminatory in that it would provide more
liberal benefits than those provided to any other group of
Federal employees. These benefits would be even more
favorable than those provided law enforcement and firefighter
employees, who have to complete more than 20 years of work
specifically in those professions before they are entitled
to the same formula. Under H.R. 5465, non-Indian employees
need complete only 11 years' Indian agency service (only
2 if retired prior to enactment but after the 1974 Supreme
Court decision), a period a good deal less than a full
career.
4. The bill's preferential annuity formula would
also have inequitable effects within the Indian agencies
themselves. On the basis that their long-term opportunity
for advancement may be limited in BIA and IHS, eligible
non-Indian employees would receive larger annuities than
those Indian and non-Indian employees of BIA and IHS who
meet the same age and service conditions but who actually
lose their jobs as a result of reductions in force, and have
to retire on the less liberal involuntary separation formula.
5
A further inequity would be produced because non-Indian
employees in technical and managerial positions for
which qualified Indians are not available would not be
displaced by Indian preference and would therefore not
be able to take advantage of the enrolled bill's special
retirement benefits. For example, despite the most
diligent recruitment efforts, there are inadequate numbers
of Indian candidates for positions in such career fields
as medicine and nursing, teaching, social work, forestry,
engineering, personnel and financial management. Non-
Indian employees in such positions would be able to complete
full careers with BIA and IHS and yet would receive
proportionately smaller annuities for longer service than
would non-Indians eligible under the bill.
5. The policy implicit in H.R. 5465 is that of
"buying out" those adversely affected by Indian preference.
Such an approach to the sensitive issue of equal opportunity
would appear to be undesirable as a matter of public policy,
and can be expected to lead to demands by other groups of
employees for similar windfall benefits whenever their
promotional opportunities are limited for whatever reason.
Support of this bill by Indians and non-Indian employees
should not obscure the fact that such a policy could be
extremely divisive and controversial if others claiming
discrimination as a result of statutory and judicial
recognition of special obligations towards veterans,
minorities, women, etc., were to demand special treatment
in the form of compensation.
Recommendations
All the concerned agencies--Interior, HEW, and CSC--recommend
that you veto H.R. 5465, and have attached veto messages to
their views letters for your consideration.
In addition to the points noted above, CSC states that
there would be great difficulty in administering in a
reasonable and fair way the requirement that an employee
demonstrate that he or she has twice been passed over for
promotion, transfer, or reassignment. Making this
determination with any degree of accuracy for the already-
retired, covered retroactively by the bill, would be impossible
in CSC's view. CSC concludes that adequate justification
does not exist for the Government to assume the cost of the
benefits provided in H.R. 5465.
6
HEW, in summary, believes that "the bill would impose an
excessive financial burden on the Federal Government in
relation to a personnel problem with which we are able to
deal without the expenditure of additional funds."
Interior concludes that "H.R. 5465 does not provide a
viable solution to the problems created by Indian preference,
nor an acceptable alternative to the Departmental Career
Placement Assistance Program, and its potential effect could
be an inequitable one. "
On balance, we believe the arguments for veto outweigh those
for approval. We have prepared a draft veto message, which
is a revision and consolidation of the messages proposed by
the agencies.
June T. Lynn Ry
Enclosures
FORD i LIBRARY
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 5465, a
bill which would provide special retirement benefits to
certain non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) who are
adversely affected by Indian preference requirements.
I strongly support the objective of having Indians
administer the Federal programs directly affecting them.
And I understand the concern of non-Indian employees of
these agencies about their long-term career prospects
because of Indian preference. But H.R. 5465 is the wrong
way to deal with this problem.
This bill is designed to increase employment
FORD is
opportunities for Indians by providing special compensa
tion to non-Indian employees in BIA and IHS who retire
early. It seeks to accomplish this purpose by authorizing
payment of extraordinary retirement benefits under certain
conditions to non-Indian employees of these agencies who
retire before 1986--benefits more liberal than those
available to any other group of Federal employees under
the civil service retirement system. I believe that this
approach will result in inequities and added costs that
far exceed the problem it is attempting to solve--a
problem which is already being addressed through adminis-
trative actions by the agencies involved.
H.R. 5465 would provide windfall retirement benefits
[only] to a relatively small number of the non-Indian
employees of these agencies. The Indian employees and
other non-Indian employees in these same agencies would
not receive these benefits. The eligible employees are
not in danger of losing their jobs. Because they may face
2
a limited outlook for promotion, the bill would pay these
ever love completed
employees costly annuities after substantially less than a
full career. Payments could be made at age 50 after only
20 years of Federal service, of which as little as 11
years need be Indian-agency service. Their annuities would
be equivalent to the benefits it would take the average
Federal employee until age 60 and 27 years of service to
earn.
This would seriously distort and misuse the retirement
system to solve a problem of personnel management not
essentially different from that encountered in many agencies,
and for which there are far more appropriate administrative
solutions. The Departments of the Interior and Health,
Education and Welfare have established special placement
programs to help non-Indian employees who desire other jobs.
I am asking the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission
to make certain that those placement efforts are rigorously
pursued with all agencies of the Federal Government.
Further, these Departments assure me that many non-
Indian employees continue to have ample opportunity for
full careers with Indian agencies if they so desire.
RALD FORD
Accordingly, H.R. 5465 represents an excessive, although
well-motivated, reaction to the situation. Indian pre-
ference does pose a problem in these agencies, but it can
and should be redressed without resort to costly retirement
benefits.
I am not prepared, therefore, to accept the dis-
criminatory and costly approach of H.R. 5465.
