Senator JACKSON. Substantially inconsistent. The truth is that these 45 who are attending the school appear to be quite outstanding, and instead of it being an indication of poor home environment, I would think it is an indication of some semblance of excellence according to your own people. Mr. NASH. Miss Gifford, the Assistant Commissioner for Community Services who prepared that letter for you, is here. Perhaps she would like to comment on her own. Senator JACKSON. It is there in print. You say in your statement that these 45 Colville youths are an indication of poor home environment. In other words, they are not doing very well. She writes an opposite conclusion that they are apparently good students and are doing quite well apparently at the two institutes. I just cite this one instance. I would just like to have your comment. Mr. NASH. My comment is that they can be doing very well at Haskell. They can be doing very well at the Santa Fe institute. In addition to the 45 in the Southwest, there are others at Chilocco, and 1, although the volume here is not important, at the Pine Ridge School, so there are children in other boarding schools. One of the criteria for acceptance, the principal criteria for acceptance in an Indian boarding school is poverty, educational retardation, dropping out, and this is not inconsistent with successful achievement in a boarding school environment as against a day school environment. Senator JACKSON. In other words, they have to have a bad home and a bad background in order to get in?" Mr. NASH. This is not the only method of getting in, and this is inconsistent with Miss Gifford's letter, and I would like to correct that. Senator JACKSON. I think it is clearly inconsistent. I think you may want to modify your statement. I am just trying to be helpful to you. You cannot read the two and make any sense. It is a direct opposite. (Mr. Nash later submitted the following clarifying letter:) Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the course of my testimony on S. 1413 during the morning of April 5, you raised a question concerning the 56 Colville Indian students whose enrollment at Federal boarding schools was commented on in the departmental report on that bill and in my oral testimony. There being an inconsistency between my testimony and a letter you had received from Assistant Commissioner Gifford, you suggested that I might wish to modify my statement. On December 21, 1964, the Colville Indian Tribe adopted a resolution requesting the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to reopen the Chemawa Indian School to Indian children from the northwest area. They felt this would alleviate "dropouts, subnormal academic achievements, juvenile delinquency and other unfavorable situations." The tribe referred to "approximately 45 Colville Indian youths presently attending Federal boarding schools in the Southwest section of the United States, such as Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, and other States ***99 The tribe forwarded a copy of the resolution to you and on February 17, 1965, you asked the Bureau for comment. The 45 children referred to by the tribe were Colville children enrolled in boarding schools during the present 1964-65 school year. In our letter of response signed by Assistant Commissioner Gifford, we directed our attention to those children referred to by the tribe in its resolution. As stated in that letter, 30 of the 45 children referred to by the tribal council resolution were in 1 of 2 institutes offering special education not available at Chemawa. In my testimony on S. 1413, I referred to a different group of Colville children, namely the 56 who were in boarding schools during the 1963-64 school year. An analysis of these enrollments shows they were admitted under the following criteria and in the schools listed. As this table shows, 19 of the 56 Colville Indian students were admitted under one or more of the education criteria and 37 under one or more of the social criteria. Thus, 37 of the 56, or about 2 out of every 3, were admitted because of some difficulty of a social nature including those with serious problems in the family or the home environment. You will perhaps be interested in the excerpt from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Manual (62 IAM 2.5.2) setting forth the criteria for enrollment in bureau boarding schools. I am happy to have had this opportunity to clarify my oral testimony before the subcommittee. Sincerely yours, PHILLEO NASH, Commissioner. MANUAL 62 IAM 2.5.2 2. Eligibility for admission.