American Indian Policy Review Commission

American Indian Policy Review Commission
Name	American Indian Policy Review Commission
Formed	1975
Dissolved	1977
Jurisdiction	United States
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Chief1 name	Louis R. Bruce Jr.
Chief1 position	Chairman
Chief2 name	James S. Abourezk
Chief2 position	Vice Chairman

American Indian Policy Review Commission The American Indian Policy Review Commission was a temporary federal advisory body created by the United States Congress in 1975 to conduct a comprehensive examination of federal relationships with Native American tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Modeled in reaction to activism exemplified by Occupation of Alcatraz, Wounded Knee incident (1973), and advocacy by organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians and the American Indian Movement, the commission sought to reassess statutes like the Indian Reorganization Act and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The commission produced a multi-volume report that influenced subsequent debates in the United States Senate, the United States House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior.

Background and Establishment

Congress established the commission against a backdrop of legal and political developments including the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 discussions, court decisions such as Worcester v. Georgia (contextual history rather than contemporaneous), and policy shifts initiated by presidents including Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Prominent Native leaders and tribal governments—represented by bodies like the National Indian Education Association and the National Tribal Chairmen's Association—pressed for review following events involving the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and disputes connected to the Fort Laramie Treaty (1868) legacy. Legislative sponsors included senators and representatives engaged with committees such as the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Mandate and Objectives

The commission's charge covered statutes, treaty obligations, land claims, trust responsibilities, and service delivery frameworks managed by agencies including the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Education. Its objectives referenced historical documents and agreements like the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux in broader review of federal-tribal obligations. The commission examined policy instruments such as the Indian Reorganization Act governance models, the Terminated Tribes cases, and compensation frameworks tied to proceedings akin to the Court of Claims (United States) and the Indian Claims Commission.

Membership and Leadership

Leadership included figures from legislative and Native constituencies: chairman Louis R. Bruce Jr., with vice chair James S. Abourezk—both tied to networks including the National Congress of American Indians and the American Indian Movement alumni. Membership featured former tribal officials, scholars associated with institutions such as Harvard University and the University of New Mexico, and legal practitioners connected to firms and advocacy groups that had engaged in litigation before the United States Supreme Court and regional United States Courts of Appeals. The commission coordinated with federal agencies like the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor on data collection.

Key Activities and Investigations

Investigations included site visits to reservations such as Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Navajo Nation, Rosebud Indian Reservation, and communities in Alaska and Hawaii, and consultations with tribal councils including the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The commission subpoenaed records from agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs and collaborated with legal entities that had litigated matters before the Indian Claims Commission and the United States Court of Federal Claims. It examined education programs linked to the Bureau of Indian Education, health systems tied to the Indian Health Service, economic initiatives like enterprise projects on the Navajo Nation, and natural-resource disputes referencing the Yellowstone River water rights litigation lineage.

Findings and Recommendations

The commission’s voluminous report documented treaty breaches, administrative shortcomings within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, underfunding of the Indian Health Service, and failures in programs related to housing and education managed through the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education. Recommendations urged expansion of self-governance models akin to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, strengthened trust responsibility enforcement referencing precedents before the United States Supreme Court, enhanced funding for health and education, and reaffirmation of treaty obligations tied to 19th-century accords such as the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868). It proposed legislative initiatives for land claims resolution similar to mechanisms used by the Indian Claims Commission and administrative reforms at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Legislative and Policy Impact

The commission influenced discussions in the United States Congress and contributed to policy shifts under administrations including Gerald Ford and later Jimmy Carter. Its recommendations informed amendments to statutes and shaped oversight by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and federal rulemaking at the Department of the Interior. Subsequent programs and funding decisions by the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Education reflected themes from the report, and litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States invoked commission findings in debates over trust responsibilities and reparations.

Criticism and Controversy

Critics included tribal activists, scholars from institutions such as the University of Arizona and the University of Oklahoma, and organizations like the American Indian Movement which charged that the commission’s process risked bureaucratic co-optation echoing policies from earlier eras exemplified by the Indian Reorganization Act debates. Some members of the National Congress of American Indians argued the final recommendations did not fully secure tribal sovereignty or adequate remedies for treaty violations. Legal commentators cited tensions between commission proposals and precedents set by cases such as Worcester v. Georgia and ongoing litigation involving the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Category:United States Native American policy bodies