to the Alaska Native people that would be exempt from being changed. I think they all have to be.

Senator ABOUREZK. Could I ask you a favor? If you would, within a week or two, try to put your thoughts together on that and put it in a letter to me in Washington, stating which areas you think ought to be regional and which areas you think ought to be local, which laws that would deal with this and so on. Try to give me a fairly detailed description of what you think would be acceptable to the Native people in each area, and it would be, I think, very helpful in our consideration as to what kind of amendments we ought to try to pass in Washington. Could you do that within-how much time would you need, a couple of weeks?

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. I could do that.

Senator ABOUREZK. OK, great.

Senator GRAVEL. In adding to that, I have some specific questions in writing, Clay, that I would like you to respond to in writing. I could ask them now but they are technical in nature, and they would help provide some technical data to make these judgments.

Speaking to the problem of proliferation, since we have several organizations, if we had a democratic election process with which they dealt periodically, the question would be, would there be one final election to choose the way to do it or would we permit continuing elections for people to make the choice as to how they want the services rendered? If that were the case, we would build into the situation in the Native community a constant degree of conflict where, if people didn't like the way an organization was running, they would grab hold of another organization and then ask for an election to compete with the other organization in vying for ability to render services, and you would have these groups, the Tlingit-Haida, forming a borough, forming a city, under Alaska law, or a tribe under what would be a new definition. So unless we address ourselves into this definition to a consolidation in some regard here to arrive at certain goals, we in definition would just make one more step here in this chain of historical confusion, and would leave the community with the right to have unbelievable conflict as they go forward. So I think that every step of the way, when you respond to his question, I would hope that you would amplify your thinking to consolidation and the irradication of existing forms, and to have an election process. That's something that would deal with it with some degree of finality.

Senator STEVENS. Well, now, Mike, with due respect, let's take one step at a time. Our problem now is which entity ought to be designated under self-determination on a regional basis. That entity has to be a perpetual entity because of the legal implications of contracting, of being an organization that will be in effect and not be subject to change by any changes of support and what not. The entity ought to be capable of being changed as far as the management rather than changed to another entity if there is any dissatisfaction. At the same time, I don't think we ought to confuse that with the problem of choice that some people have in fact, a village corporation under State law; they also have a village corporation under the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. Some of them still have an IRA village: some of them go even further and have a regional organization which has no standing in any law that I know of. Some have an additional orga

nization, like T. & H. has been recognized under ANCSA; some have another organization which is statewide in nature, which is the ANB. I think we have to go step-by-step in our consolidation and not force consolidation, but bring about consolidation merging where it is in fact a process of self-determination.

We could mandate, you know, that there can't be more than one village for a particular area, but to do so might well deny them some of the benefits of the existing law. I think you ought to have a staff analyze each one of these entities-type of entities-and how they impact each particular area, and give us some advice as to what would happen should we, for instance, say there are no more IRA villages in this State--they are all converted into ANSCA villages. If we did that in some places, we could effect consolidation and efficiency. I am not sure whether we would cause some complications with regard to loans or outstanding under the Revolving Fund Act, whether we cause complications under the New Financing Act, whether there would be any loss of benefits under Indian Health Service or under any of the existing laws. That's going to require some analysis.

But the first step we've got to get right now is under self-determination of regional basis, what is the entity and, for myself, I would favor some sort of procedure whereby each region would be given a period of time for any competing organization to come forward and have a referendum selecting which organization, in fact, is to be the entity that BIA must deal with under the self-determination act.

Senator GRAVEL. I would just only add that I think the Natives should be able to decide, and decide with some finality. But I think we should also recognize that if we don't solve the other problem in this definition, then we really haven't advanced the situation very much beyond where it is right now.

Senator STEVENS. The mechanism for this solution, Mike, is different from the solution as far as I'm concerned. I think self-determination means that we must create a mechanism for a solution for the problems and if one particular area wants to solve their problems, they may do so under the self-determination concept.

