Raymond E. Paddock, Jr. numbers of our people and our land involved. In 1971 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed specifically designating the Central Council as the existing organization having exclusive authority and responsibility to implement its provisions, including securing the organization of a Southeast Alaska Regional Corporation. The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians, as the general tribal governing body, is required by an Act of Congress to perform certain tasks required only of Indian tribes: (1) (2) Rules prescribing a democratic and representative method of election of delegates to the Central Council have beer. approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The Central Council's contract for general counsel must be approved by the Secretary of Interior under authority as provided by 25.U.S.C.A. 81, which governs agreements made between persons and Indian Tribes. Administrative action by other federal agencies also recognizes the status of the Central Council as the tribal governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Indians. The Central Council has the tax status of an Indian tribe in relation to tribal income. Income tax statutes have not been applied against Indian tribes. The Central Council's Office of Development Planning is partially funded through a planning grant from the Economic Development Administration. As a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Central Raymond E. Paddock, Jr. Testimony on P.L. 93-638 Council is not required to go through the A-95 Clearinghouse process pursuant to Part I, Section 2c of the A-95 Circular. The Office of Development Planning also operates under a grant from the Office of Native American Programs, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Central Council is regarded as an Indian tribe by the Department of Labor and receives a grant under Title III of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. The Central Council was established by an Act of Congress because a body representative of all Tlingit and Haida Indians was required to deal with matters concerning the Indians and the Federal government. The Central Council, as the tribal governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Indians, feels its status precludes the proposed tribal status of any other organization in Southeast Alaska for purposes of P.L. 93-638. The Central Council is also the best equipped organization in Southeast Alaska for purposes of implementing P.L. 93-638 due to its history of contracting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other Federal agencies. The Central Council also has a background in serving the needs of all Tlingit and Haida Indians, not only in the villages, but in several urban communities. The Central Council is the only organization in Alaska which represents all Tlingit and Haida Indians, both within and outside Alaska. The same cannot be said of the village or regional corporations, which represent their shareholders, or the IRA Councils, many of which are inactive. Raymond E. Paddock, Jr. All members of the Tlingit and Haida tribe can vote for representatives to the Tlingit and Haida convention. Those representatives will vote in a democratic process to select officers of the Central Council. We are representative based on the rules of election which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Senator ABOUREZK. The next witness is Clay Antioquia. Clay is Area Director of the BIA for Southeast Alaska. Do you have anybody you want to accompany you-just for the purpose of the record? STATEMENT OF CLARENCE ANTIOQUIA, AREA DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, ALASKA Mr. ANTIOQUIA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Gravel, and Mr. Borbridge, I am Clarence Antioquia, Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Alaska. I am also a Tlingit Indian from Sitka, Alaska. I would like to introduce Mr. Joseph E. Kahklen, Jr., who is the Assistant Area Director for Administration in my office. I commend you gentlemen for your concern and interest in the implementation of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act in Alaska. As I am sure you are well aware, there is considerable interest in this act by the Native people. Before commenting on the major issues relating to Public Law 93-638, I would like to briefly mention some of the major developments the Juneau area has that have led to our current situation. Since President Nixon's indian message of 1970, we in the area. have viewed Indian self-determination as the law of the land and began implementing many of the concepts immediately. Specifically, we established many school boards to provide local Native parent participation in the operation of our schools. We began involving Native people in our annual budget preparation and the establishment of our program priorities. We began consulting with Native people in the filling of key positions within the Juneau area, and we have taken a strong advocacy position on behalf of Alaska Native people on almost all issues relating ot the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The most significant development, however, has been our increased activity in contracting Bureau programs and services to Alaska Native organizations. In fiscal year 1969 we had five buy Indian-type contracts totaling approximately $331,000. In fiscal year 1970 we increased the number to 67 and at a value in excess of $1 million. In 1971 and 1972 the dollar value increased up to between $2 and $3 million. In 1973 and 1974, the value increased to between $5 and $6 million, and in fiscal years 1975 and 1976 we increased the number of buy Indian or self-determination-type contracts to over 90 within the State at a dollar value in excess of $13 million. Some of the major self-determination type of contracts that we have entered into include contracting for four major programs to the Tlingit and Haida Central Council totaling approximately $2.3 million, two major programs to the Cook Inlet Native Association in Anchorage totaling approximately $1.1 million, and five major programs to the Tanana Chiefs Conference, and two social services programs to the United Crow Band and Fairbanks Native Association in the Fairbanks region totaling close to $2 million. In addition we have contracted for our total Johnson-O'Malley program, which exceeds $5 million, to many local organizations and regional organizations to administer the Johnson-O'Malley program. Although we can cite the recent progress made in contracting with some measure of pride, it must be recognized that this was not accom plished with any measure of ease, either on the part of our office or on the part of Native contractors. It should be noted that most of this progress was accomplished prior to the passage of Public Law 93-638, and as such, we were required to use Federal contracting laws and regulations and procedures that were not designed for selfdetermination types of contracts. For example, Federal contracting laws discourage "personal services" types of contracts, and yet in reality that is exactly the type of contracts that we are entering into with the Native organizations in Alaska. Federal contracting laws generally presume that contractors possess the experience and administrative structure necessary to comply with all the contract provisions, whereas again in reality in Alaska many of the Alaska Native organizations and contractors have required a considerable amount of technical assistance to meet all the provisions, particularly the accountability provisions. Although a limited amount of Bureau guidelines exist most of the guidelines are designed to apply primarily in the Lower FortyEight situations, and as a consequence both the Juneau area office and the Alaska Native contractors have had to interpret and apply the regulations and guidelines as best we could. In spite of these and numerous other problems relating to contracting, I believe the record of progress we have made recently is indicative of the commitment our office has to contracting the operation of our programs to Native people. We continue to be committed to contracting because we are convinced that Native organizations can deliver Bureau services as good as, and in some cases better than, we as the Bureau can. We viewed the passage of Public Law 93-638 with much optimism, hoping that at long last we would have a law and regulations specifically designed to address most of the problems we were experiencing in implementing self-determination concepts and policies. For the most part we still feel that the act and regulations will in fact accomplish these intended purposes. Before the full benefits of the act can be realized in Alaska, however, the definitions must be clarified. What organizations are considered tribes, or tribal organizations, or tribal governing bodies? These questions are vitally important, because those entities identified as tribes and tribal governing bodies are granted considerably more authority and responsibilities under the act. The current definition of "Indian tribe" in Public Law 93-638 includes any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation, as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Based on the definition, Alaska has at least 462 entities clearly identified as tribes. These include 12 regional profitmaking corporations, 225 village profitmaking corporations, 225 villages, which could be governed by an IRA-form of government or a traditional form of government, or traditional villages which recently have been incorporated as second-class cities. In addition, several other entities also claim or are requesting tribal status, entities such as several of the nonprofit associations that are |