THE WHITE HOUSE
September , 1976
OF
INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1349
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
SEP 1 1976
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This responds to your request for the views of this Department on
enrolled bill H.R. 5465, "To provide additional retirement benefits
for certain employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service who are not entitled to Indian preference, to provide
greater opportunity for advancement and employment of Indians,
and for other purposes."
We recommend that the President veto the enrolled bill.
Enrolled bill H.R. 5465, concerns the situation of those civil
service employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health
Service who are not eligible for "Indian preference" in promotions,
lateral transfers, and reassignments within those agencies. The
enrolled bill proposes relief by authorizing special treatment
designed to encourage non-Indian preference employees to leave the
BIA and to aid in their departure.
Under H.R. 5465, a non-Indian preference employee of the BIA or
IHS separated from the service after June 17, 1974, is entitled to
retire on an inmediate annuity at any time until December 31, 1985,
if he: (1) has completed 25 years of service at any age or 20 years
of service at age 50; (2) has been continuously employed with the
BIA or IHS since June 17, 1974; (3) is not otherwise entitled to
full retirement benefits; and (4) can demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the U.S. Civil Service Commission that he has been passed over
at least twice for promotion, transfer, or reassignment to a position
representing career advancement because of Indian preference.
An employee who meets these requirements is entitled to an annuity
computed at 2.5% of his average pay for the first 20 years of
service plus 2% of his average pay for all service thereafter. No
provision is made for reducing the annuity of an employee if he is
under age 55 at the time of retirement, a requirement of the present
early retirement law.
CONSERVE
AMERICA'S
FURD LIBSARY
ENERGY
Save Energy and You Serve America!
The bill appears to be based upon the theory that the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme
Court decisions of 1974, which established absolute Indian preference
in BIA and IHS employment, caught these "eligible employees" in
mid-career and left them with little opportunity for advancement
in those agencies.
The Department presently operates a Departmental Career Placement
Assistance Program (DCPA), specifically implemented in response
to this situation, and we believe that this available administrative
solution is the most viable approach.
Background
The provision upon which the current Indian preference requirements
are based is section 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
(48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 472). In addition, the BIA now encourages
tribes to contract for control and operation of most BIA reservation
level activities and the January 1975 enactment of section 102 of
the Indian Self-Determination Act (88 Stat. 2206; 25 U.S.C.S. 450£)
directs the contracting of most BIA activities "upon the request
of any Indian tribe".
Two recent court decisions have upheld the validity of section 12
of the Indian Peorganization Act, and its application to initial
hires, promotions, transfers and reassignments. They were Freeman
V. Morton, 499 F. 2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1974) and Morton V. Mancari
(417 U.S. 535, 1974).
Departmental Career Placement Assistance Program
This Department is aware that the Freeman and Mancari decisions
and the implementation of the Indian Self-Determination Act will,
in many cases, have an adverse impact upon both non-Indian and
Indian employees of the BIA. The Department is committeed to provid-
ing placement assistance to those Indian and non-Indian employees of
the BIA whose jobs or opportunities have been foreclosed by either
Indian preference or the Department's Indian Self-Determination
policy, and has formulated a program to provide such assistance.
This program became fully operational in December, 1975. To date,
147 persons have applied from the BIA, and 10 have been placed.
This program assists BIA employees with placement within other
bureaus in the Department, and with locating reassignments in other
Federal agencies.
Within the Department, first priority placement assistance is
given to competitive career and career-conditional BIA employees
when: (1) there is a reduction in force and there are no opportunities
2
for reassignment within the BIA; (2) an activity or function is being
contracted by a tribe and the employee's position is being abolished;
and (3) it is imperative to reassign an employee because of certain
hardships such as ill-health, or other compelling circumstances.
One position offer would be made to employees under the mandatory
placement provisions.
Secondary priority placement assistance is afforded to competitive
career and career-conditional BIA employees who can demonstrate
that they no longer have an opportunity for career advancement in
the Bureau because of Indian preference regulations.
The present early retirement law
Under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d) (1) an employee with 20 years of service
at age 50 or with 25 years of service at any age is entitled to
retire on an immediate annuity if his job is abolished. This
provision applies to any eligible employee of the BIA.
Under 5 U.S.C. 8336 (d) (2) an employee may voluntarily retire
with an inmediate annuity if, upon application of his agency to
the Civil Service Commission, the Commission determines that such
agency has a "major" reduction-in-force (RIF). The agency could
then authorize, during a time period prescribed by the Commission,
the employee's retirement if he meets the requisite age and
service qualifications (same as 8336 (d) (1)).
The annuity formula for employees who retire under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d),
determined by 5 U.S.C. 8339 (h), reduces annuities by 1/6 of 1% for
each month the employee is under age 55.
In 1973, 1974 and 1975 the BIA received determinations of major
RIFs from the Civil Service Commission under 5 U.S.C. 8336 (d) (2)
In 1973, 22 BIA employees chose early retirement; 26 employees
chose it in 1974; and 167 employees voluntarily retired in 1975.
Those who chose to retire were both Indian and non-Indian employees.
The effect of Indian preference and the Indian Self-Determination
Act
Not all non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
have been adversely affected by Indian preference as interpreted
by recent court decisions. In fact, many non-Indian employees
in a number of occupations have had and continue to have remark-
ably successful careers within the Bureau.
In many career fields (such as Forestry, Engineering, Social Work,
Teaching, Personnel Management, and Financial Management) there
are not adequate numbers of Indian candidates to fill the large
3
number of entry level vacancies which exist at any given time in
the Bureau. In such fields, Indian preference creates no impedi-
ment to non-Indian employees for promotion to the journeyman level
of these occupations. This is true, for example, in teaching
where 75 percent of vacancies each year are filled by non-Indian
employees despite concerted and vigorous attempts to recruit
qualified Indians.
