ideal for my purposes, but I don't think I'm always going to be thinking to myself when I go after programs that "is this what every one village would say they'd want me to do." I'd have to constantly put myself into their shoes and won't necessarily do a good job. I'm vulnerable to my own philosophies as to how I think business should be conducted, and the villages might disagree as to how I do it. And as a consequence, the definition of a good tribal governing body might not work out. Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Just to pursue that and appreciate your thinking here, do you feel that it would be workable to have the villages, whether it's IRA or some other entity, designated as the tribal governing body and to still have one of the regional entities designated so that each would be eligible with some means of working out between the two as to which would actually be administering the program, or do you feel just one? I think you came very close to answering it. Mr. TIEPELMAN. Well, I think, that a dual definition might be just as effective, but you have to look at one of those being regional and the other one being at the village level. You can-there's already a way in the books to go around that or to make that work, and that's under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, you can regionalize your IRA councils so that they're representative at the regional level. That's one of the possibilities that we're pursuing, but again you have to work, do a lot of leg work before a regional IRA council becomes the effective tribal governing body. Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Thank you. Senator ABOUREZK. Dennis, thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Tiepelman follows:] STATEMENT OF DENNIS TIEPELMAN, PRESIDENT MAUNELUK ASSOCIATION, KOTZEBUE, ALASKA My name is Dennis J. Tiepelman, President, Mauneluk Association, a nonprofit regional corporation designed to administer programs to benefit the constituency of Eskimos residing in Northwest Alaska, otherwise known as the NANA Region. Our offices are in Kotzebue, Alaska. I have met with John Schaeffer Jr., President of NANA Regional Corporation, and I have met with Tommy Sheldon Sr., President of Kotzebue Village Corporation in order that my comments do not conflict with their respective activities. Last week our office also completed related business activities with the officers of each of our eleven (11) village IRA Councils to ensure compatibility. I have also had conversations with Willie Hensley because of his prominence and respect our region has for all his past and present efforts to ensure Indian Self-Determination. I am here to address comments concerning the implementation of the Indian Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93-638 (P.L. 93-638). I am here on behalf of the organizations and people of our region. Whenever Indian legislation is enacted the definitions and administrative agencies can never seem to agree beyond the concept of "helping the American Indian", with the afterthought of saying "and Alaska Natives". There are RESERVATION programs for Indians, but also note that it has since expanded to include URBAN Indians. Recently in one of our applications for Federal funds I am also now eligible for programs with the appropriate title and label of NON-URBAN/NON-RESERVATION Indian group. The application process that our organization goes through is rather tedious and dubious when we deal with Indian programs from Federal agencies. Not one agency has a common procedure for applications, documentation, program delivery, financial reports, etc. As a consequence we have to become experts with the following agencies. (1) Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (2) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: (a) Indian Health Service; (b) Office of Native American Programs; and (c) Indian Education. (3) Department of Labor, Manpower (CETA) Administration. (4) Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. I am sure the list could get longer, but the point I wish to make is that the definition of Indian tribe and tribal authority has no application to many of the programs that Alaska Natives are seeking to apply for funds because of the different definitions of eligibility criteria. The Navajo Tribe in the Southwest U.S. is the single tribal governing body for its people, and everything develops around the tribe and the reservation itself. Most Indian reservations throughout the country enjoy this benefit. This is not the case in Alaska. A tribe in our region, under current laws, including P.L. 93-638, can be the following: (1) Village IRA Council (Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, or eleven (11) villages), (2) Regional Corporation (NANA Regional Corporation), (3) Village Corporation (Kotzebue Village Corporation). There are thirteen (13) tribes for less than 5,000 people, and sanctioned tribal organizations have not even been addressed! More importantly we are a smaller one of the twelve (12) political geographical boundaries recognized in Public Law 93-638. Everything can be expected to run smoothly when harmony exists among all the defined tribes, but when personnel, governments, policies, and philosophical ideas all become intermingled, those thirteen tribes and individual differences they have can create tantamount difficulties. In 1991 the Regional Corporation (NANA) and the Kotzebue Village Corporation become open to the public, and not necessarily will they be for native benefit. Development and economic conditions will warrant that the American currency be given a higher priority than a native who, for the present time, lives off the land and whose use of money is not all-important. This becomes conflicting when many of the federal programs are designed to benefit the American Indian and Alaska Native who have a special relationship with the Federal government through Congressional legislation that has had to sometimes be substantiated through the judicial process. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 must not be construed to mean that it reconciled past actions, and that everything was settled. True it settled the questions of land ownership; but the settlement also realize that fact that Congress recognized that Alaska, approximately 370 million acres, once belonged to all Alaska Natives. Our fight for ownership resulted in the settlement to continue to keep 40 million acres of land and a cash settlement to invest in our own economic conditions. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act addresses something else. The Act (1971) and recently Public Law 93-638 define eligible tribes as being identical. The inference and reference to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act completely separate philosophical ideas put together when Indian tribe was defined for Alaska Natives. It is at times a stifling situation. Let me tell you how our region has made it work. It is no guarantee it will continue to be successful: (1) We accepted the definition of BIA and said that IRA Councils are the Tribal governing bodies. We revitalized all IRA Councils into conducting business and taking actions to receive grants under Section 104. Remember we only have eleven (11) villages to deal with ; (2) NANA Regional Corporation has taken the approach that it will not pursue grants and contracts that are of a "service-delivery" nature and identified under Public Law 93-638. Kotzebue Village Corporation has allied itself with the same idea. Remember that they see this as the ideal situation because Mauneluk Association is in existence to cater to this type of service delivery system. (3) The member villages are compatible with Mauneluk Association's philosophy to develop, plan, and evaluate new or existing programs and so far there have been no factious groups to interfere. (4) Mauneluk Association is only a tribal organization and not a tribal governing body. This distinction has necessitated that we act conservatively and go slow. This situation imposes greater restrictions on our ability to conduct business. It is not always pleasant or easy to live with when so much communication has to be done by long-distance telephone calls, and board meetings that require extensive air travel and weeklong per dem costs. It all becomes relative to what is sought, and sometimes the Congressional Delegation, Committees, and Subcommittee members fail to see this relationship because their world of relativity does not reflect and identify local differences in Kotzebue, Alaska. The generality that all Indians are the same becomes nebulous when Alaska Native concerns are voiced. What started out as a good law can be just as disruptive if clarifications are not made. My hope is that these hearings will correct an oversight on the definition of Indian tribe responsive to Alaska Natives. I would recommend the following: (1) Find out if the definition of Indian tribe can be reworded to eliminate a multi-authority of tribal governing bodies to occur concurrently. Remember that many of these tribes can easily become tribal organizations sanctioned by a single governing body. (2) Associations have need for a place in the Act, but they must not be recognized solely on their status alone. All tribal governments and organizations in Alaska must be received and general consensus established to determined if Public Law 93-638 is applicable to their function. Senator ABOUREZK, Larry Davis of the Nome region? Carl Jack, Alaska Federation of Natives? Mr. JACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF CARL JACK, DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES Mr. JACK. I have been directed by the Association Regional Health Directors to make a brief statement. However, they have advised me not to submit a full prepared statement until they have reviewed the statement themselves. So that statement, full statement, written statement will be submitted within the 30-day requirement and the statement will be on behalf of the Association Regional Health Directors. I would like to address a couple of items not directly related to the two subject matters that are being discussed, but subject matters that are inherent in the implementation of 638 in terms of contracting under title I and title II of the, of 638. One, to reiterate what we've submitted during the hearings in the District of Columbia regarding the regulations. And the primary point that we've stressed was that there were two sets of regulations that govern the act, which are somewhat inconsistent with each other, which could put the Native organization, the tribal organization, in a position having to deal with two sets of rules of conduct under which they would have to administer grants or contracts. That have become apparent here up in Alaska too by which both BIA and IHS have followed their own methods of the way they were going to implement 638. Example, under BIA insisting having to follow the regulations that are, that have been issued September 15 requiring resolutions, whereas on the other hand the Indian Health Service has chosen to defer any contracts to the Native organizations under next year. But choose to use the existing procurement