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.

Mr. Chairman, I have two copies here that I would like to present to 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

procedural details seemed to make it impossible for the Juneau area office to come forward with a specific binding annual contract.

On two occasions a review team representing both the central council and the BIA has convened to evaluate the Agency and its performance. One of the recurring problems the team found was the failure of the BIA to be ready at the proper time with a specific contract. Instead a series of delays have resulted in a kind of ongoing agreement in which authority is not really transferred on a firm basis, and personnel are not certain whether they work for the central council or the BIA. This has resulted, as one would expect, in morale problems and considable confusion among employees. This bill, had it been the law 3 years, ago, would have been enormously helpful in this area.

I am pleased that this act provides for retrocession of the administration of programs by a tribe to the Bureau. I support the provision not because I think tribes will find themselves unable to handle their new administrative responsibilities, but because it will provide them with a weapon against possible funding discrimination on the part of the Bureau. When funds are in short supply, it might be tempting for an area office of the Bureau to adequately fund those programs and agencies under its own supervision and skimp on those contracted to tribes. If this should happen frequently enough to establish a pattern, a tribe would have recourse to recall the Federal administration and rectify these inequities.

It occurs to me, however, that the use of the term "retrocession" and the phraseology of the proviso in section 106 (d) is awkward and may be confusing. Ordinarily, the right of a party to abrogate a contract is spoken of as a right to rescind or cancel, not as a right to "retrocede"

the contract.

I take it that the provision is intended to give a tribe the right to cancel a contract in whole or in part on 120 days notice, in which event the Agency with whom it was made would be required to resume the administration of all programs and the provisions of all services that were covered by the contract on a nondiscriminatory basis.

I believe it might be more artfully drafted to express this intent. One of the most difficult and confusing aspects of our experience in contracting has been the realtionship between the Native agency administration and the BIA personnel retained in the various branches. This bill clearly spells out for the first time the rights and privileges of a Federal civil servant who finds his position contracted to tribal administration. In essence he has a 2-year period and, at the request of both parties, an additional 2-year period to either serve out his tenure, decide whether he wishes to transfer to another Federal position, or become an employee of the contracting tribe. Had we been able to offer this kind of opportunity and option to Federal employees at our Agency, we would have reduced dramatically the morale problems we have experienced. We have chosen not to replace all BIA personnel with our own employees. As Mr. Paddock indicated, we do not feel it is necessary that services be performed solely by TlingitIndians or by employees of the central council.

We know that there are many dedicated effective employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and it has been our policy to encourage them to stay on in their positions under our administration. We do not feel

it is critical that they come from our communities, but we do know it is critical that they understand that they work for our communities. On balance, we are pleased with their services and commitment. From time to time as positions become vacant by resignation, retirement, or transfer of incumbents, we may refill them with local people, but only if we can find local people with the necessary experience and competence. In the meantime, we enjoy a good working relationship with the personnel we inherited from the Bureau at the time we commenced operations under the Agency management contract.

In passing, I would note that this legislation specifically protects Native groups against any erosion of the trust responsibility. Selfmanagement has been delayed in years past because groups have feared that any initiative on their part to administer federally funded programs might be a step toward termination. Fortunately, the language of this bill speaks to this point very directly and reassuringly. Tribal administration of federally funded services must not lead to a reduction in Federal trust responsibility.

The detailed time table specified in this legislation for its implementation is salutory. As I indicated earlier, we have had serious problems with the Juneau area office in connection with the preparation of contracts on time. In fact, 18 months ago, the contract review committee recommended that a firm contract be negotiated by January of 1973. The area office was not able to accomplish this and suggested as an alternative July 1, 1973. The central council agreed to this date but it was not met. Finally, the review team, about 18 months later, noted that there still was no contract and no reasonable expectation that one would be ready even by July 1, 1974. This act will serve to stimulate the Bureau to regularize and expedite its contract processes so that this kind of delay and confusion can be avoided.

I wish, finally, to commend the provisions of this act which require consultation with Indian organizations prior to the promulgation of rules and regulations. We are vastly better prepared than we were a decade or two ago to meaningfully participate in and contribute to the process of rulemaking. Most Native groups now have among their number, or available to them, professional people such as attorneys, accountants and the like. All too often the kind of consultation called for in this legislation has resulted simply in powerless and rather vacuous advisory boards. We trust the recent experience of the Department of the Interior, in connection with the drafting of land selection regulations under the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, has convinced it that the Native people will no longer be shunted aside in the process of preparing administrative rules to implement legislation designed for their benefit.