However, the effects of Indian preference in some occupations
become more apparent above the journeyman levels. Competition
for such positions is intense and no Federal employee is offered
any guarantee of promotion to supervisory or managerial positions.
Nonetheless, even above the journeyman level scme promotional
opportunities continue to exist for non-Indian employees.
While it is the policy of the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to recruit, develop, and utilize qualified
Indians to the maximum extent possible, that policy has never pre-
cluded the utilization and advancement of non-Indian employees.
The potential impact of H.R. 5465 on the BIA
There are 4,267 permanent employees of the BIA who are without
Indian preference, as of June, 1976 rosters. This excludes persons
hired or re-hired since June, 1974. 1,375 are now eligible for
regular retirement, or will become so before they become eligible
for retirement under H.R. 5465. 1,261 do not become eligible for
either regular or early retirement by the end of 1985. Therefore,
1,631 are potential beneficiaries under the bill in that they can
meet the service and age requirements of H.R. 5465. Their average
grade level is 10.5. We would note that this analysis is based on
Indian preference as it stands in the current BIA records. However,
pursuant to the consent decree signed on April 12, 1976, by the
U.S. District Court Judge in Whiting V. United States, Civ. No.
75-3007 (D. S. Dak.), the regulations governing Indian preference
are being revised and expanded by the BIA beyond the present 1/4
blood degree requirement to conform to the statutory definition
of "Indian" as established by section 19 of the Indian Feorganization
Act (25 U.S.C. 479). The general effect will be to increase the
number of employees eligible for Indian preference, and we estimate
that employees eligible for retirement under H.R. 5465 would be
correspondingly decreased by about 9%.
We estimate that the total potential for additional retirement
payments amounts to approximately $108 million. This estimate
FORD
includes the additional retirement payments made under the bill
as compared to payments these persons would receive under regular
retirement, plus payments lost to the Retirement Fund by these
earlier retirements.
4
The percentage of the salary paid at retirement under H.R. 5465
is 2.5% for the first 20 years and 2% thereafter. The percentage
of salary paid at regular retirement is 1.5% for the first five years,
1.75% for the second five years, and 2% thereafter.
Fecommendation
This Department is committed to our assistance program which provides
placement assistance to those Indian and non-Indian employees of
the BIA whose jobs or opportunities have been foreclosed by either
Indian preference or the operation of P.L.93-638. In our judgment,
our program will meet the objectives of H.R. 5465.
Further, the potential effect of H.R. 5465 is an inequitable one.
An Indian preference employee whose job is adversely affected by a
reduction-in-force or the implementation of Public Law 93-638 could
only qualify for early retirement at the present reduced benefits,
while a non-Indian preference employee in the identical situation
would take advantage of the liberal benefits under H.R. 5465. Our
assistance program was specifically designed to avoid any unequal
treatment of this sort.
The present situation in the BIA does not justify the liberal
retirement benefits contemplated by the enrolled bill which far
surpass the benefits available to other Federal employees, and
me cannot support such a provision. BIA employees who wish to
retire early under 5 U.S.C. 8336 should be subject to the same
annuity formula as all other employees who retire pursuant to
that provision.
Further, employees of the BIA who are adversely affected by the
contracting requirement of P.L. 93-638 may retire pursuant to
the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8336 (d).
As enrolled, H.R. 5465 does not provide a viable solution to the
problems created by Indian preference, ner an acceptable alternative
to the Departmental Career Placement Assistance Program, and its
potential effect could be an inequitable one. Accordingly, we
recommend that the President veto the enrolled bill.
Sincerely yours
Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
5
HEALTH
DEPART STATEME MINT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
SEP 17 1976
The Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request for a report on H.R. 5465,
an enrolled bill "To provide additional retirement benefits
for certain employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service who are not entitled to Indian
preference, to provide greater opportunity for advancement
and employment of Indians, and for other purposes. II
We recommend that the President return the enrolled bill to
Congress without his approval, because the bill would impose
an excessive financial burden on the Federal government
in relation to a personnel problem with which we are able
to deal without the expenditure of additional funds.
The enrolled bill would provide for payment, under certain
conditions, of an immediate annuity to non-Indian employees
of the Indian Health Service (IHS) or of the Interior
Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) who retire before
1986. An employee would be eligible for the special annuity
provided by the enrolled bill if he--
(1) has been continuously employed by the IHS or the
BIA since June 17, 1974 (when the Supreme Court upheld the
legal validity of giving Indian personnel preference in
promotion over non-Indians),
(2) is not otherwise entitled to an immediate annuity
under the law,
(3) has been twice passed over for promotion or transfer
because of a preference given to an Indian, and
The Honorable James T. Lynn
2
(4) has completed 25 years of Federal service or has
reached 50 years of age and has completed 20 years of service;
the usual requirement for an immediate annuity is 30 years
of service after reaching 55 years of age, or 20 years of
service after reaching 60 years of age.
The annuity would be computed at the rate of 2-1/2 percent of
an employee's average pay for each of the first 20 years of
service and 2 percent for each additional year; the usual
computation is 1-1/2 percent of an employee's average pay
for each of the first 5 years of service, 1-3/4 percent for
each of the next 5 years, and 2 percent for each additional
year.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of
this bill would increase the unfunded liability of the Civil
Service Retirement System by $136 million. An annual
appropriation of $8.4 million over the next 30 years would
be needed to amortize this liability. We estimate that
approximately 600 non-Indian employees of the IHS would be
potentially eligible for the special benefits provided by
the enrolled bill, although we cannot say what portion of
those employees would actually meet all the criteria specified
in the bill for entitlement to the benefits.
