Indian people that are not federally recognized, you exclude them from a lot of services. That is our strong point.

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, I concede that there should be a definition, a statutory definition of Indian. I concede that. But what is your comment with regard to the number of Indians and where they are picked from on this Commission?

Mr. BROWN. I strongly feel that there should be one, possibly an additional, or I don't know exactly how these representatives regarding the Indian input will be selected, but that one especially should come from the State of California.

Senator ABOUREZK. Do you think, Terry, in view of the fact that the Oklahoma people might demand that somebody come from Oklahoma or South Dakota or Arizona and so on, do you think it might be better to have no Indian members on this Commission to avoid the fight that is going to come up? I don't think I have to tell you about Indian politics. Do you think we can better do our job if we don't get involved in an internal Indian fight? What do you think?

Mr. BROWN. This is another point. Always a Federal commission or agency is coming to the Indian people right at the last moment to provide or generate or create input. Always it comes down to the selection of who is representing whom at a given point in time. I think if this is the Commission's intent, to set down a mandate that there are only five members, possibly we will be happy to accept that. But always we are excluded in the State of California and we do have a very large Indian population, probably the second in the Nation. We strongly feel we want our input.

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, I guess I am not making myself clear. The existence of Indian peoples on the Commission does not prevent input. As a matter of fact, this Commission will have regional hearings throughout the country. In other words, in every region that will take care of every possible Indian regional problem, there will be hearings held by this Commission and the staff. That is where the Indian input comes into it. It will not be determined by who is on the Commission itself. The Commission is there to run the show, run the staff, run the consultants. It is there to, I guess, put the firm reporting to make decisions on the controversial part of the content of the report and the legislative recommendations. But it is not there necessarily so much to make sure that every single faction is heard from. I don't know if I am making myself clear.

Mr. BROWN. You are making it perfectly clear, that is why we were asking for Indian consultation. We desperately need Indian consultation.

Senator ABOUREZK. In what regard?

Mr. BROWN. How did Senate Joint Resolution 133 come about or Senate bill 1017?

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, I wrote it myself.

Mr. BROWN. I realize that but was it with Indian consultation? Senator ABOUREZK. I talked to some Indians about it, I didn't talk to everybody about it. The staff and I put it together. It was with Indian consultations, as a matter of fact, because one of the Indians wrote it. Forrest Gerard. The bill was written, you have to have something written and then you have to ask for opinions on that specific bill. We did it as well as we could without going around the country.

One of the reasons we are here today is to hear your comment on it. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to find out what you think, to give me your viewpoint as to how you think it should be. As a basis for your viewpoint, there ought to be a full understanding on your part what this bill intends to do.

Mr. BROWN. At this point, Mr. Chairman, to continue on, just to pose a few brief questions regarding Senate Joint Resolution 133, and that is, it should be incumbent on Congress to create a committee to rectify the problem of termination in the State of California. Also Congress should create a new agency at the Cabinet level independent of other agency level, and our endeavor should be made with Indian input with their own Secretary and Undersecretary and line item budgets.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief questions and that is in accordance with the Bureau of Indian Affairs realinement. Is there actual Indian input in determining who the Commissioner is going to be?

Senator ABOUREZK. No, there is no input at all, not even from my committee, who the Commissioner is going to be. They won't even listen to us.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have any recommendation to bringing the services to 41,000 Indian people in the State of California? Senator ABOUREZK. I don't understand that.

Mr. BROWN. There are approximately 41,000 Indian people that live on or about reservations in the State of California currently excluded from BIA services, and last year the eligibility position paper was introduced at the Department of the Interior and cut off by Mr. . Harrison Loesch.

Senator ABOUREZK. You mean to include those people?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, it was denied.

Senator ABOUREZK. One thing this committee will try to do as much as we can do is to try to bring all Indian people in the country under the umbrella of the Federal Government if they want to be there. We are not going to force anybody under it, but they ought to be eligible to it and entitled to it. I don't know how we are going to get it done or when we are going to get it done, but it is my policy personally, and if I can convince enough other Senators it will be the policy of the Congress to include all of the Indian people under this particular umbrella.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, are you aware of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the HEW Indian desk transfer?

Senator ABOUREZK. No, I am not.

Mr. BROWN. I was going to pose a question in terms of again-
Senator ABOUREZK. Oh, I know about that, yes.

Mr. BROWN. Will Indian people have input regarding the guidelines and policies and funding for Indian nations throughout the Nation and will Indian people also have input into the selection of the Director and will the HEW Indian desk have a line item budget?

Senator ABOUREZK. Let me try to explain to you and the people here today what we are trying to do in that regard, with regard to giving the Indian people the right to participate in a major way in these decisions of who will be Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, how the programs will be decided, how much money is in

tended to be spent. Right now even the Indian Affairs Committee doesn't have that kind of participation. The reason is that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service both have unlimited open ended authorization. They do not have to come to the Indian Affairs Committee to request authorization for their programs because of the way the law is written. They go directly to the Appropriations Committee to ask for the money. There is no chance for anybody in the Congress under the present system to determine whether or not these programs are good, whether they have been working, whether they ought to be changed, whether there ought to be new or different programs. There is no chance at all. Because the Appropriations Committee does not have time to inquire into it. They merely pro forma either reject or accept the budget request made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. They do it based not on what is needed but based upon how much money they think they have available for that year. I think that system is bad and I think it is wrong because, as I said earlier, there is no accountability, there is no responsibility on anybody's part. There is nobody really looking after Indian programs. That was the reason that I drafted and I introduced the bill that would require the Indian Health Service and the Indian Bureau to ask for authorization before this committee on a periodic basis.

