STATEMENT OF PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Senator DOMENICI. Well, thank you very much, Senator Melcher and Mr. Chairman. I first want to say in behalf of the State of New Mexico and, in particular, our Indian people, that we welcome you here today. We don't only welcome you but we congratulate you for the interest you have shown in the problems of our Indian people. The fact that, in the U.S. Senate, you would accept the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs indicates that you are willing to spend a great deal of time addressing the short- and longterm problems of the minority in this country and in our States, called the native Americans. Mr. Chairman, I have some prepared remarks. I would ask that they be made a part of the record, and I would just like to talk to you as chairman and to the record for a few moments. I am delighted to hear your opening remarks and to hear you so clearly indicate that this facility, this large campus, which now houses a significant number of high school students, that it is not the intent of your bill or of your attitude as chairman of the committee to push these students off this campus. There are many who think one cannot be for using this facility for the education of junior high school students and high school students and still support Indian arts, the Indian Arts Institute, and more importantly, Mr. Chairman, your excellent bill, Senate bill 2166. I have not gone on the bill heretofore because some people perceived of it as a solution to the campus problem here and that it was intended to return this entire facility to the Indian Arts Institute utilization. I am happy to hear you so clearly indicate that such is not the intent. I want to tell you now that I will gladly be your cosponsor. I will work as hard as I can for the adoption in the Senate of your bill, of a bill for the first time in America to create a real American Native American Culture and Arts Development Institute, much broader in scope than what we had heretofore and, obviously, the subject of a different kind of direction and policymaking than we have had before. It has been my feeling that, across this land, wherever we have posthigh-school institutions-be it the Indian Arts Institute, Haskell, SIPI-that we have to find some way to distinguish those from our efforts to run junior high schools, grade schools, and high schools under the direction of the BIA. I feel firmly that they need broad policy direction. They need something like a board of regents, and I am pleased to find that your bill, for the first time, incorporates that concept. The concept found in section 4 would envision that the development in our Nation of native American culture and art would be under a 19-member board, national in nature, many appointed by the President, others on the board because of their national relationship with Indian art and culture. It will become clear today to you, as you listen to all of the witnesses, that there is indeed a great misunderstanding. This campus and this Institute and I'm not going to go into detail-but there is no question that it started out as a tremendous facility and over the years, the entire campus was underutilized, the expenditures in Indian arts were misdirected, misguided. I know you do not want that. I do not want that. I do not want my support of this facility to be used by Indian junior high and high school students to be interpreted in any way other than what I have said here today. I believe we truly need a revitalized, a much broader in concept Indian arts and culture development process for our Nation. If this facility, in part, or some other facility in Santa Fe or somewhere in our Nation can be the focal point for that, and if that can be done soon, we will disarm those who think that either your bill or my support of the Indian students that are here we do not support Indian arts, Indian culture, and the preservation of it. Quite to the contrary, your opening remarks clearly indicate that your intention is to preserve and pass on for many generations the significance of Indian culture and art and, where possible, Indian religion. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to close by saying that it is not frequent that we will have a Senator with all the problems that Senators have in budget, armed services, military preparedness, the economy, it is not usual for a Senator to take so much of his time to come and have a hearing on this n Santa Fe, N. Mex., on an issue of Indian arts and culture, and I commend you for it. It bodes for the future of our Indian people in this very significant part of their contribution: art, culture, and religion. Thank you very much for listening to me, Mr. Chairman. I will have to leave early, but you can rest assured that if you need any further evidence from me or the people I work with here in New Mexico to improve upon what I can now call your and my bill, you will receive it. Any time you need it, we will help you with it. Thank you very much. Senator MELCHER. Thank you, Pete. That is very good of you. We will put your statement in the record and, immediately following that, make a part of the record a communication from myself to you relative to the Pueblo students here and also a response from Congressman Sidney Yates, the chairman of the subcommittee, House Appropriations Subcommittee, dealing with Interior, regarding the matter. Also, I will make part of the record a number of letters in support of the bill and some telegrams and letters that point out different aspects of the bill. [The prepared statement of Senator Domenici, the letter from Senator Melcher to Senator