Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Rural AK, the Native Claims Settlement Act & Village Govern. Structures 2010
Rural Alaska, the Native Claims Settlement Act & Village Government Structures INSTITUTIONAL PROLIFERATION STATEWIDE Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AI-TC) Native American Rights Fund (NARF) National Congress of American Indians (NCAT) First Alaskans Institute (FAI) Alaska Departments Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC) Alaska Native Arts Foundation Alaska Village Initiatives Denali Commission ANCSA Education Consortium (Foundations) ANCSA Regional CEO’s Alaska Legal Services Federal Subsistence Board and Regional Advisory Cimmittees Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RuralCAP) Indigenous Peoples’ Council on Marine Mammals (IPCOMM) Active Duty Military Services + National Guard Alaska State Senate and House - Bush Caucus University of Alaska Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) - U.S. Interior Department Alaska Native Health Service/U.S. Public Health Service/HHS Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Association of Alaska Regional Housing Authorities U.S. Department of Commerce - Small Business Administration Alaska Congressional Delegation Others (North Pacific Fisheries Management Council) REGIONAL 13 For-Profit ANCSA Regional Corporations (+ subsidiaries, partners, joint ventures) 12 Non-Profit Regional Corporations Non-Profit Regional Health Corporations (hospitals and clinics) Non-Profit Regional Housing Authorities Borough Governments (State) School Districts LOCAL COMMUNITY (VILLAGE, TOWN, CITY) 230+ Tribes (IRA and TC) 175 ANCSA For-Profit Village Corporations City Governments Advisory School Committees Churches NATIVES CULTURAL DIVERSITY 1741-1867 ABORIGINAL TITLE 1867 - TREATY OF CESSION 1880 1884 - FIRST ORGANIC ACT ANCSA OUTLINE [th #1 fy i30,a00 Alaska -53% = Eskimos (Inupiaq, Central Yup'ik, Siberian Yup'ik, Other) -34% = Indians (Tlingit, Haida, Tsimpsian, Athabaskan) -13% = Aleuts Different biotic/climatic regions, ethnic groupings, languages Generations Movement and mixture The word “Native” Russian America Era of no government (17 years) “Civilized” and “Uncivilized” Natives U.S. bought sovereignty (governance), not land Customs District Disclaimer/postponement of land title question Southeast gold strike and large immigration Political demands for land and laws Beginning of political and economic dominance of the Federal government and Seattle Territory of Alaska Federal Governor (appointed) Rudimentary structure of government Marshall School funding Land laws for non-Natives - Oregon Disclaimer/postponement of land title question WHY NOT EARLIER? OIL 1968-71 CONGRESS SETTLEMENT 1991 AMENDMENTS Valid claim in law Transportation-communication infrastructure Leadership cadre (bilingual, educated, worldly) - BIA, high schools, military, colleges Statewide organization (AFN) Political lever January, 1968 — Prudhoe Bay State #1 Lease sales Tanker Manhattan — pipeline Congressional need to lift the cloud on title Land Freeze — Jackson, Aspinall, Hickel Committees, hearings, drafts in US House and Senate Native lobbying, representation, negotiations, unity Concentration on acres and dollars Nixon signed bill, December 18, 1971 Native pride Extinguishment of all aboriginal title and attached rights 44 million acres in fee title, mainly around villages $962.5 in compensation Mechanism = for-profit shareholder-owned corporations -13 Regions -213 Villages ;79 0+, abd 01 peryed Enrollment (BIA) — 80,287 Natives, as Of 12/31/81 100 shares of stock (restricted to 1991) D-2 = ANILCA (1980) Stock inalienability = perpetual, until super majority opens it Undeveloped lands protected from taxes, squatters, debts/business failures (but not condemnation) New Natives and elders 1884-1912 1912 - SECOND ORGANIC ACT FOUNDING OF ANB-ANS STATEHOOD MOVEMENT 1940-1945 WWII 1958-1959 STATEHOOD 1960’S Gradual immigration of non-Natives (boom-bust waves) Gradual federal land withdrawals for national purposes Natives grudgingly “move over” Largely segregated society — intermarriage Elected Territorial Legislature Still, appointed federal Governor Marshalls, judges Schools Full code of laws produced by federal and territorial acts Disclaimer/postponement of land title question First modern Native political movement Southeast and its fringes Presbyterian Church Native land rights Right to vote Public education Largely, though not entirely, non-Natives Resentments over federal and outside resource control Large immigration (military and civilians) Urbanization Natives = permanent political minority after 1945 Native military service Congressional Statehood Act Constitution State entitlement to select 103 million acres Disclaimer/postponement of land title question Making of the Land Claims movement - crowding Increasing pressures on Native lands and uses -steady immigration -federal lands and actions = laws, restrictions, incursions -state selections = laws, restrictions, incursions 1964 World’s Fair, NYC 1966 founding of Alaska Federation of Natives Filing of claims with Interior Department Orientation for New AEA Staff on Rural Alaska, the Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and Village Governmental Structures INTRODUCTION. a; Presenter will be George Irwin, formerly of AFN, who has over 35 years experience in working with rural Alaska, the Native community, and on ANCSA. His expertise will provide insight and a historical perspective on issues that could impact how government personnel could work more effectively with the Native people and cultures in Alaska. It is important to understand how rural communities evolved, particularly with the relationships of ANCSA Corporations, IRA and Traditional Councils, and City & Borough governments. Mr. Irwin is a former federal employee, a past trainer for RuralCap, former President of the Kuskokwim Community College in Bethel, senior staff member of the First Alaskans Institute, and long-time staff member of AFN. SCOPE OF WORK. Provide a presentation and materials for the purpose of making new employees of AIDEA/AEA aware of some of the history of rural Alaska, its