Proponents of the enrolled bill maintain that the bill
provides in an equitable manner for a relatively small
number of Federal employees who, through no fault of their
own, are being denied normal career advancement opportunities
because of a national policy to increase the participation
of Indians in programs which most directly affect the welfare
of Indians themselves.
We agree that Indian preference requirements in the IHS may
have an adverse impact on some non-Indian employees, but we
feel that the enrolled bill is an overreaction to this
problem. No employee will actually lose his position due
to Indian preference requirements; these requirements apply
only to promotions or transfers. Further, the IHS will have
a continuing need for a great variety of professional and
paraprofessional staff members over the next few years. The
Indian population will include some, but not all, of the
The Honorable James T. Lynn
3
persons with the skills needed to fully staff the IHS.
Non-Indian personnel will continue to be needed. Finally,
within the next month this Department intends to
implement an administrative mechanism to provide priority
outplacement assistance to those non-Indian employees of
the IHS whose career opportunities are adversely affected
by the application of the Indian preference requirements.
We feel that the enrolled bill is an excessive reaction to
a problem with which we intend to deal administratively.
We therefore recommend that the President return the enrolled
bill to Congress without his signature. A draft veto
message is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
UNITED
Sixtes.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
September 15, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D. C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in reply to your request for the Commission's views on enrolled
bill H.R. 5465, "To provide additional retirement benefits for certain
employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service
who are not entitled to Indian preference, to provide greater opportu-
nity for advancement and employment of Indians, and for other purposes."
H.R. 5465, if enacted, would provide optional retirement after 25 years
of service (not necessarily with BIA or IHS) or after attainment of age
50 and completion of 20 years of service for those non-Indian employees
of BIA and IHS who have been continuously employed by that agency since
June 17, 1974, who will complete such years of service before December 31,
1985, and who have been passed over on at least two occasions for pro-
motion, transfer, or reassignment to a position representing career
advancement because of the granting of preference to Indians in promo-
tions or other personnel actions. The bill provides that the annuities
of these employees will be computed at 2 1/2 percent of average pay multi-
plied by the first 20 years of total service plus 2 percent of average pay
multiplied by all years of service in excess of 20 years (with no reduction
for age.)
In other words, those qualified non-Indian employees (who in certain cases
may still be in their early forties) would have the opportunity to retire
with an annuity equal to that of most Federal employees retiring at age 60
or over with approximately 27 years of service.
The Commission recommends that the President veto H.R. 5465.
GERALD FORD
-2-
The Commission does not believe the present situation justifies grant-
ing such liberalized retirement benefits to non-Indian employees of
BIA and IHS. The special 2 1/2-2% computation formula would, in effect,
be a reward for non-Indians who elect to remain employed by the IHS or
BIA until December 31, 1985 --- the cutoff date in the bill. Enactment,
in our view, would not encourage BIA and IHS non-Indian employees to
retire earlier than they otherwise would but would, instead, encourage
them to continue working to enhance their retirement annuity computation
at such time as they voluntarily decide to retire.
These individuals are not in any danger of losing their jobs. While
promotional opportunities are somewhat restricted, they are still avail-
able. In a recent check with BIA and IHS, both agencies stated that
qualified non-Indians are still being hired and promoted to jobs in
occupations where no qualified Indians apply. In addition, non-Indians
have the option of requesting a change to different positions either with-
in their respective agencies or to other agencies. In fact, both
agencies have set up outplacement assistance plans to help non-Indians
who want other jobs. The Commission's area offices have also offered
counseling and placement assistance to non-Indians when appropriate.
The Commission is very concerned that this type of legislation would set
a precedent for other employees who find their promotional opportunities
limited for whatever reasons to request similar liberalized retirements.
We are particularly concerned with proposed subsection (g) (5) of section
8336 of title 5. This subsection provides for a non-Indian employee to
be eligible for an annuity if he demonstrates "to the satisfaction of
the Commission that he has been passed over on at least two occasions
for promotion, transfer, or reassignment to a position representing
career advancement because of section 12 of the Act of June 18, 1934
(48 Stat. 986) or any other provision of law granting a preference
to Indians in promotions and other personnel actions.' This criterion
is so vague that it would be extremely difficult to administer in a
reasonable and fair way. For any promotion action more candidates are
considered than could possibly be selected. Normally three to five
eligibles are referred to the selecting official under competitive pro-
cedures. In a case where a minimally qualified Indian is selected, it
is totally inaccurate to say the remaining candidates were "passed over"
since only one vacancy existed. The provisions of this subsection would
encourage non-Indians to apply for vacancies for which they are minimally
qualified and claim they were "passed over" so they would be eligible for
liberal retirement benefits. Such a claim could not be substantiated--
the most any eligible could prove is that he was one of the competitive
eligibles considered for a vacancy. In addition, it would be difficult
to determine who had been "passed over on at least two occasions for
promotion, transfer, or reassignment to a position representing career
advancement
"
(Transfers are made only between Federal agencies, not
-3-
within an agency, so this appears to be a misnomer.) As far as reassign-
ments within an agency, many of these are at the discretion of manage-
ment and do not require use of internal competitive promotion procedures.
Reassignments do not necessarily lead to promotions, but might enhance
an individual's chance for promotion at a later date.
The bill also provides for the liberalized retirements to be available
for qualified non-Indians on a retroactive as well as a prospective basis.
