On
my trawl, today, I came across this message from a United States President to
Congress. I must confess I was surprised by the content and extent of the
message, coming from this president.
Special
Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs.
8th July
To the Congress of the United
States:
The first Americans--the
Indians-are the most deprived and most isolated minority group in our nation.
On virtually every scale of measurement--employment, income, education,
health--the condition of the Indian people ranks at the bottom.
This condition is the heritage
of centuries of injustice. From the time of their first contact with European
settlers, the American Indians have been oppressed and brutalized, deprived of
their ancestral lands and denied the opportunity to control their own destiny.
Even the Federal programs which are intended to meet their needs have
frequently proven to be ineffective and demeaning.
But the story of the Indian in
America is something more than the record of the white man's frequent
aggression, broken agreements, intermittent remorse and prolonged failure. It
is a record also of endurance, of survival, of adaptation and creativity in the
face of overwhelming obstacles. It is a record of enormous contributions to
this country--to its art and culture, to its strength and spirit, to its sense
of history and its sense of purpose.
It is long past time that the
Indian policies of the Federal government began to recognize and build upon the
capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and
as a matter of enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of
what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to
break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in
which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.
SELF-DETERMINATION
WITHOUT
TERMINATION
The first and most basic
question that must be answered with respect to Indian policy concerns the
historic and legal relationship between the Federal government and Indian
communities. In the past, this relationship has oscillated between two equally
harsh and unacceptable extremes.
On the one hand, it has--at
various times during previous Administrations-been the stated policy objective
of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government
eventually to terminate the trusteeship relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian people. As recently as August of 1953, in House
Concurrent Resolution 108, the Congress declared that termination was the long-range
goal of its Indian policies. This would mean that Indian tribes would
eventually lose any special standing they had under Federal law: the tax exempt
status of their lands would be discontinued; Federal responsibility for their
economic and social well-being would be repudiated; and the tribes themselves
would be effectively dismantled. Tribal property would be divided among
individual members who would then be assimilated into the society at large.
This policy of forced
termination is wrong, in my judgment, for a number of reasons. First, the
premises on which it rests are wrong. Termination implies that the Federal
government has taken on a trusteeship responsibility for Indian communities as
an act of generosity toward a disadvantaged people and that it can therefore
discontinue this responsibility on a unilateral basis whenever it sees fit. But
the unique status of Indian tribes does not rest on any premise such as this.
The special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result
instead of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States
Government. Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal
and informal agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the
Indian people. For their part, the Indians have often surrendered claims to
vast tracts of land and have accepted life on government reservations. In
exchange, the government has agreed to provide community services such as
health, education and public safety, services which would presumably allow
Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other
Americans.
This goal, of course, has never
been achieved. But the special relationship between the Indian tribes and the
Federal government which arises from these agreements continues to carry
immense moral and legal force. To terminate this relationship would be no more
appropriate than to terminate the citizenship rights of any other American.
The second reason for rejecting
forced termination is that the practical results have been clearly harmful in
the few instances in which termination actually has been tried. The removal of
Federal trusteeship responsibility has produced considerable disorientation
among the affected Indians and has left them unable to relate to a myriad of
Federal, State and local assistance efforts. Their economic and social
condition has often been worse after termination than it was before.
The third argument I would make
against forced termination concerns the effect it has had upon the overwhelming
majority of tribes which still enjoy a special relationship with the Federal
government. The very threat that this relationship may someday be ended has
created a great deal of apprehension among Indian groups and this apprehension,
in turn, has had a blighting effect on tribal progress. Any step that might
result in greater social, economic or political autonomy is regarded with
suspicion by many Indians who fear that it will only bring them closer to the
day when the Federal government will disavow its responsibility and cut them
adrift.