people and cultures, and ANCSA. Key elements should include, but not limited to, the following: 1. History of Alaska (general overview). Identification of the Native people and cultures. Brief history on ANCSA. Land issues (i.e., ANICLA, boundaries, status, how they affect energy development). Types of governments and functions (i.e. IRA/Tribal/City/borough/home association). Regional Corporations. Approaches to economic development and its business impact. Other significant matters related to the above. ONANAWN The intent of the aforementioned elements is to help AIDEA/AEA new employees to further understand some of the issues that the residents, Natives, and businesses of rural Alaska have to deal with in sucha diverse environment. As projects from AEA are planned and developed in rural Alaska, the employees will have developed a working knowledge of some of the basic concepts they need to be aware of. Rural Orientation Presentation TOPIC: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) & Rural Issues Guest Speaker: George Irvin February 11, 2010 ii 2 ALASKA ene NATIVE A HERITAGE | ME CENTER The Alaska Native Heritage Center’s Cultural Advisory Committees, which was established by the Cultural Steering Committee, identified the concept of cultural symbols for use as “cons” on the signs and labels used at the Heritage Center. Each cultural advisory committee carefully considered a symbol that any member of theit group would identify. They reviewed their choices with attendees of the 1996 AFN Convention before making a final decision. SEsz Wy 22 = Athabascan Cultural Symbol The Chiefs Necklace, made of dentallion shells and beads, is a symbol of power, pride and protection. This symbol was chosen by the committee as a symbol that will raise awareness of the great chiefs throughout the vast Athabascan region. © The “Ellanguaq”, the symbol of “awateness”, a design used on many objects such as dance fans, hunting tools and handles. The “Ellanguaq” or “eye of awareness” was chosen by the committee as a symbol that all Yup’ik/Cup’ik people would recognize and appreciate. The Ellanguaq also helps educate others about the depth and richness of the symbolic universe of the cultural group. Yup’ik/Cup’ik Cultural Symbol 8 \ Tnupiag/St. Lawrence Island Cultural Symbol The Inupiaq/St. Lawrence Island Yupik committee chose the Drum, Soyaq/quilan Saguyaq as their symbol. Members of the committee all agreed, “The first thing we do when we get together is to sing...the drum brings us all together.” The drum is used at all gatherings and ceremonies. In some Inupiaq dialects the word for “skin” for the drum also means “future eye” relating to the eye of awareness. Culture symbols continued... ¥ em ERE Aleut/Alutiiq Cultural Symbol This symbol, a “Hunter in a Kayak” represents the relationship with the ocean and its resources. The committee chose the hunter in a kayak, qayaq/ikyak as their symbol. Distinctive features of the Aleut/Alutiiq cultures are split bows on the baidarka and the sea lion whiskers on the hunting visors. The split bow is an advanced design feature that aided hunting in the turbulent waters of the region. So ab Eyak/Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian Cultural Symbol A Potlatch Copper was chose as the symbol for this group of cultures. In the past, for certain occasions, a chief would commission the making of a copper to give away ata potlatch; the copper would either be given away whole or in pieces depending upon the event. This symbol was also chosen because the metal copper was a valued trading item of these cultures. The Eyak/Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian committee members selected the ovoid design on the copper as a way to include all members of the culture groups. Eee Greetings in all our cultural roups “Chin’anguninyu” Thank you, that you came here “Waqaa” Greetings “Paglagivsigin” We welcome you “Quyakamsitagilghilsi” We welcome you “Aang” Welcome “Camai, Quyanaasinaq Teluci” Hello, Thank you very much for’being here. “A wa’ ahdahaada’laxsa’a’ chi” Thank you for coming here “Yak’ eihattyigoode’e” It’s good that you have come “Tatsgwiik” Welcome, here is the place of honor for you “Ts’im’ wii’amhaw” Greeting Dena’ina, Athabascan Yupik & Cup’ik Inupiaq Siberian Yup’ik/ St. Lawrence Is. Unangan (Aleut) Sugpiaq (Alutiiq) Eyak Tlingit Haida Tsimshian ALASKA NATIVE VALUES ALASKA RURAL SYSTEMATIC INITIATIVE ALASKA RURAL CHALLENGE ALASKA NATIVE KNOWLEDGE NETWORK * 7 SPONSORED BY: ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES CENTER FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ALASKA NATIVE CULTURES all hold certain values to be paramount to their cultures. This website displays some of the similarities and individualities of various Alaska Native groups and their values. Below is a list of some important values all Alaska Native Cultures share, and at the bottom of the page are links to individual culture pages. Show Respect to Others - Each Person Has a Special gift Share what you have - Giving Makes ‘You Richer Know Who You Are - You Are a Reflection on Your Family Accept What Life Brings - You Cannot Control Many Things Have Patience - Some Things Cannot Be Rushed Live Carefully - What You Do Will Come Back to You Take Care of Others - You Cannot Live without Them Honor Your Elders - They Show You the Way in Life Pray for Guidance - Many Things Are Not Known See Connections - All Things Are Related mOKONDA UAWNS Ss Traditional Continuing Eductier Monotheistic : coincides with Judeo- tian concept, offers positive stret ‘or | families in cultural transition ANB/ANS Adapted: Physically 7 Programs High school & college Support Programs on 7 Children History Genealogy Health Sharing Language Legends Taboos Etiquette Humor Songs Dances Ceremonies Art Camping Tlingit Nation Spirituality Sub Emblems Raven - Eagle Tribes . Respect Eagle » Raven Clan Self Family - Role Models Foods & Preparation Others 5 Uncles * Grandparents n Environmental Management Property < Loyalty c Fishing Natural World i> Healing Hunting S . Trapping Belonging @ ; Security rm Clothing Governance Positive Attitud Safety ositive Aitude Care of Various Equipment Self-Esteem Geography Matriarchal Society Weather, Tides Craft Materials Family Values Other Council Debts Traditional Law Land -- Mountains, Rivers, Bays, Home & eo Camp Sites Responsibility Clan House/Crest Ez Regalia ati Maternal Uncle Taught Boys Mother Taught Girls Songs Orphans bbasil patil Tradition Bearers Organizations Other Sick Traditional Subjects -- Handicapped | Grade & High School Custodians Elders: Orators Church | Other cotocol au ; Tlingit Circle Of Life © me Scholarship Ga Sheu _ Subjects chosen by parents Dr. Walter A. Soboleff, Kaajaakwtf 7 re cz “ & students, taught by oaiig a. Culture camps Natives-as requirements PO Box 535, Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 ait Other . 