We see no way this could be applied fairly in a retroactive way. Since
Indian preference has not been a discretionary matter but a mandatory
requirement, the Indian agencies have not ranked non-Indians if Indians
appeared on a promotion certificate. It would be impossible to recon-
struct previously issued certificates with any degree of accuracy.
Further, we believe that if a liberal view of "passed over" were adopted
for actions from June 17, 1974, through October 1, 1976, it would be
inconsistent to prospectively require a more restrictive approach for
the period from October 1, 1976, through December 31, 1985.
If H.R. 5465 is enacted, we estimate that the unfunded liability of the
Civil Service Retirement System would be increased by approximately $136
million which would be amortized in 30 equal annual installments of $8.4
million.
To summarize, in addition to the administrative difficulties involved,
H.R. 5465, would offer windfall benefits to a select group of non-Indian
employees of BIA and IHS whose promotional opportunities are somewhat
limited but who are in no danger of losing their jobs. Enactment of such
windfall benefits can be expected to lead to demands by other groups of
employees in other agencies--for extension of similar benefits to them-
selves---whenever their promotional opportunities are limited for what-
ever reason. Adequate justification simply does not exist for the
Government to assume the cost of extending such benefits.
For all of the above reasons, the Commission strongly recommends that
the President veto the enrolled enactment.
By direction of the Commission.
Robert Sincerely yours,
Hamplon
Chairman
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
September 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
BRADLEY PATTERSON, JR.
Subject:
Enrolled Bill Memorandum on H.R. 5465
I concur in OMB's memorandum and in the veto action which
it proposes.
I concur in OMB's proposed veto message with two amendments:
(a) Begin the third sentence of the Message with
the words, "I am familiar with and I under-
stand...". This will help underscore to the
many anxious employees in BIA and IHS that
the President has personally noted the
arguments supporting their position.
(b) Delete from the first full paragraph on page
2 of the Message the words, "Not essentially
different from that encountered in many
agencies,". Because of the Mancari and
Freeman Court decisions, this is a unique
problem and it would unnecessarily embitter
the affected employees for the President to
tell them that their concerns are lumped in
with "personnel management" matters allegedly
common to many agencies.
CC: Mr. Baroody
BCC: Mrs. Kilberg
BERALD R. LIONARY R-EDRD
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINCTON
LOG NO.:
Date: September 20
134
Time:
1115am
Jack Marsh
FOR ACTION: Brad Patterson
CC (for information):
Jim Connor
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
David Lissy
Spencer Johnson
Robert Hartmann
Bobbie Kilberg
(veto message attached)
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: September 21
Time: 200pm
SUBJECT:
H.R. 5465-Special retirement benefits for non-Indian
employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
FORD & LIBRARY 93
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE STAFF SECRETARY
Subject: Revised Figures in the Enrolled Bill Memo
on H.R. 5465
Senator Stevens, a sponsor of HR 5465, called
me yesterday to complain that the Civil Service Commission had
inaccurately estimated the cost figures for HR 5465. He had met
with Chàirman Hampton and as a result of that, and some BIA
refiguring, more accurate figures (BIA now tells me) should
be in that memorandum.
I explained to Ted that the memorandumwas on the
President's desk, but promised to find out from BIA what the
accurate figures were, and to send a memorandum forward to
make sure the record was accurate.
The right figures, according to BIA, which
belong in the 4th full paragraph on page 2, are:
a) Assuming that potential retirees would
elect to retire at their earliest possible
eligible moment: 107 million (instead of 136).
b) Assuming that potential retirees would wait
until the last possible eligible moment to
retire early: 40 to 45 million (instead of
136).
FORD
I send this memorandum
commitment to Senator Stevens.
Bank forward to keep my GERAUB R. LIBRARY
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
cc: Dir ctor Lynn
Commissioner Thompson
Mar Friedersdoff
September 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
BRADLEY PATTERSON, JR.
Subject:
Enrolled Bill Memorandum on H.R. 5465
I concur in OMB's memorandum and in the veto action which
it proposes.
I concur in OMB's proposed veto message with two amendments:
(a) Begin the third sentence of the Message with
the words, "I am familiar with and I under-
stand...". This will help underscore to the
many anxious employees in BIA and IHS that
the President has personally noted the
arguments supporting their position.
(b) Delete from the first full paragraph on page
2 of the Message the words, "Not essentially
different from that encountered in many
agencies,". Because of the Mancari and
Freeman Court decisions, this is a unique
problem and it would unnecessarily embitter
the affected employees for the President to
tell them that their concerns are lumped in
with "personnel management" matters allegedly
common to many agencies.
CC: Mr. Baroody
BCC: Mrs. Kilberg
FORD is LIBRARY 07V838
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
2247207
Senator
Stevens to reads
STRALD 5 FORD
Truel to 6.35 q/24
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
MR. Krivit
OF (Organization)
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
544-1112
to
50
apsy
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
pt GPO :1059-c4S-16-80341-1 332-359
9/22
950
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
WALT Connahan
OF (Organization)
Cong PHONE Abdnor's NO. off
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
225-5765
Tabed
9/24
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME 15
pt
9/22
//
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO :1969-c4S-16-80341-1 832-389
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
Brad
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Jerry Rogus
Fl. AFGEomployers PHONE NO.
OF (Organization)
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
737-8700 HR. 5465 to reads
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
9/23
305
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO : 1989-c48-16-80341-1 332-839
63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jim Proce
737-0585
that NFFE
True turneh
5:30
9/24
FORD is LIBRARY 076930
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, W. VA., CHAIRMAN
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., TENN.
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX.
JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N.Y.
MIKE GRAVEL, ALASKA
ROBERT T. STAFFORD, VT.