In short, the fear of one
extreme policy, forced termination, has often worked to produce the opposite
extreme: excessive dependence on the Federal government. In many cases this
dependence is so great that the Indian community is almost entirely run by
outsiders who are responsible and responsive to Federal officials in
Washington, D.C., rather than to the communities they are supposed to be
serving. This is the second of the two harsh approaches which have long plagued
our Indian policies. Of the Department of the Interior's programs directly
serving Indians, for example, only 1.5 per cent are presently under Indian
control. Only 2.4 per cent of HEW's Indian health programs are run by Indians.
The result is a burgeoning Federal bureaucracy, programs which are far less
effective than they ought to be, and an erosion of Indian initiative and
morale.
I believe that both of these
policy extremes are wrong. Federal termination errs in one direction, Federal paternalism
errs in the other. Only by clearly rejecting both of these extremes can we
achieve a policy which truly serves the best interests of the Indian people.
Self-determination among the Indian people can and must be encouraged without
the threat of eventual termination. In my view, in fact, that is the only way
that self-determination can effectively be fostered.
This, then, must be the goal of
any new national policy toward the Indian people: to strengthen the Indian's
sense of autonomy without threatening his sense of community. We must assure
the Indian that he can assume control of his own life without being separated
involuntarily from the tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indians can
become independent of Federal control without being cut off from Federal
concern and Federal support. My specific recommendations to the Congress are
designed to carry out this policy.
1. Rejecting Termination
Because termination is morally
and legally unacceptable, because it produces bad practical results, and
because the mere threat of termination tends to discourage greater
self-sufficiency among Indian groups, I am asking the Congress to pass a new
Concurrent Resolution which would expressly renounce, repudiate and repeal the
termination policy as expressed in House Concurrent Resolution 108 of the 83rd
Congress. This resolution would explicitly affirm the integrity and right to
continued existence of all Indian tribes and Alaska native governments,
recognizing that cultural pluralism is a source of national strength. It would
assure these groups that the United States Government would continue to carry
out its treaty and trusteeship obligations to them as long as the groups
themselves believed that such a policy was necessary or desirable. It would guarantee
that whenever Indian groups decided to assume control or responsibility for
government service programs, they could do so and still receive adequate
Federal financial support. In short, such a resolution would reaffirm for the
Legislative branch--as I hereby affirm for the Executive branch--that the
historic relationship between the Federal government and the Indian communities
cannot be abridged without the consent of the Indians.
2. The Right to Control and
Operate Federal Programs
Even as we reject the goal of
forced term/nation, so must we reject the suffocating pattern of paternalism.
But how can we best do this? In the past, we have often assumed that because
the government is obliged to provide certain services for Indians, it therefore
must administer those same services. And to get rid of Federal administration,
by the same token, often meant getting rid of the whole Federal program. But
there is no necessary reason for this assumption. Federal support programs for
non-Indian communities-hospitals and schools are two ready examples--are
ordinarily administered by local authorities. There is no reason why Indian
communities should be deprived of the privilege of self-determination merely
because they receive monetary support from the Federal government. Nor should
they lose Federal money because they reject Federal control.
For years we have talked about
encouraging Indians to exercise greater self-determination, but our progress
has never been commensurate with our promises. Part of the reason for this
situation has been the threat of termination. But another reason is the fact
that when a decision is made as to whether a Federal program will be turned
over to Indian administration, it is the Federal authorities and not the Indian
people who finally make that decision.
This situation should be
reversed. In my judgment, it should be up to the Indian tribe to determine
whether it is willing and able to assume administrative responsibility for a
service program which is presently administered by a Federal agency. To this
end, I am proposing legislation which would empower a tribe or a group of
tribes or any other Indian community to take over the control or operation of
Federally-funded and administered programs in the Department of the Interior
and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare whenever the tribal council
or comparable community governing group voted to do so.
Under this legislation, it would
not be necessary for the Federal agency administering the program to approve
the transfer of responsibility. It is my hope and expectation that most such
transfers of power would still take place consensually as a result of
negotiations between the local community and the Federal government. But in
those cases in which an impasse arises between the two parties, the final
determination should rest with the Indian community.