Senator GRAVEL. I would appreciate it if you would, in responding to Senator Abourezk, if you would deal with the proliferation problem because you face it all the time and give us the benefit of your counsel in that regard. What would be the possible effects of consolidation if one took place. And also address the problem of the ratio characteristics of one form of human quasi-governmental activity as opposed to the nonracial characteristics of a choice of going to a city or a borough underneath the State law as it presently exists since you have to deal with them in some capacity.

If you could broaden it out to deal with all of those concepts, then we could get chance to look at the matrix of this and see which way it would lead us.

Senator ABOUREZK. I want to make it clear-John, before you start-I want to make it clear that we're asking for, Clay, for your opinions and we are going to understand that this is not necessarily the opinion of the Indians

Senator GRAVEL. Or BIA. It's basically use of your experience. Senator ABOUREZK. Or BIA. We're just asking for some ideas from you and that's exactly what this amounts to. These hearings where

we will be listening to Indian people, village people themselves, and further hearings that will be held before we ever finalize any legislation. We'll get as best we can a cross-section of Indian viewpoints all through Alaska. So I just want to make it clear to everybody that might be concerned that we're just asking BIA. That's not exactly what we're doing.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, that was comment No. 1. Senator ABOUREZK. I took care of it for you.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Antioquia, is the policy which seems to be a response to the proliferation question in the Indian Self-Determination Act; namely, that of requesting local concurrence so that if a regional entity recognizes a tribe, let's say the central council as an example were to go ahead, there ought to be local concurrence. Clay, do you feel that this is being advanced as a solution relative to the peculiar or singular situation in Alaska, or is this an expression of the policy overall of the Bureau reflecting how the Bureau is approaching this matter.

Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Commissioner, I see this as being a bureauwide policy, primarily in recognition of the Federal Government of the status of tribes and tribal governing bodies. That rather than assuming what the tribe wishes or what would be best for a tribe, that we get a positive indication from the tribe as to what direction they would like to go in any particular matter as relating to 638. So, it is a matter of national policy as opposed to local.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. I mentioned this, Mr. Chairman, because I think that the implications then certainly extend far beyond 93-638 in that on the one hand we have certainly what I share with you as being a very important element, and that is self-determination on the local as well as on the regional basis.

At the same time, all of us feel a concern and certainly the tribal governments feel a concern that whatever determinations the Congress may be moving toward-and this certainly came through in a number of hearings held by the American Indian Policy Review Commission, that they be determined in the light of their impact upon tribal government and that they be assessed in terms of whether they specifically strengthen tribal government or whether they in fact erode the basis on which tribal government has operated in the United States.

Thus, I see a specific Alaska concern, but, Mr. Chairman, I also see a broader concern. Certainly the way in which we approach it here and its reflection of the beginnings of Bureau policy on this matter are going to have a very definite impact on the ability of tribes to proceed and to continue to function as contracting or other bodies in fulfillment of their usual functions as a tribal governing body.

Senator ABOUREZK. Any other questions? Thank you very much for your appearance. We'll be looking forward to hearing from you on these suggestions. Thanks, Clay.

Senator STEVENS. May I add to that request that you examine into the question of villages that are not participating under ANSCA as they would be impacted by regionalization of any self-determination mechanism?

Senator ABOUREZK. The next witness is Ethel Lopez. Is Ethel in the room? Are you Ethel Lopez? Would you come up to the witness

table first of all, please? I would like to welcome you to the subcommittee hearings. Do you have any statement you want to make, or would you just want to answer a question or two, Ethel?

Ms. LOPEZ. What do you want me to do?

Senator ABOUREZK. Let me just ask you a question or two. I'm curious to know, what is the length of time that it takes for your communityyou're from Petersburg, right?

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. What is the length of time it takes for your community to receive the money it needs to pay employees under the Johnson-O'Malley program?

Ms. LOPEZ. Two to three months.

Senator ABOUREZK. Two to three months?
Ms. LOPEZ. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Why is that, do you know?

