mittee." The committee is required to issue a preliminary report by February 15.

Today, the House of Representatives considered a resolution creating a select committee to conduct a thorough study of all standing committees and their powers and duties. The select committee is authorized and directed to propose legislation dealing with the committee structure of the House; the number and optimum size of committees; their jurisdiction, staffing, space, equipment, and other committee facilities. Since, as Woodrow Wilson noted, it is in its committees that Congress does its work, I am hopeful that this study will lead to a major strengthening of the role of the Congress.

I am happy to say I have been placed on that committee by the Speaker and look forward to its work.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress not only the point of the challenge to the fundamental principle of separation of powers, which I think is one of the unique things that has marked our Government, our ability to govern ourselves without degenerating into either an anarchy or tyranny, but also that it presents a fundamental challenge to another basic principle of our governmental structure, and that is the whole Federal principle because of what it has done to State and local governments all across the country in terms of their planning, in terms of this programing, in terms of the situation in which they are placed, when these impoundments take place.

Therefore, I thank the Chair for this opportunity because I do feel that what is at stake with the impoundment issue is a fundamental challenge to some very basic constitutional principles in this country. Thank you very much.

Senator ERVIN. I want to commend you on the excellence of your statement, and say I agree with everything you say. I certainly agree with you in the observation that the impoundment bills which are in the House, and also over here, are just one step, and certainly as you point out, if we are to recapture our prerogatives, if we can call it that, our reassertion of our power of the purse certainly imposes upon us a higher obligation to equip ourselves with all of the information we need and the personnel in this field so we can discharge our duty and make appropriations not only with the knowledge but also with a high degree of financial responsibility.

It seems to me we have two problems, as you point out so well. First, you have violation of a very fundamental principle. Where funds are impounded as they have been on many occasions in the past, right in the middle of a project, you have a disruption of that project, as in the case of housing programs, and in the case of some other programs under the Educational Act, and some of the programs under the Environmental Act, which throw State government into utter confusion and the people who are employed on these projects into a state of utter confusion.

Mr. SARBANES. I was a member of the State legislature in 1967 when President Johnson impounded the highway moneys for a period of time, and met with the State highway people at that time, and their program had been thrown just into total chaos by that action which happend with very little advanced warning, and it was just a cutoff of the money. Now. I happen on that program in Congress to favor opening up the highway trust fund to mass transit money, but

that has no relevance to this question. That is a congressional judgment to be made, and once made ought to be carried out by the Executive, and for that reason I was gratified to see that the suit that has been brought in Missouri, and I know that you and others have joined in as friends of the court in pressing the arguments with respect to the unlawful impoundments of funds by the Executive in that area. Senator ERVIN. It seems to me that when Congress passes an appropriation for a specific purpose and the President signs the appropriation act, it thereby makes it an act of Congress, a law, that the Congress and the President acting together have given an assurance to the people who are interested and who participate in the programs to be financed by that act, that those programs will be completed as far as that administrations act will complete them. When you cut it off right in the middle of the fiscal year, in the middle of the program, it is certainly a most disruptive and exceedingly damaging act.

Any such curtailment ought to wait until the end of the fiscal year when there is a chance for Congress to consider whether it is going to continue that particular program, or to finance that particular program.

Mr. SARBANES. He could fight it out in the next budget, and that is legitimate, I think, and that is part of the struggle that goes on between the legislative and executive branch, but for us to pass it, and him not to veto and sign it, or veto and have us pass it over the veto and proceed to ignore what is in effect the law of the land, seems to me subverts the whole constitutional system.

Senator CHILES. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Our next witness and last witness for our hearings today will be Mr. Birgil L. Kills Straight, representing the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards.

We are delighted to have you, Mr. Kills Straight.