Under the proposed legislation,
Indian control of Indian programs would always be a wholly voluntary matter. It
would be possible for an Indian group to select that program or that specified
portion of a program that it wants to run without assuming responsibility for
other components. The "right of retrocession" would also be
guaranteed; this means that if the local community elected to administer a
program and then later decided to give it back to the Federal government, it
would always be able to do so.
Appropriate technical assistance
to help local organizations successfully operate these programs would be
provided by the Federal government. No tribe would risk economic disadvantage
from managing its own programs; under the proposed legislation,
locally-administered programs would be funded on equal terms with similar
services still administered by Federal authorities. The legislation I propose
would include appropriate protections against any action which endangered the
rights, the health, the safety or the welfare of individuals. It would also
contain accountability procedures to guard against gross negligence or
mismanagement of Federal funds.
This legislation would apply
only to services which go directly from the Federal government to the Indian
community; those services which are channelled through State or local
governments could still be turned over to Indian control by mutual consent. To
run the activities for which they have assumed control, the Indian groups could
employ local people or outside experts. If they chose to hire Federal employees
who had formerly administered these projects, those employees would still enjoy
the privileges of Federal employee benefit programs--under special legislation
which will also be submitted to the Congress.
Legislation which guarantees the
right of Indians to contract for the control or operation of Federal programs
would directly channel more money into Indian communities, since Indians
themselves would be administering programs and drawing salaries Which now often
go to non-Indian administrators. The potential for Indian control is
significant, for we are talking about programs which annually spend over $400
million in Federal funds. A policy which encourages Indian administration of
these programs will help build greater pride and resourcefulness within the
Indian community. At the same time, programs which are managed and operated by
Indians are likely to be more effective in meeting Indian needs.
I speak with added confidence
about these anticipated results because of the favourable experience of
programs which have already been turned over to Indian control. Under the
auspices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Indian communities now run more
than 60 community action agencies which are located on Federal reservations.
OEO is planning to spend some $57 million in Fiscal Year 1971 through
Indian-controlled grantees. For over four years, many OEO-funded programs have
operated under the control of local Indian organizations and the results have
been most heartening.
Two Indian tribes--the Salt
River Tribe and the Zuni Tribe--have recently extended this principle of local
control to virtually all of the programs which the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
traditionally administered for them. Many Federal officials, including the
Agency Superintendent, have been replaced by elected tribal officers or tribal
employees. The time has now come to build on these experiences and to extend
local Indian control-at a rate and to the degree that the Indians themselves
establish.
3. Restoring the Sacred Lands
Near Blue Lake
No government policy toward
Indians can be fully effective unless there is a relationship of trust and
confidence between the Federal government and the Indian people. Such a
relationship cannot be completed overnight; it is inevitably the product of a
long series of words and actions. But we can contribute significantly to such a
relationship by responding to just grievances which are especially important to
the Indian people.
One such grievance concerns the
sacred Indian lands at and near Blue Lake in New Mexico. From the fourteenth
century, the Taos Pueblo Indians used these areas for religious and tribal
purposes. In 1906, however, the United States Government appropriated these
lands for the creation of a national forest. According to a recent
determination of the Indian Claims Commission, the government "took said
lands from petitioner without compensation."
For 64 years, the Taos Pueblo
has been trying to regain possession of this sacred lake and watershed area in
order to preserve it in its natural condition and limit its non-Indian use. The
Taos Indians consider such action essential to the protection and expression of
their religious faith.
The restoration of the Blue Lake
lands to the Taos Pueblo Indians is an issue of unique and critical importance
to Indians throughout the country. I therefore take this opportunity wholeheartedly
to endorse legislation which would restore 48,000 acres of sacred land to the
Taos Pueblo people, with the statutory promise that they would be able to use
these lands for traditional purposes and that except for such uses the lands
would remain forever wild.
