that those 10 percent or those 10 Indians are probably only 5 percent of the total Indian population that is in the area because I would suspect that there is about 95 percent of that school population out of school.

Mr. MEEDS. Even under Public Law 874 the district couldn't receive anything unless there is over a certain number or a certain percentage of the student population who are impact aid children.

In other words, there is some absorption there. This is based on the concept that it might cost more to administer a program where there were fewer beneficiaries than it would be worth.

What I am saying is it seems to me we have to provide some kind of a method, either by regulation or by the statutes, so that if we extend the meaning of "Indian" to do what both you and I want to see done, we don't run into having an expensive administrative procedure in a school district in which there were only 10 Indian children of a total student population of 15,000.

Mr. RACINE. I fully understand your argument, actually this has happened in say, Reno, Nev., for instance, where for so many years nobody knew Johnson-O'Malley funds existed except the school district knew that they were there. Of course in Reno there is a high Indian population.

Well, not to carry the story further than intended for the purpose of the point I am trying to get to, but there was no Indian cultural instruction at all in Reno. The English exercises in the books that they were training the kids in English, in English literature or whatever you want to call it, were on Greek mythology, which is fine. You know, like there ought to be an introduction to Greek mythology and then if the person wants to pursue it thereafter for an indepth study, fine, if you want to study Greek.

But my point is, Mr. Chairman, we started a small inexpensive Indian program for the Indian students in Reno. And from the basis of their experiences, their cultural experiences, we started them in English and we otherwise made the assumption that they knew no English at all and had little ability in writing.

Well, within a 6-month period we were able to effectively improve or effectively help the kids that were having difficulty and improve their ability in English at least 212 years over and above from when they started with us.

So, consequently, I would say that when it comes to Indian programs, right now we have a financial and administrative headache because we have so many experts involved in administration and particularly in the area of Indian education that have no expertise whatsoever. So, actually, what we are doing is pouring money down a rat hole.

Mr. MEEDS. Are you satisfied with the description of a "tribal organization" in section 4 (c) which says:

Tribal organization means the elected governing body of any Indian tribe or any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled by one or more such bodies or by a board of directors elected or selected by one or more such bodies (or elected by the Indian population to be served by such organizations) and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities.

Mr. RACINE. I am basically satisfied with that because if we expanded it I think we would get into semantic difficulty. Right now

we are at the point where we are at the loggerheads with some very strong political Indian groups that are crying that we are exceeding or overstepping ourselves as far as tribal sovereignty is concerned. Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. No questions.

Mr. MEEDS. Our next witness is Mr. Raymond Paddock.

Mr. Paddock, delighted to have you here. Please come forward and present your testimony. If you are accompanied by somebody, would you please introduce them to us?

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND PADDOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH WILSON, NATIVE AGENCY DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA AGENCY, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF ALASKA; AND DR. WILLIAM CARMACK OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. PADDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied by Joe Wilson, who is director of our Southeast Native Agency and Dr. William Carmack of Oklahoma. I would like to make my apologies for President Clarence Jackson, who could not be here to present the testimony.

Mr. Jackson is a fisherman and he had to be at the opening of the fishing in Alaska right now.

I would also like to make apologies to the committee for not having enough copies of our testimony. We are not prepared to present our testimony today on such short notice and the testimony will be delivered before the end of the day to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, basically we are here because we are the result of an experiment by the Bureau of Indian Affairs begun 3 years ago. We have a contract to direct our own Native agency for the Bureau and I believe it is one of three in the Nation. Ours differs in that we have hired our own Native agency director and have hired our own staff and in effect we are an experiment in self-determination.

My name is Raymond Paddock. I am executive director of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska. I have with me Mr. Joseph Wilson, who is the Native agency director of the Southeast Alaska Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Dr. William Carmack of Oklahoma, who serves as a consultant to the central council and who has been a member of the evaluation team which has twice assessed the effectiveness of the council's administration of the Southeast Alaska Indian Agency under its contract with the BIA. I am here today to offer testimony on behalf of the Tlingit-Haida Central Council in support of S. 1017, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Although each title of the act is important and should be of considerable benefit to Indian and Alaskan Native groups, I wish to focus my testimony on title I, the Indian Self-Determination Act. The members of the Tlingit-Haida Central Council feel that we are in a unique position to comment on this legislation inasmuch as we have been involved in the administration of our own Southeast Alaska Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a 3-year period. We have effected this involvement through contracts and continuing program agreements with the Bureau. In spite of

some difficulties and shortcomings in our arrangement, we are convinced that the contracting device does indeed offer to the tribe an opportunity for self-determination not available when BIA programs and services are administered in the conventional way.

The central issue involved is not the nature of Federal services provided to Native groups, or even the amount of Federal expenditures on these services. It is, rather, the question of control of priorities and planning in the process of providing these services. For many decades, the Federal Government has provided to Indian tribes and communities an array of services hoped and intended to meet their often rather special needs. Traditionally these services have been provided for the Native groups by Federal administrators. The purpose of this legislation, as has been the aim of the central council's experiment in contracting with the Bureau for the past 3 years, is to insure the continuing provision of these services and the continuing observance of the Federal trust responsibility in an improved environment where the tribes and communities can become involved in the processes of identifying program priorities and of actually conducting the programs funded by the Federal Government for their benefit.