Domenici, a joint letter from Senator Melcher and Senator Domenici to Representative Sidney Yates and response follow. The aforementioned letters and telegrams are included under additional material received for the record and begin on p. 73. PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOr From THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the status of the Institute of American Indian Art located here in my State of New Mexico. I take this opportunity to welcome you to the "Land of Enchantment." Having been involved in the direction of use of this facility for quite some time and having visited the facility again during the past recess, I feel this hearing can be extremely useful in finalizing the agreement reached by the All Indian Pueblo Council and the Department of the Interior for the conversion of the Institute to an Indian educational facility. For myself, this is the only reasonable result which would allow the tremendous potential of this facility to be actuated as an educational facility for the young people of the Pueblo communities. The past record of the Institute indicates the best course is not reform but, rather, beginning afresh. Delfin Lovato, chairman of the All Indian Pueblo Council, and other witnesses from New Mexico, will reiterate the reason and examples that compel this change. However, the question remains: What will happen to the IAIA? First, I must make clear that, in my judgment, a joint use of the facility is unacceptable. The social problems of mixing pre-adolescents, adolescents, and adults in a close, confined campus environment presents serious social problems and would severely limit the total educational experience for all. Therefore, the question of where to move the Institute as a facility becomes the question which may be addressed and answered in S. 2166, the bill you have sponsored in which I hereby join as cosponsor. Santa Fe, which is recognized, and proudly so, as the "Art Capital of the Southwest," makes an ideal location for an Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development. All New Mexico is proud to have the present Institute located in Santa Fe and we would hope a solution can be found to keep the new Institute in Santa Fe in another facility. The question regarding the fate of the IAIA is not one of support or non-support of Indian art. We all agree that the value of the contribution of Indian art to our cultural, historical and folklore, especially in the West, is priceless and must be continued. However, in view of the costs of maintaining this specific facility at its present levels of appropriation per student, when balanced against the value of this facility in educating the young Indians in New Mexico, there can be no question the direction we must take. Rather than dissect the past causes of this deterioration, we should finalize the status of the Indian school and move on to finding a new site for a new Institute and insure that the present problems do not beset it in the future. These brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, were meant to reiterate my support in the form of an Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development for the continuation of the Institute of American Indian Art. Working together, a solution can be found. [LETTER FROM SENATOR MELCHER TO SENATOR DOMENICI] HON. PETE V. DOMENICI U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR PETE: In response to your concerns about the future of the high school students currently attending classes on the campus of the Institute for American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, I make the following observations: Although Section 6 of S. 2166 transfers I.A.I.A. functions and facilities to the Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development, it is not the Committee's intent to deprive Pueblo children of an adequate high school facility. I understand the reasons for moving the high school from Albuquerque to Santa Fe and am aware of the All Indian Pueblo Council's desire to also relocate the Albuquerque Junior High in the fall of 1980. I can assure you that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, before we approve the use of the buildings at the Institute for American Indian Arts for the proposed Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development functions, the Pueblos will be provided with acceptable high school facilities. Best regards. Sincerely, JOHN MELCHER, Chairman. [JOINT LETTER FROM SENATOR MELCHER AND SENATOR DOMENICI TO REPRESENTATIVE SIDNEY YATES AND RESPONSE] UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D.C., February 6, 1980. DEAR CONGRESSMAN YATES: As the House Appropriations Sub-Committee on the Interior is preparing hearings for FY 81 funds, we wanted to clarify our mutual position regarding the proposed Institute of Native American Culture and Art and the present use of the Institute of American Indian Arts by students from Albuquerque Indian School. We are committed to the establishment of a first class national institute to gather and preserve Indian Art, culture and history. At the same time we have assured the pueblo leaders their children will not be crowded out of the facility where they are presently studying. The Santa Fe campus will not accommodate both and realistically a new facility will have to be built. From presently available estimates, it may be more fiscally, responsible to construct a new institute rather than a new high school. Working together we can accomplish both objectives of establishing quality education for Indian children and a renowned natural institute. DEAR SENATORS: Thank you for your letter of February 6 