With the addition of some
perfecting amendments, legislation now pending in the Congress would properly
achieve this goal. That legislation (H.R. 471) should promptly be amended and
enacted. Such action would stand as an important symbol of this government's
responsiveness to the just grievances of the American Indians.
4. Indian Education
One of the saddest aspects of
Indian life in the United States is the low quality of Indian education.
Drop-out rates for Indians are twice the national average and the average
educational level for all Indians under Federal supervision is less than six
school years. Again, at least a part of the problem stems from the fact that
the Federal government is trying to do for Indians what many Indians could do
better for themselves.
The Federal government now has
responsibility for some 221,000 Indian children of school age. While over
50,000 of these children attend schools which are operated directly by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, only 750 Indian children are enrolled in schools
where the responsibility for education has been contracted by the BIA to Indian
school boards. Fortunately, this condition is beginning to change. The Ramah
Navajo Community of New Mexico and the Rough Rock and Black Water Schools in
Arizona are notable examples of schools which have recently been brought under
local Indian control. Several other communities are now negotiating for similar
arrangements.
Consistent with our policy that
the Indian community should have the right to take over the control and
operation of federally funded programs, we believe every Indian community
wishing to do so should be able to control its own Indian schools. This control
would be exercised by school boards selected by Indians and functioning much
like other school boards throughout the nation. To assure that this goal is
achieved, I am asking the Vice President, acting in his role as Chairman of the
National Council on Indian Opportunity to establish a Special Education
Subcommittee of that Council. The members of that Subcommittee should be Indian
educators who are selected by the Council's Indian members. The Subcommittee
will provide technical assistance to Indian communities wishing to establish
school boards, will conduct a nationwide review of the educational status of
all Indian school children in whatever schools they may be attending, and will
evaluate and report annually on the status of Indian education, including the
extent of local control. This Subcommittee will act as a transitional
mechanism; its objective should not be self-perpetuation but the actual
transfer of Indian education to Indian communities. Executive Order 11551,
dated August 11, 1970, provided for additional Indian members on the National
Council on Indian Opportunity. A White House release dated August 31,
announcing the appointment of eight new members to the Council, is printed in
the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 6, p.1132).
We must also take specific
action to benefit Indian children in public schools. Some 141,000 Indian
children presently attend general public schools near their homes. Fifty-two
thousand of these are absorbed by local school districts without special
Federal aid. But 89,000 Indian children attend public schools in such high
concentrations that the State or local school districts involved are eligible
for special Federal assistance under the Johnson-O'Malley Act.2 In
Fiscal Year 1971, the Johnson-O'Malley program will be funded at a level of
some $20 million.
2 Public Law No. 6:38, June 4, 1936 (49
Stat.1458; 25 U.S.C. 452-455).
This Johnson-O'Malley money is
designed to help Indian students, but since funds go directly to the school
districts, the Indians have little if any influence over the way in which the
money is spent. I therefore propose that the Congress amend the
Johnson-O'Malley Act so as to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
channel funds under this act directly to Indian tribes and communities. Such a
provision would give Indians the ability to help shape the schools which their
children attend and, in some instances, to set up new school systems of their
own. At the same time, I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to make
every effort to ensure that Johnson-O'Malley funds which are presently directed
to public school districts are actually spent to improve the education of
Indian children in these districts.
5. Economic Development
Legislation
Economic deprivation is among
the most serious of Indian problems. Unemployment among Indians is ten times
the national average; the unemployment rate runs as high as 80 per cent on some
of the poorest reservations. Eighty per cent of reservation Indians have an
income which falls below the poverty line; the average annual income for such
families is only $1,500. As I said in September of 1968, it is critically
important that the Federal government support and encourage efforts which help
Indians develop their own economic infrastructure. To that end, I am proposing
the "Indian Financing Act of 1970."
This act would do two things:
1. It would broaden the existing
Revolving Loan Fund, which loans money for Indian economic development
projects. I am asking that the authorization for this fund be increased from
approximately $25 million to $75 million.