In summary, based on 3 years of contracting experience, we are convinced that the devices provided by this legislation are well designed to bring real self-determination and local control to Native communities. We look forward under this legislation to a far smoother and more effective relationship with the Bureau and with our own constituents than has been possible without it. For these reasons, we strongly endorse the Indian Self-Determination Act.

Mr. MEEDS. Fine, thank you gentlemen.

Mr. Wilson, would you describe some of the types of programs in which the Tlingit-Haida Central Council is presently administering? Mr. WILSON. Under this contract?

Mr. MEEDS. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. We provide the social services program. Also, we provide the adult vocational training, the direct employment and housing improvement, and we administer one day school in our Agency and one field office.

Mr. MEEDS. What kinds of social services are you involved in?

Mr. WILSON. We are involved in the general assistance program and also we provide emergency assistance to the aged and also we provide temporary foster home placement of children.

Mr. MEEDS. And you would conclude on balance, that while there have been some problems, you have been relativelv able to handle those?

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

- Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Paddock, do you have a copy of the bill?

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. Would you turn to page 4, section 4(b), the definition for "Indian tribe" and it means "Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States."

And I would ask if it is your feeling that Tlingit-Haida Central Council would fit under that description?

Mr. PADDOCK. We do have one small problem with that. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, there were also 12 regional corporations named.

Now the Agency that administers this contract is a regional corporation. And I believe this would be clarified if regional corporations were entered under section 4 (b).

Mr. MEEDS. Actually, if we were to put right after "Native villages" if we were to put "or Native regional corporations" that would take care of that problem.

Was your organization authorized by the Settlement Act? Wasn't it in existence prior to the Settlement Act?

Mr. PADDOCK. Yes, it was.

Mr. MEEDS. Was it not specifically excluded?

Mr. PADDOCK. All of the regional corporations named in the Settlement Act were nonprofit corporations, Mr. Chairman. There have since been named 12 other profitmaking corporations so there are now 24 Native corporations in Alaska.

Mr. MEEDS. Counsel reminded me of that.

Mr. PADDOCK. The profitmaking corporations do not deal in human services.

Mr. MEEDS. What we are going to have to do is include those regional corporations and other organizations as chartered by regional corporations, or how do you think we should take care of that?

Mr. PADDOCK. Well, in our case it wouldn't be a problem because we are federally recognized as a tribe in existence before the act. However, in the others there may be some clarification needed for their

benefit. I would think that the nonprofit corporations in the other 11 regions would be the ones interested in this bill.

Mr. MEEDS. OK, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Paddock, in what way do you think the services performed by your group have been an improvement as compared to the BIA process?

Mr. PADDOCK. Well, I think there has been a distinct improvement. When we went after this contract, we went after it because we wanted it and we are administering it with a great deal of enthusiasm. Let me give you one example. When the BIA had the contract they were about 130 of our kids in college. With our own administration we now have this year 440 in college.

When the BIA, when the Bureau of Indian Affairs had it, the dropout rate was about 30 percent. We've got that down to about 7 percent I believe.

Mr. REGULA. How many students are in the program?

Mr. PADDOCK. In higher education?

Mr. REGULA. Well, don't you have elementary and secondary too? Mr. PADDOCK. Maybe Mr. Wilson could answer that. In higher education we have 440.

Mr. REGULA. But how many do you have under your total direction?

Mr. WILSON. As I mentioned before, we administer one BIA operated base school in our agency and they have an enrollment of not more than 20 students. It is an elementary school. We also process applications for students that attend BIA boarding schools that are not under our agency operation but are almost a separate agency organized in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We process probably not more than 60 applications of that nature to various BIA boarding schools, primarily the boarding school located at Sitka Alaska; the Rangle Institute located at Rangle, Alaska; and we send still a few students to Chemawa Indian School.

Mr. REGULA. Do you operate a high school?

Mr. WILSON. We do not operate a high school.

Mr. PADDOCK. There is a BIA high school but it is not part of our agency.

Mr. REGULA. What does your agency do with the college students? Mr. PADDOCK. With the college students? We fund them. We help them. We also counsel the precollege students to encourage them to enter into college then we provide the funding to get them through college.

Mr. REGULA. In reality then you are not operating a school system from kindergarten through 12?

Mr. PADDOCK. No we are not.

Mr. REGULA. Your experience is simply limited to funding students in a college of their choice.

Mr. PADDOCK. That is right.

Mr. REGULA. What is your budget for these services?

Mr. WILSON. OK. I think if you can refer to the report that I gave to you, it describes the number of students we had in the program,