4 Computers for graduation NATIVE VALUES By: Dr. Walter Soboiefi ¥ 1) Be obedient; the wise never test a rule. 2) Respect elder, parents, property and the world of nature. Also, respect yourself so that others may respect you. 3) Be considerate and patient. 4) Be careful of how you speak, for words can be either pleasing or like a club. Traditionally, when you speak, those listening can imagine seeing your clan family line. 5) Your food comes from the land and sea. To abuse either may diminish its generosity. Use what is needed. 6) Pride in family, clan and traditions is found in love, loyalty and generosity. 7) Share burdens and support each other. This is caring. 8) Trespass not onto other’s rights, or offer royalty and/or restitution. 9) Parents and relatives are responsible for the family education of children; men teaching boys and women teaching girls. 10)Care and good health is important for success of the person or clan. 11) Take not the property of others; an error reflects on the family and clan. 12)In peace, living is better. 13)Through famine, ice age, sickness, war and other obstacles, unity and self-determination is essential to survival. 14)Good conduct is encouraged to please the spirit we believe is near. 15)Humor. Adopted by Healthy Nations Program Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska 1998 section II7- Alasla Native Regional "4 ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT (ANCSA) The Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971 In the final version of the Settlement Act, Native claims to almost all of Alaska were extinguished in exchange for approximately one-ninth of the state’s land plus $962.5 million in compensation. Of the latter, $462.5 million was to come from the federal treasury and the rest from oil revenue-sharing. Settlement benefits would accrue to those with at least one-fourth native ancestry. Of the approximately 80,000 Natives enrolled under ANCSA, those living in villages [approximately 2/3rds of the total] would receive 100 shares in both a village and a regional corporation. The remaining 1/34 would be “at large” shareholders with 100 shares in a regional corporation plus additional rights to revenue from regional mineral and timber resources. The Alaska Native Allotment Act was revoked and as yet unborn Native children were excluded. The twelve regional corporations within the state would administer the settlement. A thirteenth corporation composed of Natives who had left the state would receive monies but not land. Along with cash compensation, these corporations could also earn income from their investments. However, the drafting of the bill did not clarify whether the corporations were expected to redistribute the proceeds from their investment income to their shareholders or whether they could keep them for further investment. A “shared wealth” provision of the Act [Section 7(i)], stipulated that 70 percent of income received by regional corporations from their resources were to be shared annually with the other corporations. To protect the land from estrangement, no Native corporate shares could be sold to non-Natives for 20 years — until 1991 — at which time all special restrictions would be removed. Then, non-Natives would be eligible to become shareholders, lands would be liable for taxation by the state, and the regionals would be open to the possibility of hostile takeovers. Under the supervisions of the regionals, village level corporations would also select lands and administer local monies received under the settlement act. Although village corporations could choose to be non-profit entities if they so wished, all selected the profit-making category. With the President’s signature on the settlement act, the relationship between the Native peoples of Alaska and the land was completely transformed. No longer was ownership directly linked to Native government. Instead, by conveying land title to the 12 regional corporations and 200 local village ones chartered under the laws of the state of Alaska, all ties to traditional or IRA “tribal” governments were bypassed. With the President’s signature, Native Alaskans whose earlier use and occupancy had made them co-owners of shared land, now became shareholders in corporate-owned land. To what extent did this legislation reflect the hopes and aspirations of Alaska’s Native population? At the time of passage, most Native people were unaware of the complexities of the bill, but looked forward to having their own land and additional monies that could be used to improve their low standard of living. Alaska Federation of Native leaders were enthusiastic at the large settlement, feeling they had achieved a considerable accomplishment under highly adverse conditions. The limitations in the bill stemmed primarily from pressures placed on them by the government and petroleum industry forcing them to make compromises not of their choosing. They also saw the corporate solution both as a way to remove themselves from the bureaucratic yoke of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and as a new tool in the struggle to maintain their culture. Not all, however, took an optimistic view. Critics feared that eventually the regionals could become conduits for larger multi-national corporations, enabling the latter to take over valuable lands and resources currently held in Native hands. Loss of this land would then be followed by destruction of Native culture and the rise of new class divisions