Now, one thing that would result if this bill is passed that would require authorization, one thing will result. That the Indian people themselves through this committee can ask all of the questions they want of the Indian Bureau, of the Indian Health Service, because that is the way this committee operates. We try as much as we can to talk to Indian people to find out what their needs or desires or wishes are and we try to reflect those back to the bureaucracy. I think that authorization bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation this year for that reason, that we will then, with the Indian people and with the Congress itself, have a handle on the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A handle that has not been there since the beginning and since the inception of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What do you think about that, what are your comments?

Mr. BROWN. They are very enlightening, Mr. Chairman. Again, we strongly feel it is very imperative now that such a commission be enacted by Congress to allow Indian people to have their input.

Senator ABOUREZK. What do you think about the requirement of the Indian Bureau and Indian Health Service to come before this committee every 2 years to ask for authorization, to explain themselves, in other words?

Mr. BROWN. It is very rewarding to hear such a statement Mr. Chairman, and we feel it is going to be most beneficial for the Indian people throughout this Nation. Especially when the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates with the so-called PBS system. Every year they ask for an appropriation and we ask how does the Bureau justify that amount that they receive and where do those moneys go. We feel it is only appropriate that they justify their appropriation request. Just a couple of brief closing statements. We, as Indian people now

must demand an opportunity for self-determination. We have not had this. But we want it under our terms, not those of the Federal Government. The overused phrase of self-determination does not mean assimilation, nor does it mean that all Indian people should conform in thought and action. It means that each individual must have the opportunity to determine his own life, the opportunity to work and progress toward his own personal and economic goals as he defines them, independent from social or political influence or control. This is a right guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans. The first Americans have been denied this right.

Now, we must work to attain what is and always has been rightfully ours and that is personal self-determination.

Congress again has come before our people and here in the State of California we strongly feel this will not be an appeasement but we will strongly mandate that our endeavors and intent to rectify a lot of problems that have been put before us, not as a people but by mandate through legislation, have been very detrimental. Congress does have a moral responsibility to our Indian people, by the mere fact of the Constitution.

We have suffered many blatant injustices.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I hope we have provided some type of input that is constructive and that hopefully you will listen closely to the following spokesmen because they have and will be speaking on various key issues that we are confronted with in the State of California.

Again, it will only be Congress that can determine and define our destiny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I very much appreciate your discussion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank you again for coming out to our golden State, and secondly, I think it would make the Indian people feel much better if one more nonfederally recognized Indian could be added to the Commission. Is this possible? Senator ABOUREZK. Well, everything is possible. We are going to consider and discuss your recommendation. I don't know if it will be done, but I think it merits a lot of discussion and we intend to do that.

I want to thank both of you very much. The purpose of these hearings is to find out things from each other. I have learned a great deal from you and I hope to learn much more today. I appreciate very much your appearance here and the debate that you have joined in and the enlightenment you have given the people here on the committee and for the committee record. Thanks again.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. The next panel of witnesses is the Californiaapparently two factions here, the California Tribal Chairmen's Association, and the San Diego County Tribal Chairmen's Association, represented by Mr. Peter Masten, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, and Mr. Don Calac, chairman of the Rincon, Escondido, Calif. Mr. Calac is not here, is that right?

STATEMENT OF PETER MASTEN, CHAIRMAN, HOOPA VALLEY RESERVATION, REPRESENTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION; DON CALAC, CHAIRMAN OF THE RINCON RESERVATION, ESCONDIDO, CALIF.; GERALD KANE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BISHOP RESERVATION; ALEX GARFIELD, CHAIRMAN OF THE TULE RIVER RESERVATION; AND WILLIE COLEGROVE, MEMBER OF THE HOOPA TRIBE AND VOLUNTARY CONSULTANT TO THE CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. MASTEN. Mr. Chairman, at the table with me today will be Mr. Colegrove, Mr. Calac, Mr. Garfield, and Mr. Kane. I understand they have not arrived yet.

Senator ABOUREZK. All right. Would you spell the name of the other witness, please?

Mr. MASTEN. Colegrove.

Mr. COLEGROVE. I am a Hoopa also. I work as a voluntary consultant, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ABOUREZK. Well, we are very happy to have you here. Please proceed.

Mr. MASTEN. Senator Abourezk, members of the U.S. Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, the California Tribal Chairmen extend a welcome to California and wish that your stay will be revealing as well as enjoyable.

Mr. Chairman, seated with me today is Mr. Gerald Kane, chairman of the Bishop Reservation, Mr. Alex Garfield, chairman of the Tule River Reservation; Mr. Don Calac, chairman of the Rincon Reservation, and Mr. Willie Colegrove, member of the Hoopa Tribe, and voluntary consultant to the California Tribal Chairmen's Association.

We certainly hope that today's discussion will be fruitful in the sense that the Tribes of California, afforded this opportunity, can express our concerns to the committee, and that our recommendations will be given full consideration.

During our discussion in preparation of testimony for this hearing, the questions of major general problem areas, almost always appear to be directly related to differences in the manner and degree that Government has exercised its trust responsibilities to California Indian Reservations. By comparison, Indians of other States have experienced much more favorable attention.

Any logical assessment of the California Indian reservation situation presents two conclusions that have a direct bearing on our past and current problems as they relate to services provided by Federal agencies. Unfortunately, by the very nature of historical events in California, we are different, and more importantly, this difference has provided Government with a convenient excuse to reduce the priority of our needs and to provide only minimal token services.

For the purpose of accurately assessing the California situation, we would like to mention some of these differences.

No. 1. California Indian treaties were never ratified.

No. 2. As a direct result of our nontreaty status and with few exceptions California Indians did not receive the substantial land base