On balance, we feel that our experiment has been successful, although, as Mr. Wilson will point out shortly, it has not been free of difficulties. One of the important aspects of the proposed legislation is the initiative it extends to Indian tribes to take over programs of their own choosing. The concept of contracting for services is not new. For many years the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Federal agencies have contracted hundreds of programs to local groups. The important new aspect of this legislation, however, is that under it these contracts no longer will be subject entirely to the sufferance of the Federal Government, but can be initiated by the tribes and Native villages. There is provision for the Government to refuse to enter into a contract, but, if it does, it must detail its reasons for refusal and take steps to prepare the communities and tribes for contracting. Further, this legislation, for the first time in the history of Indian affairs, will mandate contracting as a national policy rather than leaving the decision of whether to use it to the vagaries of the attitudes from time to time of individual officers and agencies administering Indian programs. The provisions of this act are applicable equally to the Secretary of the Interior, who is administratively responsible for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who is administratively responsible for the Indian Health Service. Although several other Cabinet officers administer specific Indian programs, these two operate the most important by far to the Indian communities. Thus, the opportunity this legislation will afford the tribes to coordinate the administration of the major programs should go far to secure a unity and integrity in their conduct and results not previously experienced.

I would like to highlight an anomaly that, in my view, has caused years of delay in implementing the concept of local control of federally funded Indian programs. Typically, Native tribes and communities have not had among their number persons trained in operating sophisticated educational, medical, social, and economic programs. Thus, the position of Government administrators has been essentially that while they might wish to surrender control of services and programs to local

Indian communities, they feel that there are no Native individuals within those communities capable of discharging the required level of administrative responsibility.

Here is the paradox! For many years, the Federal Government has funded programs in non-Indian communities across the Nation, such as housing construction, hospital construction, airport construction and the like. In addition, Federal impact funds have been channeled into local schools near military bases. Most of these programs have been administered by local government officials and entities, but not necessarily managed and operated by residents of the community. A typical small community in the United States might have a mayor and a city council who are ultimately responsible for the administration of local programs. But these officers and agencies frequently reach out for personnel to actually manage the provision of community services; thus, a fire chief, a chief of police, a superintendent of schools, and the like will be appointed by and responsible to a local elected body. But such administrators often do not come from the community they serve. It is not born and raised in the community. What is important is that they understand as administrators of local services that they are responsible to the community. Indeed, if their performance is not sensitive to community needs, they can be replaced by the local governing body. Why then do we require that Native communities grow their own professional expertise? Hopefully, that is being done and, increasingly, will continue to be done. But, in the meantime, must Indian communities stand aside and submit to external control of services simply on the ground that presently they do not number among their citizens. people who have graduate degrees in education, previous experience in law enforcement administration, and the like. This legislation will empower Native communities to perform in much the same way as other American communities have performed in the past. We will have within an elected governmental entity the power to administer federally funded programs. Of course, we will be obliged to account for our stewardship both as to handling of funds and quality of services. To acquit our responsibilities, we will select from among our own members or from outside, the kinds of people who can be most effective in the actual provision of the services for which we are responsible. As I have indicated, this is not a new concept. It is the modus operandi of local governments throughout the United States, except in Native communities. I believe that the power to contract with the Government to administer ourselves Federal programs for our benefit is the key finally to achieving the often stated national goal of Indian selfdetermination.

Mr. Wilson, who is responsible for the administration of the Southeast Alaska Agency, has served as the administrator of the kind of program this act envisions for the past 3 years. He will comment more specifically upon the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. MEEDS. Very well. We will wait until you both finish your testimony. Do you have a statement here you want to read or to summarize? Mr. WILSON. I would like to read it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. All right. Please proceed.

Mr. WILSON. It is my pleasure to come before your committee. I did appear before your committee once before when you held hearings in Juneau, Alaska, in August of 1973.

My name is Joseph Wilson. As an officer and employee of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, I serve as the Native agency director of the Southeast Alaska Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For approximately 3 years, I have served as principal administrator of the Southeast Alaska Agency under a contract between the central council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I have reviewed the Indian Self-Determination Act, title I of S. 1017, in the light of our experience in implementing the kind of contractual relationship this bill would further authorize. I fully concur with Mr. Paddock that, although our relationship with the BIA under our contract has been at times difficult and cumbersome, we feel the arrangement has been markedly successful in terms of the people we serve. There is a level of commitment and interest on the part of the Indian people under their own administration that was not achieved when these programs were administered directly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Further, we have been able to shape and mold the programs of the Agency to the real needs of our people much more subtly and effectively than was the Bureau under conventional administration. I woud like to submit for the record a copy of our recent semiannual report which details the accomplishments of the programs we administer.

to

Mr. Chairman, I have two copies here that I would like to present you at this time.

I would like to specifically call to the attention of the committee the section on education of the young. This has been one of our highest priorities in Alaska, and one of the most difficult programs to handle effectively. We are proud of the program innovations effected under our management contract and suggest that they serve as an example of the kind of program improvements that are possible when Indians are given the ability to administer their own affairs. I would now comment briefly on seven specific provisions of the act.

I am pleased to notice that provision has been made in the bill for advance payment for administrative services. Unfortunately, the Juneau area office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was not in a position to advance administrative expenses under our contract. Indeed, 17 months elapsed between the time we commenced our administration of the BIA Agency and our first reimbursement from the Bureau. During that period, the central council had to borrow from a local bank approximately $100,000 to fund administration of this contract. When we were finally paid by the Bureau, the interest on this debt was disallowed. Happily, we were in a financial position to operate for 12 years without reimbursement. Obviously, small Native communities or Indian tribes without financial resources could not participate in this kind of contract arrangement. Advanced funding in those cases will spell the difference between taking advantage of the concept of self-determination or not.

I also appreciate the provision in the bill for contracts ranging from 1 to 3 years in duration, assuming annual funding. Unfortunately, for most of the 3-year period that we have engaged in the administration. of our own agency we have been operating under short-term extensions of our original 1 year contract with the Bureau, rather than under a firm contract. First, after we received our original contract, authority for contracting was questioned by the Bureau and numerous other