mirroring those of the larger society. By this means, the government’s long term goal of assimilating Alaska’s Native population into the larger mainstream would finally be achieved. As summed up by Fred Bigjim, an Inupiat educator from Nome who had once been a close aide of Eben Hopson, “What is happening to Native people in Alaska is no a new story; it is a new chapter in an old story.” : Still, whether one supported the bill or opposed it, all agreed that the implications of the land claims settlement for Alaska’s Natives were profound. Given the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, even more pronounced changes were to occur on the North Slope. Due to unique development strategy — one which combined elements of both adaptation and resistance to the steadily mounting pressures impinging on them form what they formerly referred to as the world “outside.” http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ArcticCircle/SEEJ/Landclaims/ancsa6.html 1961 1961 1962 1963 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Selected Dates in the Campaign for the Alaska Native Claims : Settlement Act, 1961-1971 State land selections threaten continued use of lands in Minto area. Inupiat Paitot meets to discuss protections of aboriginal rights. “Tundra Times” is established. Proposed Rampart Dam protested by Stevens Village and other Yukon River villages. : Alaska Task Force calls upon Congress to define Native land rights. Statewide conference leads to organization of Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). Interior Secretary Stewart Udall imposes a “land freeze” to protect Native use and occupancy. First bills introduced in Congress to settle Native land claims. Native protests and claims to land reach 380 million acres. Alaska Land Claims Task Force, established by Governor Hickel, recommends 40 million-acre land settlement. Governmental study effort (Alaska Natives and the Land) asserts Native land claims to be valid. North Slope oil lease auction produces $900 million for the State of Alaska. A land claims bill is passed by the Senate, but Natives are disappointed in its land provisions. Bills pass both houses of Congress, but differences in them require conference committee: its compromise version passes both houses. Following acceptance by the AFN convention, President Nixon signs the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (P.L. 92-203) on December 18. Taken from Robert Arnold, 1978, Alaska Native Land Claims, p.97 10 11 Summary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (PL 92-203, 1971) Policy > Aboriginal title, including aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, extinguished. > Alaska Native eligibility for federal programs for Natives not terminated. > No permanently restricted organizations created (Native ownership of land and corporations protected through 1991) Land (43.7 million acres, 12% of state) > 22 million acres village corporations based on population size, surface ownership in the village, subsurface to the Regional Corporation. > 16 million acres to 6 regional corporations based on the “lands lost” formula. > 3.7 million acres to 7 villages on revoked reserves. > 2million acres to special purposes including historic sites and cemeteries. Compensation Funds ($962.5 million total) > $500 million from Alaska, based on mineral royalties. > $462.5 million from Federal government over an 11 yr. schedule. Corporations Regional Corporations (12 in Alaska, plus 13™ Outside) Incorporated as profit making corporations in Alaska. Shareholders are Alaska Natives, living in 1971, enrolled in associated villages, plus “at large” shareholders not enrolled in a village. Each shareholder issued 100 shares of stock. Stock restricted from sale or transfer until 1991. Manage subsurface estate of associated village corporation lands, other regional corporation lands, and compensation funds. May develop resources, but must share 70% of resource revenues with other regions on per capita basis (Sec 7i revenue sharing). Village Corporations (224 originally, now at 172 due to mergers) Vv VVV VV > Incorporated as profit making corporations under Alaska law (though had choice of non-profit status). Shareholders are Alaska Native enrolled in the village. Each shareholder issued 100 shares of stock. Stock is restricted from sale or transfer until 1991. Corporations manage their surface lands and compensation funds. Village corporations must re-convey lands to individuals and non-profit associations who occupied sites in 1971, and also to municipalities for future growth. Other Provisions > Alaska Land Use Planning Council established to promote cooperative land management among Federal, State and Alaska Native land owners. > 80 million acres of public land set aside for study for possible inclusion in the Federal conservation units. VVVVV Interpretations of ANCSA Rejected Allotments, Reservations and the Indian Claims Commission as models of settlement. Although the result of unprecedented Alaska Native involvement and influence, there was no village level ratification vote, and many regions had only a vague understanding of the lobbying effort and the legislative provisions. Adopted an ambitious, but untried, market economy oriented approach to economic development for Alaska Natives. Land and resources are in fee simple title. The corporate structure permits and promotes resource development. The initial assets of the corporations in land and funds were thought sufficient to materially improve socio-economic standards of Alaska Native people. VVV Attempted to link and balance regional differences. > The lands lost and population formulas for land distribution balanced the circumstances of the regions. > Resource revenue sharing provisions in Section 7(i) link the economic fortunes of resource rich and resource poor regions together. Only indirectly addressed subsistence needs by vesting surface title in village corporations on the assumption that villages would protect subsistence uses. 12 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) By A.J: McClanahan CIRI Historian In 1971 the push for oil development, the state’s desire to get the land promised to