are more sharply defined in the implementation of such legislation as the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Indian Financing Act and other related legislations, these are a matter of concern to the Commission.

It is hoped that this Commission which represents the first comprehensive effort, to redefine and to investigate this special relationship between the aborigines and the Federal Government; the first such since 1928 in the Merriam report. We're hopeful that the results will reflect in constructive legislation that will have a beneficial impact on that relationship.

To this extent, I am very pleased to participate in the hearings. Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you. The first two witnesses testifying together are from the Alaska Federation of Natives, Sam Kito, president, and Gordon Jackson, executive director. I would like to welcome you both to the hearings, and if you're ready to proceed, we're ready to take your testimony.

Mr. KITO. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF SAM KITO, JR., PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY GORDON JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. KITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Indian Affairs Committee, Commissioner Borbridge. We're pleased to have you in Alaska to hear a cross section of testimony that addresses itself to the issue of the definition of trible organizations. I do have copies of our testimony that we would like to submit for the record and we will summarize our testimony and be happy to attempt to or address or respond to any questions that you may have.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Alaska Federation of Natives, it's a pleasure to welcome you to Alaska. I'm sure that the information that you will find concerning the Indian tribe's definition in Alaska and the problems we have encountered with contracting, very useful in your deliberations.

The current definition of Indian tribes in Public Law 93-638 is causing a considerable amount of problem in Alaska. The current definition reads:

Any Indian tribe, band, nation or other organized groups or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation is 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 the Indians because of their status as Indians.

As the definition now reads, there could be as many as 466 tribes in Alaska and each Alaska Native is a member of at least 4 and as many as 5 tribes. Hence, legally, there is in Alaska some 466 tribes that could potentially request contract services under Public Law 93-638. This, of course, would be an impracticality and an absurdity even if substantial funding of a program where service would permit contracting at the village level for any given Native village to distinct organizations that claim to speak for the villages. The act does not prescribe how competing claims should be resolved.

I might interject, Mr. Chairman, that when you go back in history in Alaska, you would understand that the unities that were developed

and evolved over a period of time for location was basically that these locations were for specific purposes. The nomadic tribes of Alaska used to travel on the rivers in the summer and the mountains for trapping, and I think that the location of the communities were for access along the rivers and coastlines for the most part, and were located because of some of the laws requiring mandated education. Therefore, in the past, Alaska has been treated differently from other Indian tribes to the extent that in the 1930's was a location or there was a law or regulation that was passed that identified the whole State of Alaska as a jurisdictional area. We did not move into the same situation as those Natives in the Lower Forty-Eight and end up on reservations with the exception of the few and maybe only Metlakatla Reservation that was developed specifically for people to live and reside on. I think the others for the most part were for experimental sake.

And. I think that as you look at it, you'll find that there are different types of organizational structures that you have to look at, and I believe that the organizational structures that develop themselves into representation organization on a region basis to represent fron your informal counsels, the ability to represent that area regarding services that are going to be provided should be given very high consideration, and there has to be an option for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior to waive any stringent definition or application of any laws on a nationwide basis as it relates to Alaska.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, to problems of which entities should represent the village is the uncertainty and divided legal opinion of whether or not the act definitions include the 12 Native nonprofit associations in Alaska. The nonprofit Native associations are the current delivery system for Public Law 93-638, however, they do seem to be left out.

Finally, the tribal consent provision regains signoffs from all tribal governments in Alaska. We recently submitted a proposal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to contract for the operation of the Industrial Development and Tourism Division in Juneau, and their answer was basically to gather positive resolutions from 465 tribes costing well into the thousands of dollars. If there was a negative resolution, then it's quite possible that the Bureau of Indian Affairs would consider the contract vetoed, and somehow the language of the act should be clarified to appropriately apply the intent of the consent provision to the unique Alaska situation.

Chairman, I think what we're trying to say or what we would like to say rather, is that it seems that the definition of how to implement some of these acts by the Federal Government is one that looks for the most difficult way to do it. In other words, I think that they could have interpreted it to say, to offer, and if there is a negative response, you know, ask for a negative response or a positive response after you have proposed yourself to be the contractor, and if there isn't any objection then you proceed, but to gain resolutions from 466 communities indicates that in our interpretation of, you know, the Federal Government has not truthfully looked into how the act could be implemented in a more efficient manner. It seems to me that the depart

ment takes the tack that we would rather make it more difficult so that we don't end up contracting the services and we perpetuate ourselves rather than trying to assist themselves into going out of business.

A review of definitions of such tribes, or terms as tribes, Indians, and reservations in Federal legislation such as those in manpower, education, social services, health, and many others revealed extensive variations and definitions with no discernible justifications for the differences. We believe that the definition should be standardized collectively as they relate to the State of Alaska. We recommend that this be accomplished as soon as possible.

This is basically, Mr. Chairman, the extent of the summaries and we will cover-we do cover in more detail, some of the instances that we have overcome and we have come across in the past in our submitted testimony. And, Gordon and I would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. You believe then that AFN is a governing body for the purpose of statewide services today?

Mr. KITO. Mr. Chairman, one thing I might say there is that one of the things that AFN has been doing, has been moving out of the direct delivery systems over the past year voluntarily, and the reason for this, Mr. Chairman, that was proposed prior to the time that we made this transition on the first of July, but if there are statewide advocacy positions to be taken or the regional associations do not want to get involved, then the board of directors of AFN would look into it. Right now we are structuring ourselves to develop into an organization that provides technical assistance on an as needed basis to the regional associations allowing the contracts for the operational programs to go directly to the-get closer to the delivery system, where those in the regions and the villages would have greater control over those programs. Now, we would address contracting, let's say, on a statewide basis only with the support of regional corporations and the nonprofit associations. Not until that was achieved would we attempt to enter into any contracts for services.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you.