2. It would provide additional
incentives in the form of loan guarantees, loan insurance and interest
subsidies to encourage private lenders to loan more money for Indian economic
projects. An aggregate amount of $200 million would be authorized for loan
guarantee and loan insurance purposes.
I also urge that legislation be
enacted which would permit any tribe which chooses to do so to enter into
leases of its land for up to 99 years. Indian people now own over 50 million
acres of land that are held in trust by the Federal government. In order to
compete in attracting investment capital for commercial, industrial and
recreational development of these lands, it is essential that the tribes be
able to offer long-term leases. Long-term leasing is preferable to selling such
property since it enables tribes to preserve the trust ownership of their
reservation homelands. But existing law limits the length of time for which
many tribes can enter into such leases. Moreover, when long-term leasing is allowed,
it has been granted by Congress on a case-by-case basis, a policy which again
reflects a deep-rooted pattern of paternalism. The twenty reservations which
have already been given authority for long-term leasing have realized important
benefits from that privilege and this opportunity should now be extended to all
Indian tribes.
Economic planning is another
area where our efforts can be significantly improved. The comprehensive
economic development plans that have been created by both the Pima-Maricopa and
the Zuni Tribes provide outstanding examples of interagency cooperation in
fostering Indian economic growth. The Zuni Plan, for example, extends for at
least five years and involves a total of $55 million from the Departments of
Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Health, Education and Welfare and
from the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Economic Development
Administration. I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to play an active
role in coordinating additional projects of this kind.
6. More Money for Indian Health
Despite significant improvements
in the past decade and a half, the health of Indian people still lags 20 to 25
years behind that of the general population. The average age at death among
Indians is 44 years, about one-third less than the national average. Infant
mortality is nearly 50% higher for Indians and Alaska natives than for the
population at large; the tuberculosis rate is eight times as high and the
suicide rate is twice that of the general population. Many infectious diseases
such as trachoma and dysentery that have all but disappeared among other
Americans continue to afflict the Indian people.
This Administration is
determined that the health status of the first Americans will be improved. In
order to initiate expanded efforts in this area, I will request the allocation
of an additional $10 million for Indian health programs for the current fiscal
year. This strengthened Federal effort will enable us to address ourselves more
effectively to those health problems which are particularly important to the
Indian community. We understand, for example, that areas of greatest concern to
Indians include the prevention and control of alcoholism, the promotion of
mental health and the control of middle ear disease. We hope that the ravages
of middle-ear disease--a particularly acute disease among Indians--can be
brought under control within five years.
These and other Indian health
programs will be most effective if more Indians are involved in running them.
Yet-almost unbelievably--we are presently able to identify in this country only
30 physicians and fewer than 400 nurses of Indian descent. To meet this
situation, we will expand our efforts to train Indians for health careers.
7. Helping Urban Indians
Our new census will probably
show that a larger proportion of America's Indians are living off the
reservation than ever before in our history. Some authorities even estimate
that more Indians are living in cities and towns than are remaining on the
reservation. Of those American Indians who are now dwelling in urban areas,
approximately three-fourths are living in poverty.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is
organized to serve the 462,000 reservation Indians. The BIA's responsibility
does not extend to Indians who have left the reservation, but this point is not
always clearly understood. As a result of this misconception, Indians living in
urban areas have often lost out on the opportunity to participate in other
programs designed for disadvantaged groups. As a first step toward helping the
urban Indians, I am instructing appropriate officials to do all they can to
ensure that this misunderstanding is corrected.
But misunderstandings are not
the most important problem confronting urban Indians. The biggest barrier faced
by those Federal, State and local programs which are trying to serve urban
Indians is the difficulty of locating and identifying them. Lost in the
anonymity of the city, often cut off from family and friends, many urban
Indians are slow to establish new community ties. Many drift from neighbourhood
to neighbourhood; many shuttle back and forth between reservations and urban
areas. Language and cultural differences compound these problems. As a result,
Federal, State and local programs which are designed to help such persons often
miss this most deprived and least understood segment of the urban poverty
population.
