contract with HEW for public health or Indian education programs, the status and the definition again come up, so this is a problem that must be resolved, and we feel that we are in the best position to address these human resource problems.

There are a number of reasons why we feel this way, and I would like to relate that informally to the committee. Sealaska and the village corporations are named as coequal in the definition of tribal status, but both-well, Sealaska is made up, first of all, of shareholders, and there is a deterioration beginning in Alaska of who a shareholder is. It is not necessarily an Alaska Native or a TlingitHaida.

Now, the same is true in village corporations. In the definition in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act they don't determine what a village corporation is, so it's up now to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, hopefully through our assistance and with the help of the communities, to decide which entity in the community is the village corporation. Now, there are corporations for profit in the villages and there are nonprofit corporations existing in villages. There are also municipal communities set up under Alaska State statutes. Some are made up of all-Native mayors and city councilmen; some are not made up of Native mayors and city councilmen, and yet they are recognized as Native villages under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

The IRA councils are even more remote in Alaska or in southeast Alaska, with the exception of the community of Klukwan, which has a very active IRA council. We have IRA councils in Alaska that have not met in 25 years, and I was hoping that Mr. Frank See of Hoonah would be here, who is the president of the IRA Council and has been for 25 years. They have not met in at least 10, that I know of. Is that correct?—they have not even met. We have a number of IRA councils throughout Alaska that are essentially defunct but have outstanding loans through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and continue to get bills and statements from the BIA credit office.

So in the long run what I am saying is that I think it is established through precedent, through legal precedent, in a number of ways that we are the tribal governing body and it has been acknowledged now by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, at least in this area office. There is still a long way to go.

Senator ABOUREZK. Ray, does that mean that for the purposes of 638, the Indian Self-Determination Act, that you are then determined the tribal governing body, or is that just

Mr. PADDOCK. Well, the Self-Determination Act muddied up the situation even more than it was before. Previously we had contracted under the Buy Indian Act. The Self-Determination Act, along with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, gave equal status to the villages and regional corporations, as mentioned in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

The problem, then, is one of definition, of who we are and how we go about contracting.

I would like to give a little historical background as to how this came about, and which our congressional delegation has dealt with, particularly Senator Gravel, very early after his election dealt with in Congress. Back in 1912 the Alaska Native Brotherhood was the pri

mary political organization that represented Alaska Natives. The manner in which they were organized led to some questions in Congress and in the Bureau of Indian Affairs as to who they really represented.

It was not until 1935 that this issue was addressed in the Congress, and on June 19, 1935 the Tlingit-Haida Jurisdictional Act was passed establishing a central council, but there was never any procedures for setting up the central council, so it was not until August 19, 1965 that that act was amended creating a representative tribal governing body.

This amendatory legislation was sponsored, cosponsored by Senators Gravel and Stevens, and was passed, and with that we had the blessings of Congress, that we were a tribal governing body, and we proceeded to do business under the leadership of President John Borbridge.

In 1970 there was a relatively small judgment fund which was passed as a settlement for our claims against the U.S. Government. That settlement was for $712 million to represent some 14,000-plus people. The requirement of Congress was that that money not be disbursed among the people but be used for the social and economic development of our people. With those funds, we have been able to begin a number of Federal programs and if you were able to get out into our villages now you would see in the villages a number of things happening based on Federal programs.

It's been an uphill fight all the way in order to get these various programs that we have, simply because of the definitional program that we have regarding tribal governing body. We feel that we have resolved this to a point now, but it must be resolved once and for all so that we may deal with other Federal agencies.

To give you an example in contracting, for instance, we have a grant under CETA, title III, Department of Labor. That title was passed after a great deal of testimony in Congress by Indian people and by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A definition was established under title III that recognized the central council as an Indian tribe; however, it was overlooked in titles II and VI of that act and they went back to the same old definition of "Indians living on or near reservations," so we found that we were receiving about 50 percent of the funds that other Indians were receiving in the Lower FortyEight for comprehensive employment training programs.