it under the Statehood Act and the Alaska Native’s efforts to save their land paid off with what would become the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, known as ANCSA. For four long years spirited debate had focused on just how much land and cash the Alaska Natives would be granted for the settlement of their claims. The final bill that emerged promised 44 million acres and $1 billion in cash. People There were nearly 80,000 Alaska Natives alive on December 18, 1971, who could participate in ANCSA. Most of those affected by the act were in Alaska, but about 20,000 people lived in the Lower 48 and even other parts of the world. “Native” was defined as a citizen of the United States with one-fourth degree or more Indian, Aleut or Eskimo ancestry, born on or before December 18, 1971, including Natives who had been adopted by one or more non-Native parents. Amendments were passed later to allow Native corporations to issue stock to those born after December 18, 1971. In general, this has been done through the creation of a new type of stock, known as “life estate stock”. This stock is valid only during the shareholder’s lifetime and cannot be passed on. Only a few corporations have extended stock ownership to those born after 1971. Structure The corporate structure of ANCSA was a departure for Congress. Former Cook Inlet Region, Inc., President Roy Huhndorf has described ANCSA as an extraordinary national experiment in federal relations with Native Americans. He points to the fact that corporations, not reservations, were organized to administer the proceeds from the historical land claims settlement for Alaska Natives. Alfred Ketzler, who was President of the Tanana Chiefs Conference when ANCSA was under consideration in Congress, discussed the corporations in a letter to the editor of the New Republic: “Native leaders in Alaska have given great attention to the structure of the settlement, the means of administering the land and money. Indeed the concept of the development corporation is ours, though we would divide the land and money among three levels of business corporations, local, regional and statewide, in keeping with the pluralism of American society and economy.” Thirteen regional corporations, including 12 in Alaska and one that was created later to represent Alaska Natives living outside the state, were created. Alaska Natives who were enrolled were made shareholders when they received 100 shares of stock. The size of the regional corporations ranged from Ahtna, Inc., with about 1,000 shareholders, to Sealaska Corporation, with about 16,000 shareholders. Others included; The Aleut Corporation; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Bering Straits Native Corporation; Bristol Bay Native Corporation; Calista Corporation; Chugach Alaska Corporation; Cook Inlet Region, Inc.; Doyon Ltd.; Koniag, Inc.; NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.; and the Thirteenth Regional Corporation. 13 Thirteen Regional Corporations created under ANCSA Twelve regions 3 in the state Bering “Sta of Alaska sé Approximately 220 village corporations were created under ANCSA, and villages were given a choice as to whether they wanted to incorporate as profit or nonprofit entities. None chose to be nonprofit. The reason for this is that the corporations were founded under state law, which didn’t allow nonprofits to pay distributions to members. A profit corporation, however, was authorized to pay dividends to shareholders from profits. Alaska Natives who enrolled to their village received 100 shares of village corporation stock. Those who elected not to enroll in a village corporation, but enrolled in a regional corporation were called “at large” shareholders. There was a lot of confusion over enrollment, but generally speaking, Alaska Natives were allowed to enroll to the region and village where they grew up and which they considered home or to the region where they were living at the time the act was passed. Because Cook Inlet Region, Inc., was based in Alaska’s largest city, CIRI became a “melting pot” for all Alaska Native groups. Many Alaska Natives from other parts of Alaska who moved to Anchorage signed up for CIRI. The size of villages ranged from 25 people to about 2,000. The larger village corporations, each of which included about 2,000 people, were Barrow, Nome, Bethel - and Kotzebue. | Amendments passed in 1976, authorized village corporations to merge with each other or with the regional corporation. Some villages have merged and created new corporations, such as the Kuskokwim Corporation in the Calista Region, MTNT and K’oytl’ots’ina Limited in the Doyon Region; the Alaska Peninsula Corporation in the Bristol Bay Region; and Afognak Native Corporation and Akhiok-Kaguyak Incorporated in the Koniag Region. All the villages except Chitina in the Ahtna Region merged whith Ahtna; and all the villages in the NANA Region except Kotzebue merged with NANA. At least two villages distributed their assets to the village tribal government, and that was done by Venetie and Arctic Village. The structure has become the source of heated debate for many years. Money The amount of money distributed through ANCSA was $962 million, which was essentially determined on a per capita basis. It came from both the State of Alaska and 14 the Federal Government over a period of about 11 years. The long timeframe for distribution greatly diminished its value due to inflation. In the first five years, 10 percent of the money distributed went to individuals who were “at-large” shareholders with the other 90 percent being split 50-50 between the regions and the villages on a per capita basis. After that, the money was distributed 50-50 with half going to the regional corporations and half going to the village corporations on a per capita basis. A provision of ANCSA, Section 7(i), requires that regional corporations share 70 percent of their resource revenues among the corporations. This section is an extremely unusual aspect of ANCSA and it took the corporations about 10 years to hammer out an agreement that spelled out exactly how this would be undertaken. The concept was sound — find a way to make sure that