This Administration is already
taking steps which will help remedy this situation. In a joint effort, the
Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare will expand support to a total of seven urban Indian centres in major
cities which will act as links between existing Federal, State and local
service programs and the urban Indians. The Departments of Labour, Housing and
Urban Development and Commerce have pledged to cooperate with such experimental
urban centres and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has expressed its willingness to
contract with these centres for the performance of relocation services which
assist reservation Indians in their transition to urban employment.
These efforts represent an
important beginning in recognizing and alleviating the severe problems faced by
urban Indians. We hope to learn a great deal from these projects and to expand
our efforts as rapidly as possible. I am directing the Office of Economic
Opportunity to lead these efforts.
8. Indian Trust Counsel
Authority
The United States Government
acts as a legal trustee for the land and water rights of American Indians.
These rights are often of critical economic importance to the Indian people;
frequently they are also the subject of extensive legal dispute. In many of
these legal confrontations, the Federal government is faced with an inherent
conflict of interest. The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General
must at the same time advance both the national interest in the use of land and
water rights and the private interests of Indians in land which the government
holds as trustee.
Every trustee has a legal
obligation to advance the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust without
reservation and with the highest degree of diligence and skill. Under present
conditions, it is often difficult for the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Justice to fulfil this obligation. No self-respecting law firm
would ever allow itself to represent two opposing clients in one dispute; yet
the Federal government has frequently found itself in precisely that position.
There is considerable evidence that the Indians are the losers when such
situations arise. More than that, the credibility of the Federal government is
damaged whenever it appears that such a conflict of interest exists.
In order to correct this
situation, I am calling on the Congress to establish an Indian Trust Counsel
Authority to assure independent legal representation for the Indians' natural
resource rights. This Authority would be governed by a three-man board of
directors, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate. At least two of the board members would be Indian. The chief legal
officer of the Authority would be designated as the Indian Trust Counsel.
The Indian Trust Counsel
Authority would be independent of the Departments of the Interior and Justice
and would be expressly empowered to bring suit in the name of the United States
in its trustee capacity. The United States would waive its sovereign immunity
from suit in connection with litigation involving the Authority.
9. Assistant Secretary for
Indian and Territorial Affairs
To help guide the implementation
of a new national policy concerning American Indians, I am recommending to the
Congress the establishment of a new position in the Department of the
Interior-Assistant Secretary for Indian and Territorial Affairs. At present,
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs reports to the Secretary of the Interior
through the Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management-an officer who has
many responsibilities in the natural resources area which compete with his
concern for Indians. A new Assistant Secretary for Indian and Territorial
Affairs would have only one concern--the Indian and territorial peoples, their
land, and their progress and well-being. Secretary Hickel and I both believe
this new position represents an elevation of Indian affairs to their proper
role within the Department of the Interior and we urge Congress to act favourably
on this proposal.
CONTINUING PROGRAMS
Many of the new programs which
are outlined in this message have grown out of this Administration's experience
with other Indian projects that have been initiated or expanded during the last
17 months.
The Office of Economic Opportunity
has been particularly active in the development of new and experimental
efforts. OEO's Fiscal Year 1971 budget request for Indian-related activities is
up 18 percent from 1969 spending. In the last year alone--to mention just two
examples-OEO doubled its funds for Indian economic development and tripled its
expenditures for alcoholism and recovery programs. In areas such as housing and
home improvement, health care, emergency food, legal services and education,
OEO programs have been significantly expanded. As I said in my recent speech on
the economy, I hope that the Congress will support this valuable work by
appropriating the full amount requested for the Economic Opportunity Act.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has
already begun to implement our policy of contracting with local Indians for the
operation of government programs. As I have noted, the Salt River Tribe and the
Zuni Tribe have taken over the bulk of Federal services; other projects ranging
from job training centres to high school counselling programs have been
contracted out to Indian groups on an individual basis in many areas of the '!
country.