We again went back to the Congress and we are attempting now to have that revised through the Public Works Committee and the Labor Committee, but the point remains that the problem of definition is where it all really began, and if we could resolve that once and for all, for all of us, that would never have cropped up in the first place.

I would like to talk now about the Indian Financing Act and the kind of problems we have had with that. The Indian Financing Act, Public Law 93-262, was passed on April 13, 1974, to provide for financing the economic development of Indians and Indian organizations. Once again we get back to the problem of definitions. There was a mistake I think it was an unintentional mistake-in the bill, requiring that those Indian tribes that have loan funds are not eligible to receive loans and grants under the Indian Financing Act. This has

caused us a number of problems, because several years ago we established a small, a very small, business development loan fund, $175,000 to serve 14,000 people, to supplement other funds that would be available to us, either through banks or SBA or through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In interpreting the regulations now the BIA has ruled that since we are an Indian tribe that has a loan program, our people are ineligible to receive credit assistance through the BIA. We feel that this is unfair, simply because we have a limited program.

In addition they have ruled that existing IRA councils that have outstanding loans through the Indian Revolving Loan Fund are also ineligible, and the people that reside in those communities, which are most of the communities of Southeast Alaska, are ineligible for funds under the Revolving Loan Fund.

Because of this we have contemplated dropping our own loan program, simply to give more people the benefit of receiving credit and loans and grants through the Indian Financing Act, but the intent has still not been clarified and needs to be clarified somewhere in the central office in Washington, because our own area director interceded in our behalf and attempted to get a clarification and an exception from the central office on our behalf. He was unable to do so.

But throughout Alaska our people are not being fairly treated and it is impossible for young or ambitious Indian entrepreneurs to get started without assistance from the BIA, and then are ruled ineligible over a technicality that I don't think was intended by the Congress.

I would also like to talk about the problems which we had relating to Indian education, attempting to deliver Indian education programs. Previously the Alaska Federation of Natives had a contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to deliver Johnson-O'Malley programs on a statewide basis. Following passage of the Self Determination Act, it became very obvious to us that they would not be able to effectively deliver the program, so we began a planning process that would allow us to contract directly under the Indian Self Determination Act, and since Mr. Wilson is the person who was dealing most closely with this, the frustrations that we have had attempting to do this, I would like him to explain the process that we went through. We still do not have a contract for Johnson-O'Malley programs and our villages are still not being served by Johnson-O'Malley programs.

Mr. WILSON. The central council, when the Alaska Federation of Natives announced that they would no longer administer or have a contract to provide for the Johnson-O'Malley program to all of Alaska, the central council executive committee passed a resolution to the effect that the central council should be the entity to submit a proposal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to contract for the JohnsonO'Malley program and any other educational programs in our region. The contract proposal was submitted and through the Southeast Agency involved all planning with all the communities in our region and resulted in the central council obtaining resolutions of endorsements that the central council, through the Southeast Alaska Agency contract, would be the entity to administer the Johnson-O'Malley programs in our region.

Our proposal was submitted and has not been acted on as to this date, and at the present time it boils down to the interpretation that

the Bureau has in regard to the ability for the central council to administer the program under 93-638, section 271A, and they are proposing that we must contract under 93-638, 271C, or 273, which poses quite a burden on the central council to administer effectively the Johnson-O'Malley program in our region. We have appealed this decision. It is being reviewed by the Solicitor's Department right now and we anticipate that we should receive some decision with regard to our appeal some time next week.

However, the predicament that this has placed the central council in is one that where we should be now implementing the JohnsonO'Malley programs in respective communities in our region. The delay is causing some concern in the communities because school has already started and they are losing confidence in the central council by the virtue of the delay.

I doubt, from our discussions with the contracting officer for the Bureau and the Solicitor, that we will receive a favorable decision on our appeal.