LLOYD BENTSEN, TEX.
JAMES A. MC CLURE, IDAHO
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK.
PETE V. DOMENICI, N. MEX.
JOHN c. CULVER, IOWA
ROBERT MORGAN, N.C.
United States Senate
GARY HART, COLO,
M. BARRY MEYER, CHIEF COUNSEL AND CHIEF CLERK
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
BAILEY GUARD, MINORITY CLERK
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
September 15, 1976
Mr. Brad Patterson
White House Staff
Room 134
Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Dear Brad:
For your information I am enclosing a copy of
Senator Domenici's recent letter to the President urging
him to support H.R. 5465.
If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please call me at 224-6621.
Sincerely,
Dick
Richard W. Getzinger
Legislative Assistant
to Pete V. Domenici
United States Senator
RG:ew
Enclosure
True apy
FORD is LIBRARY 074839
L. B. Christensen
PROCLAIM LIBERTY
3911 Rimrock Road
USA
13
Billings, Montana 59102
BILLINGS BILL 1976 PM 17 MT 169
POSTAGES
THROUGHO™
BILLINGS SENTOR
THROUGHOUTAILTHEL
HIGH
SEP17'70
P
85
1976
THE
MONT
BELLAMY AWARD SCHO LAND:
RETURN RECEIPT
The White House
21
Attention: Mr. Brad Patterson
Washington, D.C. 20501
THE HOUSE SECURITY MAIL
CERTIFIED
No.
773534
EP by 20 1978
MAIL
Y
&
Billings, Montana
September 17, 1976
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20501
Attention: Mr. Brad Patterson
Dear President Ford:
We are writing to you requesting that you approve legislation, HR-5465,
a bill to provide assistance to certain employees of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service who have been adversely
affected by the sudden and arbitrary application of the Indian preference
laws and to provide opportunity for the advancement and employment of
Indians.
This legislation seeks a solution to a serious problem in which the
non-preference employees of these two Agencies have been and are continuing
to be denied competitive opportunities of every type. The Supreme Court
decision of June 17, 1974 (Morton vs. Mancari) held that it is appropriate
to apply Indian preference to all personnel actions within the Indian
Agencies, whereas before preference was applied only to initial appoint-
ments--all other actions being competitive under Civil Service laws and
regulations and in accordance with the civil and constitutional rights
of all employees.
The decision, however, did not consider the effect on the non-Indian career
employees who suddenly found their careers seriously jeopardized--and in
some cases ended. The affected class has exhausted all administrative
remedies in an effort to regain competitive status and salvage their
damaged careers.
This legislation provides some recompense for monetary losses suffered
through lack of promotional opportunity and through resulting curtailment
of earned annuities of the non-preference employee while at the same time
enhancing the opportunity for Indian people to enter the mainstream of
activities in their efforts to manage their own affairs and to determine
their own destinies in accordance with the goals of your administration
and those of the Congress.
We wish to point out several reasons why this legislation is necessary
and beneficial:
- The morale of all employees, both Indian and non-Indian, within
these Agencies is dangerously low. The legislation would bring
forth new hope and spirit. The situation should not be permitted
to deteriorate further.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
The White House
-2-
The non-preference employees, virtually without exception, concur
in the principle of Indian self-determination, and many have
devoted their careers and lives to improving conditions for the
Indian people. They now feel unwanted and unappreciated in spite
of these efforts.
Key positions now blocked by non-preference employees will become
available, thereby creating jobs and opportunities for Indians.
The Indians have waited many, many years for this.
Many of the affected employees have suffered hardship while living
and working on Indian reservations, and many, as well as their
families, have endured threats to their lives and property.
--Considerable expertise of certain non-preference employees cannot
be fully developed and utilized under present circumstances since
these employees are forced to redirect their work priorities to
help develop the potential of the Indian employees.
The non-preference employees of these Agencies accepted appointments
in good faith, being given every indication that they could compete
to enhance their careers as anyone might expect. These Agencies
of the United States Government have not lived up to their
commitments, and, as a result, the earning abilities of the
affected employees have been restricted through no fault of their
own.
The Department of Interior; Health, Education, and Welfare; and
the Civil Service Commission have not carried out their ministerial
duties by providing counseling or meaningful assistance to the
employees whose careers have been damaged. Outplacement efforts
advanced thus far by these three responsible entities have had
little, if any, positive results.
--Contrary to fears expressed by Interior, HEW, and the Civil
Service Commission, we do not foresee an immediate mass exodus
of employees possessing critical skills. Most cannot afford to
"retire" on a limited annuity. We anticipate relatively few would
leave within the next two to three years due to restrictions
imposed by the bill itself, and compounded by certain limitations
employees have because of families, mobility, opportunity, etc.
Many present non-preference employees providing critical professional
skills are not affected by the legislation.
In sincerity and with due respect, we humbly beseech you to consider
this plea and sign HR-5465 into law.
With hope and gratitude,
FORD is LIBRARY
3911 RIMROCK Raso
Jeanne I Fisher
1235 Calton Blod.
BILLINGS, MT 59102
John froum an
B for: 59102
E twin Fewher
1948 Servis ave
Bellings. mot 59102
Keona { me Gibonay
3006 Timber INC Do
1835 mul herry Dr.
Billings. mt! 5910Y
Billings mf 59102 P
Lenara Weist
D.A. Thatcher
Huntley, mt. 59037
743 Cook
Kathleen S. Brown
Billings, MT 59101
420 Been Dr.
Deals.