which I just received in which you state your mutual position regarding the Institute of Native American Cultural Art and the present use of the Institute of American Indian Arts students from the Albuquerque Indian School. I note your commitment to the establishment of a first class national institute to gather and preserve Indian art, culture and history. I note you have assured the Pueblo leaders their children will not be crowded out of the facility where they are presently studying. I agree that the Santa Fe campus will not accommodate both, but I do not agree that a new facility will have to be built-and I don't agree that a new institute must be constructed. Perhaps certain facts have not been made available to you. The first is that the Navajo, who have more students at IAIA than the Pueblos, are opposed to giving up IAIA to be used as a high school by the Pueblos. Secondly, the GSA Task Force shall review the Albuquerque Indian school facility that can be refurbished as a first-class high school for the Pueblos through rehabilitation which will cost in the area of $5-$7 million. Thirdly, other Indian tribes which have been made aware of this situation have indicated they think IAIA should continue in its present establishment. I am sure you agree with me that the question of whether the Institute should be surrendered to be used as a high school is one for all the Indian people to decide, not just the Pueblos. I look forward to working with you in achieving an answer to the situation. With kindest regards, Sincerely yours, SIDNEY R. YATES, Senator MELCHER. Our first witness this morning will be Dr. Helen Marie Redbird, president, Native American Council of Regents, Institute of American Indian Arts. Helen, welcome to the committee. The committee would like to receive your testimony at this time. OF STATEMENT OF DR. HELEN MARIE REDBIRD, PRESIDENT, NA- Dr. REDBIRD. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I am Helen Marie Redbird, president of the Native American Council of Regents, Institute of American Indian Arts. I will read my testimony. The Native American Council of Regents of the Institute of American Indian Arts wishes to thank Mr. Melcher, and others, for this bill and for the opportunity to present testimony regarding S. 2166. The testi mony of the Native American Council of Regents will be presented under the two headings of strengths and concerns from their perspective. Strengths. No. 1. The outstanding strength of this bill is that it does indeed create a National Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development which would include the entity now known as the Institute of American Indian Arts established by the Secretary of the Interior in 1962. Up to this time, the relationship of the Institute of American Indian Arts to the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been one of questionable legitimacy. The only real act defining the relationship between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Institute of American Indian Arts has been the Snyder Act which allows for appropriations. It is still unclear to the regents precisely what might be the status. of the Institute of American Indian Arts under Public Law 95-471. The regents are still seeking a response from Mr. Paxton and Mr. Barlow of the Bureau of Indian Affairs as to the precise legal status of the Institute of American Arts. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the regents consider the creation of the National Institute of American Culture and Arts Development to be the outstanding strength of this bill. No. 2. Another strength of this bill is the autonomy of the National Institute of American Culture and Arts to engage in unique relationships that, to this time, no other institution in the United States could do. For example, the relationships possible for the five centers described on pages 8-9, section 5, could advance the United States to a national and international prominence in the area of the arts and culture of the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. No. 3. Both purpose and recognition are related in S. 2166. As the Native American Council of Regents understands the bill, the purpose of the bill is to establish a National Institute of Native American Culture and Art because of the seven reasons stated in the bill. The regents strongly support this position. There is only one word of concern to the regents and that word is "centralize" in section 2, page 2, line 14. The word "coordinate" would better suit the NACOR's position on the establishment of the National Institute. Perhaps the regents have become overly paranoid about the word "centralize" but one must recognize that the NACOR has had long experience with the BIA's centralized/decentralizing activities. No. 4. The basic affective tone of S. 2166 is very fine. NACOR feels that the bill is an extraordinary attempt to accomplish an extraordinary feat. The process of creating such an institution will have to include careful deliberation about the specifics of the role of the National Institute. The position of the NACOR at this time is that this National Institute emphasizes an educational, interpretative, and coordinating role. The regents would be most reluctant to support a monitoring role for the newly-created Institute. Any relationship between this act and any other act could not be one of enforcement. There are other Federal agencies already created for this purpose. Rather than monitoring or enforcing the NACOR position is that the national Institute through its various faculties and communities interpret. what the relationship might be, insofar as those acts would affect |