Ms. LOPEZ. Well, we go through this subcontract to get the money from BIA and it has to go up to the Alaska Federation of Natives and to Petersburg. I have a photocopy over here that I would like to hand in so it can go in the record.

Senator ABOUREZK. Yes; we'll put it in the committee files. We have it here. The staff already has it, Ethel. Let me ask you another general question: What in your view-if you know-what does your community think of T. & H. Council operating as a tribal governing body to administer social services under Public Law 638?

Ms. LOPEZ. Well, we think that there won't be so much

Senator ABOUREZK. Do you think it ought to be done on a regional basis or on a village basis, administering 638?

Ms. LOPEZ. Regional.

Senator ABOUREZK. Who do you think ought to do it then?

Ms. LOPEZ. Central council.

Senator ABOUREZK. T. & H. Central Council. Do you think that most people in your community feel that way?

Ms. LOPEZ. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. Is there anybody that thinks somebody else ought to administer it?

Ms. LOPEZ, No.

Senator ABOUREZK. Or at least you've never heard anybody.
Mr. LOPEZ. No. We've been sounding people.

Senator ABOUREZK. We certainly want to thank you for coming up and answering our questions. It's been very helpful and we appreciate it. Thanks an awful lot for appearing, Ethel.

Senator GRAVEL. Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. The next witnesses are Isabelle Brady and Barbara Lewis. I'd like to welcome both of you here today. Do you have anything you want to say first, or do you just want to answer questions?

Ms. LEWIS. Yes, sir. I have prepared a short two-page statement, Honorable Senators and Commissioner Borbridge.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA LEWIS, GRAND CAMP PRESIDENT, ALASKA NATIVE SISTERHOOD

Ms. LEWIS. My name is Barbara Lewis. I'm grand president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood and indeed honored and humbly acknowl

edge the fact that I'm the one who will represent our organization at this time.

The Alaska Native organization was formerly organized in 1912. Prior to this, the villages were governed by chiefs and subchiefs.

To prevent confusion, either the Eagle or Raven Chief was selected to speak for the villages. Regardless of which was chosen, the chief on the opposite side had equal status. Each village handled their selection in this way, so we had a number of chiefs in southeast Alaska. Each of their village commitments also was respected and recognized. Our forefathers realized that if we were to receive equal services in the areas of health, education, labor, social services, the law, and right to vote, we would have to establish elected positions from within our clan system.

Historically our Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood have always been the one to monitor and evaluate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Public Health Service, State and other Federal programs delivered to our communities. Of the 21 communities recognized by virtue of the Land Claim Settlement, Southeast Alaska Corporation, 18 of them have always had ANB and ANS representatives. Of the other three, one has just formed a camp.

Our people are presently working with the Alaska Native Brotherhood, the Alaska Native Sisterhood, the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, the Sealaska Corporation, profit and nonprofit village corporations, Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), and the other State and Federal programs.

Each of the above have a distinct role in delivering programs to our people. All of us are dedicated to bridging the gap in delivering equal services to our urban and rural Natives.

If we are to continue to direct the social, economic, and cultural changes to the mutual benefit of all the Alaska Natives presently living in southeast Alaska, we need a change in the definition of "tribe" and "tribal governing body" as it is presently written in the Indian SelfDetermination Act.

We believe that an amendment to this section is necessary to recognize the fundamental differences between Southeast Alaska Native structure and other Native American organizations who are not tribal entities.

In examining the changes necessary in the Indian Self-Determination Act, we ask that you continue to make every effort to consult with our elected leaders and that they be given time to meet with the people in the villages and that the villages be given time to meet with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

In closing, on behalf of our organization, I extend an invitation to you to attend at any time our local ANB and ANS meetings and our annual convention. Thank you.

Senator ABOUREZK. Isabelle, do you have anything prepared?

STATEMENT OF ISABELLE BRADY, PRESIDENT, TLINGIT AND HAIDA CHAPTER, SITKA, ALASKA

Ms. BRADY. Yes, I do. I have a paper in here that was drawn up by Peter Azure. He could not be here. He is the president for Sitka Com