-Children otherwise eligible who meet one or more of the criteria listed below may be admitted to Federal boarding schools: A. EDUCATION CRITERIA (1) Those for whom a public or Federal day school is not available. Walking distance to school or bus transportation is defined as 1 mile for elementary children and 11⁄2 miles for high school. (2) Those who need special vocational or preparatory courses, not available to them locally, to fit them for gainful employment. Eligibility under this criterion is limited to students of high school grades 9 through 12. (3) Those retarded scholastically three or more years or those having pronounced bilingual difficulties, for whom no provision is made in available schools. B. SOCIAL CRITERIA (1) Those who are rejected or neglected or for whom no suitable plan can be made. (2) Those who belong to large families with no suitable home and whose separation from each other is undesirable. (3) Those whose behavior problems are too difficult for solution by their families or through existing community facilities and who can benefit from the controlled envinorment of a board school without harming other children. (4) Those whose health or proper care is jeopardized by illness of other members of the household. Senator JACKSON. Now, I want to ask you this. I had called to my attention the following Associated Press story out of Portland, and I read it: The head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs says termination of the Colville Indian Reservation in Washington probably would lead to poverty among Indians after timber is logged off the land. Philleo Nash, in Portland for a conference with area directors of the Bureau, said closure of the Colville Reservation would leave the Federal Government with another national forest and a pocket of poverty. Senator Jackson introduced in the last session of Congress a bill to terminate the reservation. Do you stand on that story or statement? Mr. NASH. I was in Portland, and I was asked by the press about this matter. This is consistent, Senator Jackson, with what I put in appendix 3, and what I have just summarized with respect to the problems of the 2,900 people who live on and near the Colville Reservation: yes, sir. Senator JACKSON. Let me ask you why is the concern always expressed by the Bureau over poverty or something else, when a termination bill comes up, or when we obtain a judgment that we must distribute to the Indians, that suddenly the Bureau gets very concerned about the welfare of the Indians? All of us here in this committee are extremely concerned about the welfare of the Indians. We want to do what is right and what is best. I am sure you do. But what concerns me is that we see the concern brought to the fore whenever some attempt is made to do something to help the Indians. This is what bothers me. I would like to have your comment. Mr. NASH. We in the Bureau are concerned about poverty among the Indians all the time. Most of our programs are intended to raise the standard of living on the reservations. We have been doing this over the years primarily by education. We are spending about $4 on education for every $1 that we are spending on resource development. One of the reasons we bring up the question of poverty when these judgment bills and liquidation or termination bills come up is that our experience tells us that there are problems. To fight poverty successfully you must approach it from two sides at once. Education alone is not enough. We have been doing that for many, many years, and we do have pockets of poverty on existing reservations as well as on some terminated reservations and on some places that have large numbers of Indians living in them which have never been reservations. So if we continue to bring up the question of poverty, it is because we wish to make ourselves, the Indian people, and members of this committee and everyone else aware of the fact that poverty and successful means of combating it are the biggest problems on the reservations. We talk about it because we think about it all the time. Senator JACKSON. There is no doubt that it is a problem, and it is a problem among other segments in the American community, and we want to do something about it. But I read that Associated Press dispatch, and then the report here favors the bill with certain exceptions, and I could not quite put the two together as being compatible. Mr. NASH. No; I think that they are consistent, and for this reason Senator METCALF. Is it not contemplated that there be a sustained yield operation? Senator JACKSON. It is not a forest liquidation, is it? Mr. NASH. No, sir. Senator METCALF. Then why would the timber ever be logged off the land? Mr. NASH. I was not aware that I had suggested it. Senator METCALF. This says "would lead to poverty among the Indians after timber is logged off the land." Why would you even bring that up if it was sustained yield operation? Senator JACKSON. You want to log it? Mr. NASH. Obviously if it becomes a national forest, it is going to be operated on the same sustained yield basis as it is now. Senator JACKSON. I think your statement is really most unfortunate. Then I got a letter. Let me read you something else. These are the things that cause us all problems, and it is unfortunate, but I have a letter here from Myrtle Landry who has met with you folks. She is from Cosmopolis, Wash., and a member of the Shoalwater Tribe. This is dated March 10. Two members of the Shoalwater Tribe and myself (Betsy Trick) met with Philleo Nash, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and Mr. James Officer at the Multnomah Hotel, Portland, Oreg., on March 2, 1965. Mr. Nash informed us that you had three or four termination bills in Congress for Washington Indian tribes. He also said that you were leading the termination program for Washington Indians. We are alarmed as well as incredulous as we have always assumed that you had a protective attitude toward the Indians of Washington State. Please explain these statements and reaffirm our trust in you to protect our confidence. Do you want to comment on that letter? Mr. NASH. