As I indicated in my statement at the Juneau hearing on September 2, 1976, I attach a formal statement, with exhibits, to be incorporated into the record. You will note the absence of a position on the primary purpose In addressing the issue though of tribal governing status in Southeast Alaska, we recommend as follows: That the Central be recognized as the Regional Tribal Governing Senator Abourezk Re: P.L. 93-638 September 16, 1976 For the purpose of regional planning, and that of implementing socio-economic programs beneficial to the Tlingit & Haida people, we support the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska as the governing body of the Tlingit & Haida tribes. In effect, this is the case now and has proven its effectiveness. The working relationship with the communities within Southeast is excellent. As a rule, the Central Council never initiates any action without the concurrence of the affected community and only after the regional planning process has been complete. Conversely, the communities, or the federal or state agencies, never enter the villages without first securing concurrence from the Central Council. I dis- I disagree with testimony presented by the Sitka delegation. agree that the fraternal organizations are eligible for tribal status. federally approved constitution and bylaws, only persons of Tlingit & Haida descent are eligible for (federal) certification as members of the T & H Central Council. This is widely known throughout Alaska. A good example of effective regionalized program planning and effective implementation would be any of the entities (or departments) of Tlingit & Haida. Some of these are: the Tlingit & Haida Regional Housing Authority; Southeast Agency of the BIA; Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation; Tlingit & Haida Federal Credit Union; to mention a few. These were all established with the written concurrent resolutions from all of the T & H Community Councils, ANB ANS, IRA Councils, and, the City Councils so as not to slight anyone. In fact, this is compulsory, as ordered by the Central Council. The composition of the various boards of directors is carefully structured to have representation from the communities most impacted by the Tlingit & Haida operations. That being the case, this meets any provision for local input and involvement in the planning processes. This substantially complies with 93-638. Senator Abourezk Re: P.L. 93-638 September 16, 1976 The effect of federally recognizing Tlingit & Haida would extend to all T & H communities within the Southeast Alaska region. If in the best interest of the impacted community, contractual arrangements are possible. The primary rationale though would be coordination and improving the delivery of service. A goal which we feel you are striving for. I apologize for the length of this letter. At the time we were notified of hearings, we were advised that this would cover all aspects of federal policy as relates to Indians of Alaska. Hence, my formal statement addressed our views and regards the federal policies as affacts those Native owned economic enterprises which we represent. STATEMENT OF ROBERT WILLARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the member firms, affiliated with the Tlingit & Haida Contractors Association, I appreciate the opportunity to express some concerns as pertains to federal policy matters as these policies affect our Native owned economic enterprises. We commend the Senate for passage of S.522 and the House for passage of H.R. 2525, which, as you are aware, is cited as the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We have submitted our letter to President Ford urging that he sign this into law. It is my understanding that the President is likely to exercise his power to veto. In an array of its concern, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly approved its version of a Indian health care bill. I will hope that the President will sign the Act into law. As regards the Act of June 25, 1910, or the Buy Indian Act, we have posted our objections to Commissioner Morris Thompson's memorandum of March 3, 1976 on the subject of Buy Indian Act contracting. The memorandum states "Indian contractor means a legal entity which is 100% Indian owned or controlled." The effect of this interpretation will effectively eliminate Alaska Native economic enterprises which may be 51 60 or 80% owned by a regional or village corporation. This contravenes the Bureau's own definition issued on August 22, 1968 in which the BIA recognized "Firms controlled by Indians, of which at least 51% of the ownership is by Indians, irrespective of the location." In this day, when regional and village corporations are investing into various ventures, often times, these are entered into jointly with non-native firms primarily because of the management expertise of the joint venture partner. By Commissioner Thompson's interpretation, a company 80% owned by a village corporation is not eligible under the Buy Indian Act. This carries the effect of diminishing the profitability of the joint ventures or partnerships. Now, there is a valid reason for joint ventures. It is a situation where in some cases, the money is available, but the expertise is not. contractors - We are dissatisfied with the inadequate terminology contained in the P.L. 93-638 as pertains to treatment of Native building and construction in programs which affect Native people such as Educational Assistance, and the facilities which the Act alludes to. In the absence of preferential treatment to Indian firms in projects which affect Indians, then, there is no true determination at all. We want to be so self determined to |