Senator GRAVEL. So what you're actually doing, what you're asking the BIA to do, which is the basis of your criticism, why they haven't been more aggressive in doing it?

Mr. Krтo. Yes, sir, I think that we felt that if we continued to be an operational contractor, that we would be another level of bureaucracy between the dollars being implemented in the field, and we felt that the faster we got out of the way that the more responsive those programs would be in the regional areas of the State.

Senator GRAVEL. I glean from your summary of your paper that you felt that there's more discretion in the hands of the Secretary, this could probably solve some of the conflicts, either hand deal in the specifics of the paper or give it some thought as to how it could be structured so it might not be a voluntary basis, that we would really have a way to really push program activity to the lowest level rather than rely upon the good judgment of executives, which is a capricious way of doing it?

Mr. Krro. Yes, sir, Senator. I think that as you look at the extent of what contracting means, contracting means that you are delegating

your authority to the contractor to implement what you have outlined in the contract, unfortunately, that goes into another sphere of some of the problems that we feel that we've been having with the Bureau, and that's their feeling that they do not have the authority to contract certain decisionmaking to the contractor, and they have to retain that because the area director is ultimately responsible. Now, that's the bureau-wide policy. And, then what happens, you take it to the next level that certain things cannot be delegated to the area director because the Commissioner wants to retain that authority. And, I suppose, if one took that to its ultimate conclusion, one would have to say that nothing could be done regarding the implementation of any statutory law regarding regulations because the President finally reserves that administrative right because he is mandated by the act to be the person that is solely responsible.

Now, I think what happens is that there has to be a determination in the executive branch that says, *** that we can contract a certain authority away, and we can make determinations, as to how this act could work. "*** And, we can make determinations, and based on-they say, *** well, our solicitor tells us that this is wrong," well, I think in the lawyer's jargon, you know, that's probably the only field where there are 50 percent winners and 50 percent losers in any case that goes to court, you know, in other words, right around in thta area, but for a winner, there's always a loser, you know, and I think in our case, we can speak with very much authority I suppose, if we beat the Secretary and the solicitor more times than he's beaten us. And, sometimes, you know, they say legally that this is as far as they can go, well, I'm not too sure that we should be going to the same horse to find the legal information for them to make decisions. Now, I find that they do have authority in certain instances to make decisions and you can challenge them into court, but I find it difficult as to the reasons of why they don't make decisions that we may not challenge in court that they say are against the law, you know, if you follow the rationalization that they utilize in their decisionmaking process, it's quite difficult to follow at times.

The overall question about who can contract is one whereby you handle on a regional basis and you can ask, you know, the question, "Are there any others in this region that want to contract?" You'll respond within a specified period of time, you know, why didn't they take that option? Well, they didn't take that option, they took the other option that said they had to go out and chase down the interior of Alaska and going on 35 or 70 resolutions that were affirmative before you could move the contract. I don't think that there's any worry that the regional profit corporations would compete with the nonprofit associations for contracting when you look at the definition or the designation of a sole-source contractor. We're all looking at the delivery of systems and we're all looking at how it better can be achieved.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. I note your comment that as a condition of contracting, there is a requirement of an audit which in turn is a determination of the veracity of the reporting on the expenditure funds and the compliance with certain regulations. I also note the concern that you expressed that there doesn't appear to accompany these requirements, any substantive discussions as to the quality of the de

livery of services or as to what the impact has been on the recipients of the programs themselves. So, I would like to, for the record, just to establish several facts, and beginning the inquiry would be this; as you understand that why would the Alaska Natives want to contract for various services? In other words, you have certain desires that you feel you can implement, certain things that you can accomplish, what would some of the primary ones be, Sam?

Mr. KITO. Well, I think that the primary reason to contract would be that the organizational structure that has the contract would respond more quickly to the change in needs, so that you yourself could have an ongoing evaluation with the organizational structure to the villages or to the people that says whether or not you are doing it right or wrong. Now, I think, you know, what we are trying to say too, is that regarding the audit, we have an ongoing audit with every program on a monthly basis because these contracts are cost reimbursable contracts and we do not have somebody that says or does the evaluation overall or responsible within the agency that says, "What kind of services are going to be delivered and how are they being delivered?" Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Within the terms then of the actual program that is contracted for, going in as the organization does, with the desire to be innovative, to be more sensitive to the needs of the ple, to improve the delivery of services, and looking at the conditions that are attached to the contract, looking at how the negotiations and audit would be, do you feel that the Native organizations have the fullest possible opportunity to achieve the objectives that cause them to go into contracting?

peo

Mr. KITO. No; they don't. And, the reason they don't is because they're restricted by the language of the contract, that if they do start looking at innovative things to implement, they are in violation of the contract and those portions that relate to money are not going to be reimbursed by the contracting agencies. You know, the documents that you end up in utilizing the contract look like a, you know, a book, some of them are about 100 to 150 pages long indicating what your restrictions are, and they really talk about the inability of developing flexibility in order to deliver the product in an innovative way, yes.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. Then it would be accurate to say that the conditions of the contracts are actually such that the Native organizations, while wanting to be innovated and to improve the services and to reflect the sensitivity of their insight into the needs of the people they represent, actually are pretty much required to deliver the services in almost precisely the same manner as they were delivered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is that right?

Mr. KITO. Yes; it doesn't change that much. You might want to comment on that too, Gordon?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; most of the programs that are delivered, you know, the same kind of rules and regulations come with it. And, also talking about restrictions, we recently signed a technical assistance contract to provide TA to the new prime contractors for JohnsonO'Malley services. And, the present way in which prime contractors are to receive TA from the Alaska Federation of Natives, is that a request goes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and then the Bureau of Indian Affairs submits the technical assistance request to the Alaska