Mr. PADDOCK. Thank you, Joe. Back to the Indian Financing Act problem, I do have a document that I would like to submit for evidence. It's the legislative history of the Indian Financing Act as it relates to our problem and has been researched this summer by a member of our staff, Lillian Peters. [See app. I, p. 201.]

If there are any questions, we would be happy to respond, Senator. We will submit a more detailed report on this also.

Senator ABOUREZK. Why do you feel that your organization is the best representative of the T. & H. people to qualify your particular organization as the tribal governing entity?

Mr. PADDOCK. As I stated before, there are a number of problems with the other definitions which the Bureau of Indian Affairs has defined as having equal status with us. Tlingit and Haida, by its own jurisdictional act, identifies us technically and racially. We have a constitution that has been accepted by the Secretary of Interior, and rules of election that have been adopted and accepted by the Secretary of Interior. We have a democratically elected process, which is a requirement of how the central council elects its officers and represents its communities.

By comparison, there are problems that cannot be immediately resolved with the other three equal entities that have been offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The shareholding problem must be resolved, because it does not represent ethnically the Tlingit and Haida people. In fact, there are non-Natives now holding shares. It's possible in the future that the State of Alaska will hold shares simply because somebody had no heirs and passed away in a nursing home or a pioneers' home or something of that sort. There are many legal problems that I am sure that Sealaska is working on and will be resolved eventually. village corporations are in the same situation and must deal with this problem, and until that is finally resolved, the status is not an equal one.

The IRA corporation, many of them are defunct, have not met and are inactive, so we feel that we are in the best position and have the legal precedent to represent our people for the delivery of social service programs.

Senator ABOUREZK. OK, thank you. If there are no questions from other members of the panel-John?

Mr. BORBRIDGE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Paddock-although you have alluded to, currently the central council under contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs is administering the entire services previously performed by the Southeast Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs?

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes.

Mr. BORBRIDGE. One of the concerns you have expressed is that with the somewhat ambiguous or unfavorable attitude of the Bureau with respect to the definition of "tribe," thus in effect a determination of who is eligible to contract for those services, you feel that there may well be a direct or an unfavorable impact in terms of the ability of the central council to so contract and to so provide your services? Will you touch on that, please?

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes. If the question remains up in the air and is not resolved finally by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in a very forthright way, the question will remain in the minds of many other organizations that we are not united, and I would like to resolve once and for all that we are a united body and that laying that to rest in the minds of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and of our own people.

Senator STEVENS. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Bureau is taking the position that these four entities that would qualify, and that your organization is one of them?

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. And you seek exclusive designation?

Mr. PADDOCK. Well, we want a clarification of the designation. Senator STEVENS. Are there others who also seek rights under the determination that they-well, Sealaska, do I understand that Sealaska, a village corporation under ANCSA, IRA organizations previously_recognized-are any of those competing with you now?

Mr. PADDOCK. At the moment we have a working relationship with Sealaska in that we are doing human service programs on behalf of the people of southeast Alaska. The village corporations are not competing with us, as far as definition of tribal status. There is some competition going on in some villages for programs, which the Bureau will have to resolve itself, who they are dealing with.

Senator STEVENS. Well, Congress is going to have to face this question, and I am sure Senator Abourezk is one of those who will be involved.

Senator ABOUREZK. Ray, how do you deal with the local village? I mean, how do you have the interface, who do you recognize and what kind of input do they have into your structure?

Senator STEVENS. Before you get into that, I would like to ask Ray one thing more.

Senator ABOUREZK. Sure.

Senator STEVENS. Don't you think it would be helpful if we devised some means for a recognition referendum, so to speak? I mean, as I understand it, what you are saying is that Congress ought to declare that T. & H. is in fact a tribal entity.

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes.

Senator STEVENS. And down here that might be proper, but we have to face the question of an act that takes care of problem in the other