Billing one. 59102
1370 Hardrock (N.
Billings, OUT 59101
Ellen Hoffman
Rith Dinius
Box 789
3907 2nd are Sould
Billing, mt 59,03
Billings mr 59102
Harney Lick
Wilen E. Randall
207 inster are
1123
Billings MT 59101
Billings MT 59102
Betty & Christensen
1216 Burlington are.
garge
1335 am to and
Billings, MT 59102
Billing, 74759102
FORD LIBRARY is QERALD
Jom. Anderson
Run Van the
Circle Seven Ranch
1044 No. 26th St
thepherd, MT. 59079
Billings, M+ - 59101
INDIAN RECORD
Bulletin
H.R. 5465 would provide windfall retirement benefits
Veto of Bill Concerning Certain
to a relatively small number of the non-Indian employees
of these agencies. The Indian employees and other non-
Employees of the Bureau of
Indian employees in these same agencies would not re-
Indian Affairs and the Indian
ceive these benefits. The eligible employees are not in dan-
ger of losing their jobs. Because they may face a limited
Health Service
outlook for promotion, the bill would pay these employees
costly annuities even though they had completed sub-
The President's Message to the House of Representatives
stantially less than a full career. Payments could be made
Returning H.R. 5465 Without His Approval.
at age 50 after only 20 years of Federal service, of which
September 24, 1976
as little as 11 years need be Indian-agency service. Their
annuities would be equivalent to the benefits it would take
To the House of Representatives:
the average Federal employee until age 60 and 27 years of
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 5465, a
service to earn.
bill which would provide special retirement benefits to
This would seriously distort and misuse the retirement
certain non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian
system to solve a problem of personnel management for
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) who
which there are far more appropriate administrative solu-
are adversely affected by Indian preference requirements.
tions. The Departments of the Interior and Health, Edu-
I strongly support the objective of having Indians ad-
cation, and Welfare have established special placement
minister the Federal programs directly affecting them. I
programs to help non-Indian employees who desire other
am familiar with and understand the concern of non-
jobs. I am asking the Chairman of the Civil Service Com-
Indian employees of these agencies about their long-term
mission to make certain that those placement efforts are
career prospects because of Indian preference. But H.R.
rigorously pursued with all agencies of the Federal
Government.
5465 is the wrong way to deal with this problem.
This bill is designed to increase employment opportuni-
Further, these Departments assure me that many non-
ties for Indians by providing special compensation to
Indian employees continue to have ample opportunity for
non-Indian employees in BIA and IHS who retire early.
full careers with Indian agencies if they so desire. Accord-
It seeks to accomplish this purpose by authorizing pay-
ingly, H.R. 5465 represents an excessive, although well-
ment of extraordinary retirement benefits under certain
motivated, reaction to the situation. Indian preference
conditions to non-Indian employees of these agencies who
does pose a problem in these agencies, but it can and
retire before 1986-benefits more liberal than those avail-
should be redressed without resort to costly retirement
benefits.
able to any other group of Federal employees under the
civil service retirement system. I believe that this approach
I am not prepared, therefore, to accept the discrimina-
will result in inequities and added costs that far exceed
tory and costly approach of H.R. 5465.
the problem it is attempting to solve-a problem which
GERALD R. FORD
is already being addressed through administrative actions
The White House,
by the agencies involved.
September 24, 1976.
FORD & LIBRA 78470
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
October 5, 1976
Dear Senator:
I wish to acknowledge receipt and thank
you for your September 30 letter to the
President regarding the problem of pro-
viding equitable treatment for non-Indian
professionals in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
You have provided the President with a
commentary on this matter which I know
will be most helpful to him and his
advisers. You may be assured your letter
will be called to their attention.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Jenckes V
Special Assistant for
Legislative Affairs
FORD is LIBRARY 076830
The Honorable Fete V. Domenici
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
bee: w/incmg to Brad Patterson for further handling and reply.
JSJ: JEB: VO:em
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 6, 1976
NOTE TO PAUL O'NEILL
Paul -- is the President's
sentence in his Veto Mescage considered
ipso facto a directive to the Civil Service
Commission, or should you or I sign a
special memorandum to Chairman Hampton?
Should one also go to Interior?
Note Senator Domenici's letter
Brad
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
GERALD : & FORD LIBRARY
JEM
EDMUND S
JOSEY
Ma
October 5, 1976
Dear Senator:
I wish to acknowledge receipt and thank
you for your September 30 letter to the
President regarding the problem of pro-
viding equitable treatment for non-Indian
professionals in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
You have provided the President with a
commentary on this matter which I know
will be most helpful to him and his
advisers. You may be assured your letter
will be called to their attention.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Jenckes V
Special Assistant for
Legislative Affairs
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
United States Senate
Washington, D. c. 20510
bcc: w/incmg to Brad Patterson for further handling and reply.
JSJ:JEB:VO:em
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
NGS RANDOLPH, W. VA., CHAIRMAN
SKIE, MAINE
HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., TENN.
MONTOYA, N. MEX.
JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N.Y.
10-4
RAVEL, ALASKA
ROBERT T. STAFFORD, VT.
BENTSEN, TEX.
JAMES A. MC CLURE, IDAHO
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK.
PETE V. DOMENICI, N. MEX.
JOHN C. CULVER, IOWA
ROBERT MORGAN. N.C.
GARY HART, COLO.
HRS46
United States Senate
M. BARRY MEYER, CHIEF COUNSEL AND CHIEF CLERK
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
BAILEY GUARD, MINORITY CLERK
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
September 30, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
This letter refers to H.R. 5465, a bill designed to
provide early retirement benefits to non-Indian employees
in the BIA and IHS. As you are already aware through pre-
NE
vious correspondence and telephone contacts from this office;
I was disappointed to learn of your recent decision to veto
vetoed
this measure.