STATEMENT OF BIRGIL L. KILLS STRAIGHT, REPRESENTING THE COALITION OF INDIAN CONTROLLED SCHOOL BOARDS, DENVER, COLO., ACCOMPANIED BY BERTHA LORENZO, ABE PLUMMER, AND GERALD M. CLIFFORD

Mr. KILLS STRAIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to present this testimony before this committee. I have brought along with me Mr. Abe Plummer, Mrs. Bertha Lorenzo, and Mr. Gerald Clifford to help me answer any questions that you might have after my statement. I have before me a written statement which I will read into the record.

Senator ERVIN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KILLS STRAIGHT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Birgil Kills Straight, and I am president of the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards. The coalition is composed of some 80 schools and Indian organizations in 25 States of the Union which now carry on, or are interested in carrying on, educational programs for Indian children.

These organizations have come together in a coalition with the purpose of fostering Indian involvement in Indian education and

development of educational programs which are especially designed to meet the needs of Indian children.

While some of the schools I represent are private, some are Federal, some are tribal, some are State schools, they are all under the direction of Indian boards or committees, and are seeking to make their educational programs more relevant and helpful for Indian children than has been in the past.

For many years, Indian children, whether they have been enrolled in Federal or non-Federal schools, have been "educated," if that word can be used to describe it, without consideration for their own culture, language, history, and community context. This fact, and its unfortunate consequences, have been documented many times by studies and reports, including most recently in the hearings and the report of the Senate's Select Subcommittee on Indian Education.

I would like to give just one example of the kind of thing we are trying to get away from. On many Indian reservations in this country, the language commonly spoken among Indian people in their own families is an Indian language, Lakota in the Northern Plains, Navajo in the Southwest, Choctaw in Mississippi, Miccosukee in Florida, and so on.

As a result, Indian children often first enter school without knowing English. Until quite recently, there were almost no teachers in the schools attended by Indian children, who could speak the language spoken by their pupils. The BIA schoolteacher who can converse in an Indian language is still rare.

Most of us have encountered the situation where a teacher, trying to teach a child who doesn't know English, is convinced that the problem can be solved by speaking English loud enough and distinctly enought and close enough to the child's ear.

This is an example of just one of the gulfs which in the past have separated Indian children from the educational institutions where they are supposed to be educated. There are also differences in culture, religion, and outlook which mean as much, or more, than language. What the Indian Controlled School Boards are trying to do is to provide educational programs for Indian children which are rooted in the Indian's own culture, perspectives, and opportunities.

When we were told that the Congress had enacted title IV of Public Law 92-318, which provides Federal assistance for programs specifically designed to meet the special educational needs of Indian children, we immediately saw that this new law fits right in with what we are trying to do.

We were especially pleased that part A of the program makes a special allocation of funds which would be available to Indian controlled, private or federally financed schools on or near Indian reservations. We were also pleased that part B of this law set up a new program of grants to improve Indian education under which Indian tribes, organizations, and institutions are eligible to receive funds and administer projects.

We were pleased to learn that the Congress had appropriated $18 million for fiscal year 1973 to get this program underway in the present school year, and that the President had signed this supplemental appropriation and it had become law. While this amount is not nearly

enough to finance the restructuring of Indian education, we could see that it was a beginning.

Now it appears that, as so often in our past, the signature on the dotted line doesn't mean what it seemed to mean. Now we are told that this money is not really available at all. In fact, on Monday, the President recommended that the appropriation for fiscal year 1973 should be rescinded. Furthermore, he proposed that no funds should be spent on Indian Education Act programs next year.