resource rich corporations shared with those who were resource-poor simply by accident of location. But one lawyers and accountants got involved in the implementation, it nearly broke the bonds holding Native groups together. Only after the Native leadership took control of the issue themselves, was it resolved in a harmonious manner. Land The land conveyed under ANCSA was 44 million acres, which was a little more than 10 percent of the entire state. It sounds like a tremendous amount of land, especially when compared to treaties the United States made earlier with American Indians. When viewed as what was granted to the people who had a valid claim to the entire state, however, the settlement seems relatively small. Of the 44 million acres, 22 million acres of surface estate went to village corporations on a formula based on population — not per capita. This land was generally located around the village itself and consisted of prime subsistence areas. The subsurface estate of this land went to the regional corporations. Sixteen million acres went to the regional corporations, and that included both the surface and the subsurface estate; and two million acres was conveyed for specific situations, such as cemeteries, historical sites, and villages with fewer than 25 people. Another four million acres went to former reserves where the villages took land instead of land and money. These former reserves were granted land entitlements ranging from 700,000 to 2 million acres. They included Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island, Elim, Tetlin, and Venetie and Arctic Village. Klukwan originally opted for this provision, but leaders there later changed their minds. Not affected by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was Metlakatla on Annette Island in Southeast Alaska. Metlakatla was a reservation before ANCSA, and remained one afterwards. A final note: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is a very complex document that has inspired people over the last three decades to write thousands of pages about it. The act has been praised, and it has been roundly criticized. But what’s really important to keep in mind when discussing ANCSA is that it is a document that was developed for a group of human beings who had a very real claim to their ancestral home in Alaska. Their connection to the land is a spiritual one that transcends complex regulatory schemes. And yet for many, their tie to the land today is a law passed by Congress on December 18, 1971. What ANCSA Did > Compensation for the extinguishment of aboriginal Native claims. > Created 12 regional corporations, 203 village corporations and 4 urban corporations. > Transferred 44 million acres of land in fee simple title to Alaska Natives. What did ANCSA do? As the title implies, this was a land settlement act. Alaska Natives were compensated for land previously lost and for those to which Indian title was being extinguished by the Act, in the amount of $962.5 million. ANCSA created new Native-owned and controlled entities to administer the land and the compensation funds. These entities are for-profit, state-chartered regional and village ANCSA corporations and are separate and distinct from Alaska Native tribal governments. ANCSA provided for the transfer of fee simple title to 44 million acres of land to these regional and village corporations. 16 17 What ANCSA Did Not Do ANCSA did not enhance or diminish the sovereignty of tribes in Alaska. ANCSA did not create reservations. Tribes were not given title to the land. ANCSA was not silent on the issue of subsistence. Although ANCSA established regional and village for-profit corporations, it did not “dis-establish” Alaska Native governments, or tribes, nor diminish the powers of tribes in Alaska. The 44 million acres to which fee simple title had been granted to Alaska Natives is not held in trust by the Federal government—no reservations were created by ANCSA. Although only tribes may assert aboriginal title, and ANCSA settled land claims based on aboriginal title, the tribes were not given title to the land. Although ANCSA extinguished aboriginally-based Native hunting and fishing rights, it did not close the door on federal protection of these rights. The Conference Committee on the final ANCSA legislation stated that it “expects both the Secretary | and the State to take any action necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Natives,” which led to Title VIII of ANILCA. The following are public statements provided at hearings held in Fairbanks and Anchorage the 17" and 18" of October 1969 prior to the passage of ANCSA. They provide the reader with some of the issues and concerns discussed prior to the passage of ANCSA. Statement of William A. Oquilluk, Sr. (written) My name is William Oquilluk. I was born in Point Hope, Alaska, in 1896. I was from Marys Igloo, but have recently moved to Nome for reasons of health. I am grateful to be here at this hearing before your committee. I would like to thank Mr. Jerome Trge, President of the Arctic Native Brotherhood. Our ancestors have been in this land for many, many years. For many, many generations before the coming of the white man, the Eskimo was born in Alaska, so we have always been citizens of Alaska, and now we are happy to be citizens of the United States. My people were members of the Kowaruk nation of Eskimos. A very long time ago, there were often wars in our area caused by raids from the south Norton Sound Indians and raids by the Siberian Eskimo. But also a long time ago, our ancestors established a rule, and the Seward Peninsula was divided into sections of tribal hunting grounds. Groups could hunt in another group’s area, but first they had to get permission from the group who had the right to hunt in that place. In this way, harmony existed until the white man came into the Seward Peninsula. Caribou would sometimes stray to another range, leaving no caribou in one groups’ area. But after the meeting of all the Eskimos, any time anyone wanted some caribou meat he only had to ask if he could kill a caribou on their range. Whoever came and asked permission was allowed to kill whatever he needed, and the people