9/2
I understand that your decision was made after a care-
ful consideration of all of the information made available to
you. I feel, however, that you have not been provided with
an overall accurate picture of the difficult morale problems
presently in the BIA and IHS. Qualified non-Indian profes-
sionals, deserving of promotion and other benefits, are being
passed over due to a national policy of Indian preference.
This practice has caused a serious lowering of morale among
non-Indians in these agencies.
In the next few months I intend to work to develop a
means of providing long-term relief for these non-Indian em-
ployees. In the interim, I would urge you, Mr. President, to
see that the administrative remedies described in your veto
message are implemented. It is my understanding that to
this point no real effort has been made to implement the
Departmental Career Placement Assistance Program established
for this purpose by the Department of the Interior last winter.
I know, Mr. President, that you and I share the view that
individual effort and achievement, by Indians or non-Indians
alike, should be fairly and justly rewarded. However, many
non-Indian BIA and IHS professionals are presently being treated
in a manner inconsistent with this view, in order that another
national policy, Indian preference, might be accommodated.
Executive action to develop a meaningful program of outplace-
ment to all agencies of the Federal Government, as described
in your veto message, will provide some immediate relief for
this problem. I hope that you now will move vigorously in this
direction.
The President
September 30, 1976
Page 2
I thank you for your kind attention to this matter and
I look forward to your advising me of action taken in this
regard.
With warmest personal regards, I am,
PVD: dgam
GERALD ? LIBRARY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 8, 1976
NOTE TO ANNE HIGGINS
Anne, this is a serious mistake.
The President vetoed this bill.
Please check all correspondence
re Indians with me.
Bead
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1976
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Geary:
President Ford values the views of
concerned citizens on important
Congressional legislation, and he
has asked me to thank you for your
thoughtful mailgram. He appreciated
knowing of your special interest
in H.R. 5465.
As you may know, the President
approved this legislation on
September 24. With the thought
that you would like to see it,
I am enclosing a copy of his
statement.
Sincerely,
Rn L. Ethirt
Roland L. Elliott
Director of Correspondence
Mr. and Mrs. John Geary
1823 North Kenmore Street
Arlington, Virginia 22207
Enclosure
SERALD
FORD LIBRARY is
October 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman, Civil Service Commission
SUBJECT:
Special Placement Program for Non-Indian
Employees
I attach a copy of the President's veto message on H.R.
5465. You will note its fifth paragraph.
Please prepare, by January 1, 1977, a progress report for
the President on the implementation of his directive.
By copies of this memorandum, I am requesting the Secretaries
of the Interior and of Health, Education and Welfare to
assist you closely in preparing the report desired.
You also should be aware of the enclosed letter from
Senator Domenici.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CC: The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare
FORD LIBRARY :-
October 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman, Civil Service Commission
SUBJECT:
Special Placement Program for Non-Indian
Employees
I attach a copy of the President's veto message on H.R.
5465. You will note its fifth paragraph.
Please prepare, by January 1, 1977, a progress report for
the President on the implementation of his directive.
By copies of this memorandum, I am requesting the Secretaries
of the Interior and of Health, Education and Welfare to
assist you closely in preparing the report desired.
You also should be aware of the enclosed letter from
Senator Domenici.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CC: The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare
FORDO LIBRARY is
October 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman, Civil Service Commission
SUBJECT:
Special Placement Program for Non-Indian
Employees
I attach a copy of the President's veto message on H.R.
5465. You will note its fifth paragraph.
Please prepare, by January 1, 1977, a progress report for
the President on the implementation of his directive.
By copies of this memorandum, I am requesting the Secretaries
of the Interior and of Health, Education and Welfare to
assist you closely in preparing the report desired.
You also should be aware of the enclosed letter from
Senator Domenici.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CC: The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare
GERALD *. LIBRARY FORD
October 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman, Civil Service Commission
SUBJECT:
Special Placement Program for Non-Indian
Employees
I attach a copy of the President's veto message on H.R.
5465. You will note its fifth paragraph.
Please prepare, by January 1, 1977, a progress report for
the President on the implementation of his directive.
By copies of this memorandum, I am requesting the Secretaries
of the Interior and of Health, Education and Welfare to
assist you closely in preparing the report desired.
You also should be aware of the enclosed letter from
Senator Domenici.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CC: The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare
FORD i LIBRARY 078839
October 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE CHAIRMAN, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
TEE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION
AND WELFARE
FROM:
BRADLEY H. PATTERSON, JR.
With reference to my memorandum of October 12, I would
appreciate it if you would bring this letter to the
attention of the officers on your staffs who have
action responsibility for the matter.
I have acknowledged the letter by telephone.
CC: The Director, OMB
GERALD
FORD LIBRARY is
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
BRAd
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
Richard Hite
OF (Organization)
INTERIOR
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL. CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
343-4701
RECEIVED BY
DATE
TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
63-108
GPO :1969-c48-16-0341-1 : 882-389
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
Extended to be granted /
George Sampson
Dearltar as of 9/30
Ree Franklin
80
FTS-843-9311
Paul Loreuson
Dolar McCure
1 343-6761
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1976
NOTE TO ART QUERN
These ase the master files on
this particular subject which will be
pending on January 3 after I shall have
departed the White House.
Ed Preston is a good contact in
OMB on this matter.
Ray Jacobson, the Executive
Director of the Civil Service Commission
is of course familiar with the matter and
it was he who suggested the January 1
deadline; I think the Commission has to
prepare something for the Congress by
GERALD'R LIBRARY R. FORD
that date also -- on the same subject.
Read