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Officer, who was present at the time this interview took place, is in the room and will say whatever he knows to be the facts about this interview. I have never said anything like this about you as an individual, as a Senator, or as the chairman of this committee. Senator JACKSON. If it is true, you can say anything you want. I just want to get the facts. Mr. NASH. It is not true. I do not believe it is true, and I did not say so. Senator JACKSON. Of course, the only bill I have introduced is this one at their request, you understand that. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir; I am very well aware of that. Senator JACKSON. Here is an Associated Press story that looks like the committee is involved in cutting all the timber off and is going to leave the Indians poverty stricken. This sort of publicity I think is unfortunate. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. Senator JACKSON. And I am sure you agree that it is. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. At the time I did not realize that the chairman was reading from this story. If I said at the time after the timber is cut off, I Senator JACKSON. The story leaves the implication that we are out with a program that will sell all the timber off. There will be no sustained yield, no conservation, and the Indians will be left with nothing. It indicates that they will all be poverty stricken and the timber will all be gone. I think that is unfortunate. Mr. NASH. Mr. Chairman, you are handing me a newspaper story Senator JACKSON. That is right. 46-705-65- -4 Mr. NASH. Based on interviews in Portland. Now, I did say in Portland that I was fearful of termination of the Colville Reservation leading to the formation of a pocket of poverty, and I have so testified here this morning, and this I said, and this I stand on. Now, I will not say that I did not say the timber was to be logged off the land, but it is quite obvious from the character of this bill, the departmental report on it, my own testimony here this morning, that nobody comes here thinking that this bill provides for a clear cut of the forest. I do not recall thinking so or saying so, because there has never been a bill, as far as I know, before this committee or the committee on the other side or before Congress which contemplated a clear cut. Senator JACKSON. I do not think you intended that. That is what concerned me, and my staff contacted your office at the time. We were disturbed because we got a lot of letters about this. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. Senator JACKSON. It looks as if we are trying to do an injustice to the Indians, and this is the last thing that any of us want to do. We want to help them. That is why this hearing is being held, to try to give the Indians an opportunity-and they are competent to do so to indicate what they really want, and that is what I am interested in and I am sure you are interested in. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. Senator JACKSON. Now, you mentioned this Stanford plan or referred, I should say, to the Stanford study. When was that, in 1960? Mr. NASH. It was published in 1960, and much of the work was done in 1959 and was authorized in 1958. Senator JACKSON. Why has the Bureau not come up with this present plan involving an investment of $12 million for plant construction and $1,850,000 for working capital prior to this hearing? Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. We are late with this plan. I thought it was more important to put the plan in than to leave it out merely because we are many years late in coming up with it. We have been occupied almost entirely since I became Commissioner in 1961 with economic development programs on many reservations, some of which have a good start, others of which are still further in the future than we wish they were. With respect to Colville, we have been concerned almost entirely with bills that are coming up and proposals from various groups for liquidation and termination. For example, we did make a start, as I indicated, in 1962 in getting a more up-to-date forest inventory so that the cut could be raised, with the hope that the dividend income to the members would increase. Senator JACKSON. Do you not see my concern? Here is a study that was completed 5 years ago. The purpose of a study is to either make some use of it or discard it, and 5 years later this is brought out here in this meeting this morning, and I think that is a long delay. Mr. NASH. Yes, sir; it is a very long delay. Senator JACKSON. We are concerned with trying to find the best possible way of protecting the assets and resources of the Indians so that they will get the maximum benefit from their property that belongs to them. I cosponsored, with the late Senator O'Mahoney, the Indian Claims Commission Act to see that their rights were adjudi |