were glad to help him. But those people who hunted in another groups’ area without permission were rule-breakers and outlaws. For many centuries, our ancestors also had a rule about fishing sites. Generation and generation of Eskimos would put his nets at the same place just as his ancestors did. Today, many generations still have the same fishing sites as their ancestors. This is the same way for other villages, too. They all have their own fishing sites in the summer months. Villages have their squirrel-hunting grounds as well as caribou hunting areas. Each village would have a special place to go for their caribou fawn in the spring. I wanted to tell all this to you to show you that the Eskimos had their own rules and their own government long before the white people came to Alaska. Between 1891 and 1902, Dr. Sheldon Jackson, the first superintendent of education in Alaska, with funds from private individuals and from Congress, established reindeer herds in the coastal areas from the Seward Peninsula to Kodiak. Captain M. A. Healey suggested the idea of reindeer herds to Dr. Jackson. The captain and Dr. Jackson, together with Walter C. Shield, brought the reindeer to the Eskimo and taught him how to herd them. Up to this day, people still have reindeer meat because of their good work. The Eskimos remember these three men and hope to work with some more men like them. We Eskimos and our white brothers must work together to help each other. Now, our white brothers are giving us a chance to claim our own fatherland. This is a chance to start a new life for our younger generation. 18 Today, too many young people are going away from their homeland, even though they would like to come back if there were anything here for them. If only the government will give us what we want from our native land, our young people would have something to hope for and would have reason to come back home again. Alaska has everything they want and need. If only we can make the land useful to them. With the money and land, our people can make a new start. They can live off the land like their ancestors did, but they also can start their own businesses. The Eskimo could find a good market for reindeer meat all over. Also, there will be fish for markets both in winter and summer. We must look into the future before it is too late. There are so many things that can be done, especially in education, to give the Native new hope. We don’t want to have to come to the white people on our hands and knees any more. But if we have our land again to work and build with, our younger generation will have a chance to stand up for us. Statement of Alfred Ketzler, President, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Nenana, Alaska (written) My name is Alfred Ketzler. I was born and raised in Nenana, Alaska. I am president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference. First, I would like to tell about the Tanana Chiefs Conference. The Conference was organized in 1962, shortly after statehood and long before the discovery of oil. A number of people in Fairbanks and Nenana got together and discussed the sure and gradual loss of the Native land around the homes of people present at the meeting. We asked ourselves: Was this the same all over Alaska? We had no way of knowing. We then decided to call a meeting of villages at Nenana. The Nenana Native Council had dog races and a potlatch scheduled for early March. At this meeting, we found the land problems to be similar in all the villages. It was decided that we would hold a meeting at Tanana and we would invite all villages to attend. At Tanana, where the Tanana and Yukon Rivers meet, Athabascan Indian chiefs traditionally met. The Nuchulayya, meaning both the location and the meeting, was the seat of government for all the Interior Athabascan tribes. We decided to revive the meetings and called the Tanana conference for late June of 1962. Thirty villages responded to our invitation. At that time, I stated that main motive for the meeting was the land problems. Other topics under discussion included hunting, trapping, and fishing rights, as well as educational needs. ' Each village attending the meeting was represented by the village chief or a representative appointed by him. A name Dena Nena Henash, was selected. The Interior Athabascan Indians were once again joined into one central organization. The name of the organization has since been anglicized, now being called the Tanana Chiefs Conference. When the Conference was formed, there was yet no statewide organization which would represent all the Alaska Native Peoples. 19 Four years passed by. Other regional associations were formed. As greater challenges were made to Native owned lands and subsistence rights held by Natives, the need also grew for a statewide organization. This need was fulfilled with the organization of the Alaska Federation of Natives in 1966, with which we are affiliated and through which we seek a settlement of our Native land claim. The Tanana Chiefs Conference supports legislation proposed and authored by the AEN and their counsel. We support all proposals included in the A.F.N. legislation: $500 million as compensation for lands lost prior to the enactment of the bill, 40 million acres in fee title, and retention of a two percent overriding royalty, and the creation of Native owned land and Native operated development corporations as specified in the A.F.N. legislation. Although we support the proposals, we believe that our claims do not ask for the full measure of what we deserve. When Alaska Natives first began to push the claims, we thought that the figure of 80 million acres was not enough land to support our people. Should we have asked for as much land as each village historically used and occupied, the figure would have vastly exceeded 80 millions of acres. When we began to discuss the 80 million acre figure, representatives of the Interior Department and the State of Alaska said that such a claim would be unacceptable; we compromised at 40 millions of acres. The attachment of the Native people to the land is so great that they would reject any of their leaders who attempted to compromise further. Native