Economic development has also
been stepped up. Of 195 commercial and industrial enterprises which have been
established in Indian areas with BIA assistance, 71 have come into operation
within the last two years. These enterprises provide jobs for more than 6,000
Indians and are expected to employ substantially more when full capacity is
reached. A number of these businesses are now owned by Indians and many others
are managed by them. To further increase individual Indian ownership, the BIA
has this month initiated the Indian Business Development Fund which provides
equity capital to Indians who go into business in reservation areas.
Since late 1967, the Economic
Development Administration has approved approximately $80 million in projects
on Indian reservations, including nearly $60 million in public works projects.
The impact of such activities can be tremendous; on the Gila River Reservation
in Arizona, for example, economic development projects over the last three
years have helped to lower the unemployment rate from 56 to 18 per cent,
increase the median family income by 150 per cent and cut the welfare rate by
50 per cent.
There has been additional progress
on many other fronts since January of 1969. New "Indian Desks" have
been created in each of the human resource departments of the Federal
government to help coordinate and accelerate Indian programs. We have supported
an increase in funding of $4 million for the Navajo Irrigation Project. Housing
efforts have picked up substantially; a new Indian Police Academy has been set
up; Indian education efforts have been expanded--including an increase of
$848,000 in scholarships for Indian college students and the establishment of
the Navajo Community College, the first college in America planned, developed
and operated by and for Indians. Altogether, funding authority for Indian
programs run by the Federal Government has increased from a little over $598
million in Fiscal Year 1970 to almost $626 million in Fiscal Year 1971.
Finally, I would mention the
impact on the Indian population of the series of welfare reform proposals I
have sent to the Congress. Because of the high rate of unemployment and underemployment
among Indians, there is probably no other group in the country that would be
helped as directly and as substantially by programs such as the new Family
Assistance Plan and the proposed Family Health Insurance Plan. It is estimated,
for example, that more than half of all Indian families would be eligible for
Family Assistance benefits and the enactment of this legislation is therefore
of critical importance to the American Indian.
This Administration has broken a
good deal of new ground with respect to. Indian problems in the last 17 months.
We have learned many things and as a result we have been able to formulate a
new approach to Indian affairs. Throughout this entire process, we have
regularly consulted the opinions of the Indian people and their views have
played a major role in the formulation off Federal policy.
As we move ahead in this
important work, it is essential that the Indian people continue to lead the way
by participating in policy development to the greatest possible degree. In order
to facilitate such participation, I am asking the Indian members of the
National Council on Indian Opportunity to sponsor field hearings throughout the
nation in order to establish a continuing dialogue between the Executive branch
of government and the Indian population of our country. I have asked the Vice
President to see that the first round of field hearings are completed before
October.
The recommendations of this
Administration represent an historic step forward in Indian policy. We are
proposing to break sharply with past approaches to Indian problems. In place of
a long series of piecemeal reforms, we suggest a new and coherent strategy. In
place of policies which simply call for more spending, we suggest policies
which call for wiser spending. In place of policies which oscillate between the
deadly extremes of forced termination and constant paternalism, we suggest a
policy in which the Federal government and the Indian community play
complementary roles.
But most importantly, we have
turned from the question of whether the Federal government has a responsibility
to Indians to the question of how that responsibility can best be fulfilled. We
have concluded that the Indians will get better programs and that public monies
will be more effectively expended if the people who are most affected by these
programs are responsible for operating them.
The Indians of America need
Federal assistance--this much has long been clear. What has not always been
clear, however, is that the Federal government needs Indian energies and Indian
leadership if its assistance is to be effective in improving the conditions of
Indian life. It is a new and balanced relationship between the United States
government and the first Americans that is at the heart of our approach to Indian
problems. And that is why we now approach these problems with new confidence
that they will successfully be overcome.
RICHARD NIXON
The White House
8th July, 1970
