STATEMENT OF JOHN HEFFLE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF INTERIOR ESKIMOS, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA This regulation which became law on January 4, 1975 is another way the United States Government has caused trouble to the American Indians and the Alaskan Natives. The intent of the law is in itself a fine thing, but once again, non-Indians or non-Alaskan Natives have made a law to govern the rights of people they do not understand; they are neither a part of them nor a tribal member. In 93-638 it states that the governing body is the sole spokesman for the tribe in contracting matters relating to B.I.A. or I.H.S. programs or services. It is supposed to reinforce tribal sovereignty and allow the designated governing body to speak on behalf of the tribe as its representative. No contracts can be entered into by the tribal organization under 93-638 until specifically authorized to do so by the tribal governing body by use of a resolution. This principle is supposed to enable the tribal government to make an intelligent approach to its use of contracting under the Act and other tools or rights under the regulation. What this has done has caused conflict and dissention between tribes as designated as such in 93-638, Sec. 4, Paragraph B which is highly restrictive and discriminating to Alaskan people since it denotes tribes in Alaska as villages, village corporations, and regional corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), while it gives an extremely broad spectrum to the Indians in the Lower 48. In Sec. 4, Paragraph C under tribal organizations, it would appear that our tribal organization which, by virtue of a resolution hand delivered to Commissioner Thompson in December, 1975, was designated to be a contract entity with the right to contract. Although our village was established by the U.S. Department of the Interior over 37 years ago in Fairbanks and is governed by a democratically elected traditional council, we have reached an impasse as to our tribal status. We have received services from the Bureau as being eligible for services provided by the United States because of our status as Indians, yet no one has been able to establish whether we are or are not a tribe or a village. We have been continually ignored by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, as to why we were left of the land claims when we applied verbally to the BIA representative in December, 1971. We formed our tribal organization as per the BIA suggestion to facilitate our obtaining tribal status (prior to the Act) but so far, after 5 years, we still have nothing, based on the Solicitor's evaluation of the definition of tribes used in 93-638. It seems that the BIA uses this Act for its own benefit to become more a controller of the destiny of the American Indians and Alaskan Natives when the BIA should be, in fact, trying its utmost to help the people become self-reliant instead of subjecting them to the continual interference by the BIA by inadequate laws and statutes. The Act (93-638) states that if a tribal organization wishes to contract for performing services rendered to more than one tribe then a resolution is required for approval by all such tribes. This is another boondoggle. If the tribes want selfdetermination, let them contract as individuals without interference by others. Contracts should be let, if a tribe, group, tribal organization, etc. indicates they wish to contract and are capable of doing such. A civilian or non-Indian or non-Native who wishes to contract to build roads, etc. for a state or the federal agency, bids for it without me or other taxpayers being required to produce a resolution either for or against. Why should we be compelled to do things not normally required by others? Our normal way of doing business has been by letter of intent and verbal commitments and, although the Act states that we are not being forced to do anything which is contrary to our tribal way of doing business, we are continually badgered by the B.I.A. that they will not accept anything by the resolutions. By the discriminating restrictive wording in the Act as to tribes, the B.I.A. uses it for its own use even as to the Indian Financing Act. A resolution was hand-delivered to Washington, D.C. to Commissioner Thompson in May, 1975, to change the wording as reference to tribes and make it read to include Alaskan Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts, who are an established organization, village, group or who as a trible are living and being governed in a traditional manner, have the right to contract if they so desire. So far no one knows what happened or what action, if any, was taken. I wonder about the word, "self-determination", is it going to be used correctly? "Self" in Webster's Dictionary is described as follows: "the identity, personality, individuality, etc. of a person; ones own person as distinct from others (noun) "Adj. Self being uniform or the same throughout. Webster further gives the definition of 'self-determination' as: (1) The right of the people to decide upon their own form of government, without coercion or outside influence. (2) Determination or decision according to one's own mind or will without outside influence. Free will." I doubt if the Indian Self-Determination Act is the correct name for an Act that has outside influence and hints of coercion by the B.I.A. and its representatives. As to tribes, again from Webster's Dictionary: (1) Any primitive or nomadic group of people of generally common ancestry, possessing common leadership. (2) A group of persons, families or clans descended from a common ancestor and formed together as a community. This would seem to describe the community of Eskimo Village wording used by the B.I.A., I.H.S., state and federal agencies since its inception in 1945. I sincerely appreciate the time for people to travel to Alaska to allow Native leaders to speak and give oral testimony in regard to congressional legislation that will influence their lives and culture, but, as in the past, I feel our words fall upon deaf ears, that they hear only what they wish and not the wants and desires of the Indian people and Alaska Natives who have become foreigners in their own land. Is this act and its questionable wording another milestone along the long road of broken treaties and forgotten promises of equality and justice? Respectfully submitted. JOHN L. HEFFLE, Sr., President, Association of Interior Eskimos. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1976. Hon. JAMES ABOUREZK, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: We are writing in regard to a series of problems which have developed as a result of existing legislative language. The definition of Alaskan Natives lacks sufficient clarity to permit implementation of major Indian legislation in Alaska in an efficient and workable manner from the point of view of the Alaska Native leadership. The Indian Financing Act, the Indian Self-Determination Act, and the proposed Indian Health Care Improvement bill, all have definitional language which does not account for the complex organizational structures which exist among the Natives of Alaska. We commend the Committee for its efforts in producing such important Indian legislation. The positive implications of these Acts cannot be overestimated. The Committee's concern for Alaska has been consistently evident throughout the development of Indian legislation. The willingness on the part of the Committee staff to meet with Alaskans has resulted in legislation which takes into account the climatic, geographic, and historic uniqueness of Alaskan Natives. However, the following problems concerning definitional language have been brought to our attention. The Indian Financing Act of 1974 defines eligibility for loan programs in terms of "reservation" and "non-reservation" areas. This is not only quite a departure from historical treatment of the entire State of Alaska as a reservation area for the purposes of BIA programs, but allows sufficient discretion in terms of implementation such that many deserving Alaskan Natives remain "ineligible" for benefits under the Act. Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination Act, defines an Indian Tribe as: 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 which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians. The Regional organizations have found this definition cumbersome in their efforts to contract with the Bureau for social service programs for the villages in their regions. The BIA has adopted regulations which require that the regional organizations obtain resolutions from each village to be served. As you are aware, villages in the regions are isolated and at considerable distance from one another. Necessary travel to the villages by the regional organizations is expensive and compilation of the resolutions is time consuming. The proposed Indian Health Care Improvement Act uses the same definition as the Indian Self-Determination Act. Problems such as those already mentioned may arise with the implementation of the Act. It is of great importance that a workable legislative definition for Alaskan Natives be developed. Accessability to programs designed to benefit Natives is needed if the intent of major Indian legislation is to be fully realized. The problems that have arisen regarding eligibility for programs has created considerable frustration for many Alaskan Natives. For these reasons we request the Interior Subcommittee to consider holding hearings in Alaska as expeditiously as possible to clarify these definitional problems. We feel it is essential to receive input from Alaskan villagers. If legislation to clarify these issues can be developed, many of the problems raised by Public Law 93-638 and Public Law 92-203 can be avoided when the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is considered by Congress. Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Interior & Insular Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: I understand that you are in the process of requesting approval from the Chairman for Subcommittee hearings in Alaska to review the matter of the legislative definitions of Alaska Natives. I applaud your decicsion. If your request is approved, I would like to extend to you all the assistance my office can offer. Kris Patterson has been working with the Subcommittee staff on this matter for some time and will be available for further coordination efforts. My staffs in Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage are available to assist in travel and accommodation arrangements. The Alaska offices can also provide assistance in terms of arranging hearing locations, contacting witnesses, etc. Should the Alaska hearings be confirmed, my staff and I stand ready to do everything possible to make your Alaska trip both productive and enjoyable. Warm regards. Sincerely, MIKE GRAVEL. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., August 23, 1976. Hon. JAMES ABOUREZK, Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Interior Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: I was pleased to receive your letter of August 12, announcing the September 2 and 3 hearings of the Indian Affairs Sub-Committee. As you know, the issues surrounding the statutory definition of "tribe" in Alaska have been of particular concern to me for some time. The decision to hold hearings in Alaska is greatly appreciated. I accept your invitation to participate in the proceedings. Rest assured that my office stands ready to provide assistance to the Sub-Committee in this matter. Please feel free to contact Kris Patterson of my staff for any assistance the Sub-Committee may require. Again, my thanks and appreciation for your consideration of the problems in Alaska regarding the definition of "tribe". Best regards. Sincerely, MIKE GRAVEL. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., September 22, 1976. Hon. JAMES ABOUREZK, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: During the recent hearings held in Alaska by the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Interior Committee, I mentioned to Mr. Clarence Antioquia, Bureau of Indian Affairs Alaska Area Director, that I would be forwarding additional questions to him. Enclosed, for inclusion into the hearing record, are the questions I have posed to Mr. Antioquia. When response is received, I will forward a copy, also for inclusion in the record. [Responses were not received in time to be included in the record.] Warm regards. Sincerely, MIKE GRAVEL. CLARENCE ANTIOQUIA, Director, Juneau Area Office, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, D.C., September 22, 1976. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau, Alaska DEAR CLAY: As you recall, during the recent hearings in Alaska held by the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Interior Committee, I mentioned that I would be submitting further questions to you in writing. After careful review of the testimony presented at the hearings, the following matters require some clarification. Concerning the matter of village resolutions, is it BIA's policy to require village resolutions for each contract and renewal of contract, or is it required only initially in order to give Regional organizations across-the-board contracting endorsement from the villages? As you know, the Indian Finance Act defines eligibility in terms of "reservation" or "non-reservation" residence. What is BIA's policy regarding granting of loans under this Act in Alaska? Who is eligible? What areas of Alaska are excluded from benefits under this Act because the area has been determined to be "non-reservation"? During the course of the hearings, several witnesses testified that technical assistance requests to the Bureau had been denied. Please provide the record of requests for technical assistance from the Area Office, along with the type of action the Bureau has taken regarding those requests. If technical assistance has not been forthcoming to the Native organizations which have requested such assistance, please provide further information. In your testimony, you mentioned that many BIA contracts with Native organizations were commenced prior to passage of Public Law 93-638 and were therefore subject to Federal Contracting laws which do not necessarily account for the unique situation in Alaska. Since passage of 638, what measures have been taken by the Area office to ensure that contracting procedures more adequately meet the mandates of the Self-Determination Act? I note, within your written testimony, you stated that "village tribes need to know the significance of their new tribal status" (under 638), and the implication was that the responsibility for informing villages would be that of Native organizations who wished to contract for village services. My question is this: Is it indeed the responsibility of Native contracting organizations to inform villages |