We understand that you are concerned with not one instance of impoundment but rather with the question in its totality. We understand that you are receiving testimony on S. 373, the impoundment control bill. Yet, we think our testimony is relevant, for we can show that the actions of the administration with respect to title IV of Public Law 92-318, and the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1973, Public Law 92-607, are wholly a usurpation of congressional powers and thus impress you with the urgency of your taking swift and decisive action. We do not think that it should be necessary for us at this time to argue with the President on the merits of the Indian Education Actthat was decided by the Congress, and it is the prerogative of the Congress. Yet we are placed in a position of standing before your committee and showing to you that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of HEW, and the Commissioner of Education are clearly violating the intent of Congress. We note that it is the opinion of Mr. Rehnquist in his testimony before your committee last year, that the case of a clear intent of Congress is contained in the entitlement language of Public Law 874, the President is obligated to implement the law. Yet, the Congress at this time finds itself without the power to force the President and his administration to act. This is so in spite of 5 years of exhaustive committee hearings both in the field and in Washington, as well as volumes of Congressional Records documenting the needs for the program established by title IV of Public Law 92-318. This is so in spite of the support of the Indian community as a whole for this legislation. Congressional Records will show that the National Tribal Chairman's Association went on record supporting appropriations for this bill, as did the National Indian Education Association and the Navajo Tribe. The National Congress of American Indians and the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards have lent their support. In spite of the demonstrated need of the program as docuinented in Congressional Records and this overwhelming support from the Indian community, the President has canceled this program by the simple act of impoundment.

On Monday, January 29, the President's budget message was released. The budget document of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare presents what they call an overview of the 1974 budget, which describes "basic themes which guide the administration's approach to Federal and domestic programs." The theme which the administration applies to the Indian Education Act is: "Those programs that are poorly designed or unproductive are proposed for reduction or elimination." Again the document states: "Where programs have shown themselves to be ineffective, reductions would begin

in 1973." Later in the same document we find that revisions are in two main categories. The Indian Education Act is found in category No. 1:

Where Congress has already appropriated funds which exceed current estimates of budget requirements, the administration is requesting amendments to the Appropriations Act, which would withdraw the unneeded funds. In technical terms, such negative appropriation actions are called rescissions.

On October 31, 1972, Public Law 92-607, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1973 was signed into law by the President of the United States. On January 29, 1973, the same President is, in effect, signing the law out of existence by proposing rescissions of the $18 million appropriated. This action is contrary to the "desperate educational needs of Indians" that the President documented himself in his July 8, 1970, special message on Indian affairs.

We don't have to point out to you the raw use of power that is here involved. We are dismayed that, under the present congressional practice, the President has only to recommend amendments to the Appropriations Act, and whether he gets the amendment through Congress or not, he has only to stall until the end of the fiscal year since the Appropriations Act states in section 1101, "No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein."

The rationale provided in the budget message for this rescission of funds for the Indian Education Act is as follows:

Support for Indian education is also maintained at a high level in 1974. Over $80 million is available for compensatory education programs, construction projects, and other efforts designed to supplement Bureau of Indian Affairs support for federally operated Indian schools as well as local educational agencies which serve Indian students. Because of the large existing effort directed toward Indian education, the budget does not contain funds for the recently authorized Indian Education Act-which would duplicate and overlap much of the present assistance that is being provided.

What is significant is that Congress was and is aware of the moneys that are being spent by the Office of Education in Indian-related programs. The true facts are that the Bureau of Indian Affairs educates only 53,763 Indian children in Federal boarding and day schools. Those children in Federal schools come primarily from the following tribes: Navajo (22,964), Alaskan Native (6,466), Sioux (5,777), Chippewa (2,498), Cherokee (1,657), Choctaw (1,532), Hopi (1.245) Papago (946) Pima (804). The remainder numbering below 500, come from various tribes throughout the country.

In public schools, most recent HEW records indicate that there are a minimum of 225,000 Indian children in the public school systems. At least half of this number are reservation Indian children attending public schools on or near reservations. Consequently, we can only assume that this administeration is not willing to effectively attempt to administer educational programs which will reach the greater majority of reservation Indian children. The achievement and dropout rates of Indian children are still wholly unsatisfactory proving that the "existing effort directed toward Indian Education" is not being effective.

Indeed, it was precisely from an examination of the dollars spent versus the quality of education being delivered to Indian children that the Congress enacted the Indian Education Act. It was because of the need for a viable structure to deliver quality educational services