authority that are in the books already as far as contracting with the Regional Health Corporations and nonprofit organizations that the health department for fiscal year 1977. Another item I'd like to point out is the basic attitude between the two agencies as to how the, they say the contracts have to be administered. Basically, insisting on the cost reimbursement type of contract versus the other type of contract methods that are available. The basic feeling is that the type of services that have to be provided by the Regional Health Corporation or nonprofit corporations feel should be, should determine the type of contract under which the services are to be provided. These are the two comments that I personally have in regards to the implementation of 638. We will submit the formal written statement within the 30-day period. Thank you. [Statement not received.] Senator ABOUREZK. Are there any questions by any of the panel members? Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman, that Carl would be very helpful, as I'm sure he intended, if you might describe in your statement the organization in terms of its relationship to other organizations within the State representing the Alaska Natives. Mr. JACK. Yes; that will be done. Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Fine, thank you. Senator STEVENS. Carl, would you envision something like the health board ever taking on delegated responsibilities in contracting field? Mr. JACK. That would, I assume, would be at the discretion of the regions that designate the members of the health board. I assume this matter would have to be concurrently decided among the regions if, in fact, that course is to be taken. Senator STEVENS. Thank you. Senator ABOUREZK. Carl, thank you very much for your testimony. Is Cliff Black here? Cliff was to come late as our last witness, and I understand he couldn't get here until about 11:30. I think that 30-day rule of holding the record open is going to have to apply to him. And 've run out of witnesses. Sir? we've MEMBER OF AUDIENCE. I was wondering if the village of Naknet could submit a written statement within that 30-day period? Senator ABOUREZK. Would you speak a little louder, please? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE. I was wondering if the village of Naknet would be allowed the same opportunity to submit a written statement or would that be just for those Senator ABOUREZK. Absolutely. Any village, any village can have a written statement if they'd like. Send it to me in care of the Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C., and indicate for which purpose you're sending it. We'll include it in the record. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE. Thank you. Senator ABOUREZK. I would like to bring these hearings to a close. The hearings will continue tomorrow in Bethel and then in Fairbanks. And once again I'd like to express my thanks to all of the witnesses who appeared and made a contribution with their testimony and with response to the questions. I'd like to thank Senators Gravel and Stevens and John Borbridge, Commissioner of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. The hearings are recessed. [The hearing was recessed to reconvene, Saturday, September 4, 1976, at Bethel, Alaska.] PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION OF TRIBE IN ALASKA RELATING TO PUBLIC LAW 93-638 SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1976 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Bethel, Alaska. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the radio and TV station, Bethel, Alaska, Hon. Mike Gravel presiding. Present: Senators Gravel, Stevens, and Commissioner John Borbridge, American Indian Policy Review Commission. Also present: Tony Strong, professional staff member. STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE GRAVEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator GRAVEL. The hearing will come to order. This morning we're holding a hearing for the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Senate Interior Committee in conjunction with the Commission of the American Indian Policy Review. Senator Stevens and myself are both ex officio members appointed by Senator Jackson for the purposes of these hearings on the subject of the definition of an Indian tribe. We started the hearings in Juneau under the chairmanship of the subcommittee chairman and also the American Indian Policy Review Commission Chairman, Senator James Abourezk, and he conducted these hearings with us in Juneau and in Anchorage. Senator Abourezk had to return to South Dakota in order to fulfill his commitments on what is a very important weekend in the year, the Labor Day recess. The hearing of necessity will have to confine itself to the narrow subject, and if time permits, we would be happy, Senator Stevens and I would be happy to listen to other problems, and our first obligation is to build a record for the subject at hand, and if time permits, we would be happy to expand the hearings to hear people on other subjects. And, so we'll go through the hearing list and at the end of that list, hear anybody else who wants to speak on the subject itself, and after that's accomplished, we'll move to other subjects if we have time. We must leave the studio here by 11 o'clock to catch a charter and to get to Fairbanks and reconvene the hearing this afternoon in Fairbanks at 2:30. The subject has been very, very well covered by witnesses in Juneau and in Anchorage, and has brought to light some of the inconsistencies existing in present law. And, I'm sure that the outcome of these |