Senator ABOUREZK. The next witness is Clay Antioquia. Clay is Area Director of the BIA for Southeast Alaska. Do you have anybody you want to accompany you-just for the purpose of the record?

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE ANTIOQUIA, AREA DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, ALASKA

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Gravel, and Mr. Borbridge, I am Clarence Antioquia, Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska. I am also a Tlingit Indian from Sitka, Alaska. I would like to introduce Mr. Joseph E. Kahklen, Jr., who is the Assistant Area Director for Administration in my office.

I commend you gentlemen for your concern and interest in the implementation of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in Alaska. As I am sure you are well aware, there is considerable interest in this act by the Native people.

Before commenting on the major issues relating to Public Law 93-638, I would like to briefly mention some of the major developments the Juneau area has that have led to our current situation.

Since President Nixon's indian message of 1970, we in the area have viewed Indian self-determination as the law of the land and began implementing many of the concepts immediately. Specifically, we established many school boards to provide local Native parent participation in the operation of our schools. We began involving Native people in our annual budget preparation and the establishment of our program priorities. We began consulting with Native people in the filling of key positions within the Juneau area, and we have taken a strong advocacy position on behalf of Alaska Native people on almost all issues relating ot the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The most significant development, however, has been our increased activity in contracting Bureau programs and services to Alaska Native organizations. In fiscal year 1969 we had five buy Indian-type contracts totaling approximately $331,000. In fiscal year 1970 we increased the number to 67 and at a value in excess of $1 million. In 1971 and 1972 the dollar value increased up to between $2 and $3 million. In 1973 and 1974, the value increased to between $5 and $6 million, and in fiscal years 1975 and 1976 we increased the number of buy Indian or self-determination-type contracts to over 90 within the State at a dollar value in excess of $13 million.

Some of the major self-determination type of contracts that we have entered into include contracting for four major programs to the Tlingit and Haida Central Council totaling approximately $2.3 million, two major programs to the Cook Inlet Native Association in Anchorage totaling approximately $1.1 million, and five major programs to the Tanana Chiefs Conference, and two social services programs to the United Crow Band and Fairbanks Native Association in the Fairbanks region totaling close to $2 million. In addition we have contracted for our total Johnson-O'Malley program, which exceeds $5 million, to many local organizations and regional organizations to administer the Johnson-O'Malley program.

Although we can cite the recent progress made in contracting with some measure of pride, it must be recognized that this was not accom

plished with any measure of ease, either on the part of our office or on the part of Native contractors. It should be noted that most of this progress was accomplished prior to the passage of Public Law 93-638, and as such, we were required to use Federal contracting laws and regulations and procedures that were not designed for selfdetermination types of contracts.

For example, Federal contracting laws discourage "personal services" types of contracts, and yet in reality that is exactly the type of contracts that we are entering into with the Native organizations in Alaska.

Federal contracting laws generally presume that contractors possess the experience and administrative structure necessary to comply with all the contract provisions, whereas again in reality in Alaska many of the Alaska Native organizations and contractors have required a considerable amount of technical assistance to meet all the provisions, particularly the accountability provisions.

Although a limited amount of Bureau guidelines exist most of the guidelines are designed to apply primarily in the Lower FortyEight situations, and as a consequence both the Juneau area office and the Alaska Native contractors have had to interpret and apply the regulations and guidelines as best we could.

In spite of these and numerous other problems relating to contracting, I believe the record of progress we have made recently is indicative of the commitment our office has to contracting the operation of our programs to Native people. We continue to be committed to contracting because we are convinced that Native organizations can deliver Bureau services as good as, and in some cases better than, we as the Bureau can.

We viewed the passage of Public Law 93-638 with much optimism, hoping that at long last we would have a law and regulations specifically designed to address most of the problems we were experiencing in implementing self-determination concepts and policies. For the most part we still feel that the act and regulations will in fact accomplish these intended purposes.

Before the full benefits of the act can be realized in Alaska, however, the definitions must be clarified. What organizations are considered tribes, or tribal organizations, or tribal governing bodies? These questions are vitally important, because those entities identified as tribes and tribal governing bodies are granted considerably more authority and responsibilities under the act.

The current definition of "Indian tribe" in Public Law 93-638 includes any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation, as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Based on the definition, Alaska has at least 462 entities clearly identified as tribes. These include 12 regional profitmaking corporations, 225 village profitmaking corporations, 225 villages, which could be governed by an IRA-form of government or a traditional form of government, or traditional villages which recently have been incorporated as second-class cities.

In addition, several other entities also claim or are requesting tribal status, entities such as several of the nonprofit associations that are

regionalized in the State, entities such as the Alaska Native Brotherhood or the Association of Interior Eskimos in Fairbanks, or the Fairbanks Native Association, and even some of the aforenamed cities named in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

This results in individual Alaska Natives being members of at least three different tribes, and conceivably several more. More importantly, however, is the question of which of these entities are in fact the tribal governing bodies, if any of them? Since the act did not differentiate between the villages, village corporations, regional corporations, and tribes, we must assume they are all of equal status.

Further, if regional nonprofit associations were intended to be considered as tribes, they too would be of equal status with all the rest.

This situation raises three basic issues, the first being, are the definitions as currently written appropriate, and second, whether or not they are considered appropriate, how can the act be implemented using the current definition, and third, if they are considered inappropriate, how can the definitions be amended to make them appropriate?

In our opinion the current definitions are not appropriate. Regardless, we must implement the act as best we can, using the current definitions, while at the same time developing more appropriate definitions to propose as amendments to the act.

Some of the basic problems we have with the current definitions are, one, the appropriateness of including "any Alaska Native regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act." We recognize that this same definition is included in other legislation passed subsequent to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; however, we see this as being contradictory to the Claims Act, which states in section 2(b)—

The settlement should be accomplished in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives . . . without establishing any permanent racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or obligations without creating a reservation system or lengthy wardship or trusteeship, and without adding to the categories of property and institutions enjoying special tax privileges or to the legislation establishing special relationships between the U.S. Government or the State of Alaska.

Another problem we have with the definition is that the definitions rently defined, individual Alaska Natives are currently members of at least three separate tribes, and conceivably several more. Generally, it is very unusual that an individual Indian is a recognized member of more than one tribe. The major question this raises, however, is which of these entities truly represents the individual Alaska Native, and further, which entity should we as the Bureau deal primarily with?

The question is also raised as to whether or not Public Law 93-638 is in fact creating 462 or more additional "federally recognized tribes." Federal recognition of tribes generally connotates a special trust relationship between the United States and the tribe, including such actions as approval of tribal resolutions, tribal budgets and attorney contracts, and many other trust-related activities.

Another problem we have with the definition is that the definitions make no distinctions between the tribes, specifically, no distinction

or mention of the relationship between "regional tribes" and "village tribes." For example, are village tribes and regional tribes in fact one tribe? Are village tribes subunits of regional tribes and therefore subordinate to the regional tribes? Are regional tribes subordinate to the village tribes?

We feel the inclusion of "any Alaska Native village" in the definition is appropriate. The primary reasons we feel this are that villages have traditionally performed substantial governmental functions and have been eligible for the "many special programs and services provided by the Secretary to Indians because of their status as Indians." Villages have been eligible and received grants under the Bureau's tribal government development program, the Federal revenue-sharing program, Law Enforcement Assistance Act, and many other programs. In addition, we feel that one of the intents of the act is to provide tribes, regardless of size, an opportunity to determine for themselves how Bureau services will be delivered to them, and by whom.

We have no objection to contracting our programs to regional tribes or tribal organizations; however, the act and regulations require concurrence of village tribes as a prerequisite to the letting of such

contracts.

Although the act is not specific regarding the manner in which tribes provide their concurrence, part of the regulations very specifically require positive tribal resolutions.

We recognize the logistic and the administrative problems this requirement places on regional tribal organizations in Alaska. We also recognize that regulations can be waived. We have not requested a waiver, however, of these regulations, primarily because that we feel that village tribes need to know the significance of their new tribal status.

Through the process of obtaining village resolutions by regional organizations, each village hopefully will better understand this new status. Second, if regional tribal organizations have positive resolutions in hand, this should eliminate any question as to their representation of the villages. We have attempted to assist the regional organizations in obtaining the village resolutions by extending several time requirements of the regulations and further by providing the necessary funds to accomplish the village travel necessary.

In conclusion, gentlemen, I would like to re-emphasize three major points. First, we feel the definitions in Public Law 93-638 should be amended for Alaska. Second, we feel that whatever form these amendments may take, that the tribal status of Alaska Native villages not be diminished. And third, in spite of the serious and complex problems that exist in implementing Public Law 93-638 in Alaska, the Juneau area will continue to work diligently to implement both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Gentlemen, I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to testify before this committee.

Senator ABOUREZK. What good would it do to change on your recommendation if we didn't diminish the tribal status of villages? To me that's where the anomaly is, right there. How do you resolve that problem?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Well, Senator, I did not propose a specific solution, but what I proposed is that one solution is being considered, that we try to preserve the status of villages as tribes. Now, we could do this if the relationship between the regions and the villages were defined, and perhaps this would be something that could be done through referendum vote, in other words, would the regions be in fact the entity with 17 subentities, or would the subentities be the primary-I mean the villages be the primary government entities by their own choosing and elect a regional spokesman and voice.

Senator ABOUREZK. You are Area Director for all of Alaska, is that right?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. That is correct.

Senator ABOUREZK. Now, you might be in a better position to answer this question than anybody. Would you think that it would be acceptable to the Indian people of this State to define several regions that I think are already geographically defined for one reason or another, and to have a sort of democratic process by which each village-well, just like the TH Council, in fact, where each village elects a representative to the Central Council, would that be the kind of thing that would work all through Alaska?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. I believe so, Senator. In fact, I don't know of any other approach that would work.

Senator ABOUREZK. Is this something that the Indian people would be behind almost 100 percent?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Well, the Alaska Native people that are familiar with this problem I definitely think would support that approach, primarily because it is unclear, and there is no single individual or single entity I think that is going to reach a definition that's going to be totally satisfactory to all, and therefore probably the most democratic way of doing this would be through referendum vote.

Senator ABOUREZK. Would you ask them if they would take that route?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Or would you give them another choice?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Well, certainly that's only one possible alternative. Senator ABOUREZK. If we had a referendum, I think we would have to have more than one choice offered, though. What other choices could we include in a referendum of that nature? It seems that's where we're headed.

Senator STEVENS. Well, I wouldn't mind having the group come forward and let the people decide what should be selected. For specific purposes, though, Senator, I do think that Mr. Antioquia made a good point, the fact that there are some programs where because of the local impact they could probably be better represented by tribal recognition and definition. Others by necessity ought to be regional on this.

Senator ABOUREZK. Yes. One regional one would be by 638. What other laws that are in effect would you have to apply to regional concepts?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Well, I think, Senator, that almost every law that has been passed in recent years, let's say the last 5 or 6 years, has had the same basic problem, that is, unclear definitions as to application in Alaska. I don't know of any one that has passed recently that apply

81-879 0-77- -3