people have been told that we do not have a title, a piece of paper which asserts our ownership to our lands. We believe our ownership and our ties to our land far exceeds any deed: We never did need any document to tell us the land is ours. This we have always known. It is true that we have fished, and hunted, and harvested our livelihoods from the land, as did countless generations of our people before us. This, with our instinctive feeling of ownership, tells us that we may retain a share of the benefits from our land. It is our belief; also, that we should receive a fair land settlement, so that what we receive will be equal to the true value of the land with respect to future development. In this way, we hope to insure a permanent settlement. This is also why we ask for the two per-cent overriding royalty. Our ancestors maintained a share in the land; we now claim a share to the land; we want our children and their children after them to retain a share in the land. This we feel can be done if we receive a 2 per cent overriding royalty. Should you render justice to the Alaska Native, in granting us the full amount of money, the full amount of land, and the overriding royalty, you must also allow us self- determination in managing our settlement. We present our case to the Congress of the United States so that we might avoid the legal entanglements involved in going before the courts. To further avoid entanglements and the complications of federal bureaucracies, the administrative pattern of the settlement must by developed by Natives. The major property interests must be held by Natives, and not by state or federal agencies. Those who are the owners must have the greatest say. The royalty benefits must by spread widely, but with full regard to private property concepts. 20 The legislations which we have authored and proposed through the AFN is designed to utilize modern corporate forms, so that we will be able to compete along with anybody else in a capitalistic society. Among the most important aspects of our bill are the safeguards which are therein provided. The Alaska Native Commission is such an example. You have heard others than myself who have told you of how or people used and occupied more land than that which we request. I hope that you can now understand, that even by the most conservative estimates, we request only from five to ten percent of the true worth of our claim. Please five the matter of our claim the most serious consideration. It is the final opportunity for justice — both for the Nation and for our people. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this statement. Source for William A. Oquilluk and Alfred Ketzler’s statements: Alaska Native Land Claims Part I, “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-first Congress First Session on H.R. 13142, HLR. 10193, and H.R. 14212, Bills to Provide for the Settlement of Certain Land Claims of Alaska Natives, and for Other Purposes. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Alaska Federation of Natives nd (1988) 1991: Making it Work: A Guide to PL 100-241, 1987 Amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Anchorage: AFN An easily understood overview of the 1991 Amendments. Arnold, Robert 1978 Alaska Native Land Claims. Anchorage: Alaska Native Foundation. An extensive history of Indian policy, Alaska Native claims through the territorial period, the campaign for ANCSA and the provisions of the Act. Bigjim, Fred and James Ito-Alder 1974 Letters to Howard. Anchorage: Alaska Methodist University Press. A classic early criticism of ANCSA, emphasizing the uncertainty and cultural mismatch of the corporate model. Framed as letters to Howard Rock, editor of the Tundra Times. Berger, Thomas 1985 Village Journey. The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York: Hill and Wang. Sensitively rendered account of village testimony regarding the consequence of ANCSA including recommendations to legislative amendments. Burch, Ernest, Jr. 1979 “Native Claims in Alaska: An Overview.” Inuit Studies 3: 1: 7-30 Brief outline of the ANCSA, including an account of early implementation problems. 21 Colt, Steve 1991 Financial Performance of Native Regional Corporations. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Vol XXVIII, No. 2. Anchorage: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, Anch. Comprehensive, technical analysis of financial accomplishments of the ANCSA regional corporations. Thoughtful comparisons. Langdon, Steve and Gary Anders 1989 “Alaska Native Regional Strategies.” Human Organization 48: 2: 162- 171. Critical account of ways in which ANCSA corporations have undertaken larger responsibilities on behalf of Alaska Native people in their region in areas including subsistence, cultural renewal and local economic development planning. Morehouse, Thomas 1987 “Sovereignty, tribal governments, and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments of 1987.” Polar Record 25: 154 197-206. Insightful, interpretive account of the campaign to amend ANCSA before 1991, emphasizing the aspirations for stronger tribal jurisdiction. U.S. Department of the Interior 1985 ANCSA 1985 Study. June 29, 1984 DRAFT. Washington D.C.: Department of the Interior. Comprehensive study of the status of ANCSA implementation and corporation accomplishments through 1984. Detailed accounts of obstacles to timely implementation of the Act, thorough account of the financial status of regional corporations, and insightful overview of socio- economic changes resulting from ANCSA. 22 ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT (ANILCA) 24 Summary of Subsistence Protections in ANILCA (PL 96-487, 1980) . Policy > Congress acting under its authority over Native affairs, but employed a non-ethnic priority to avoid obstacles to state implementation. > Encouraged unified management of subsistence harvests by the State of Alaska, subject to Federal conditions. > If Alaska fails to comply with conditions, subsistence harvests are to be managed by the Federal government on the federal public lands. . Definition of Subsistence Uses > “.,..customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild renewable resources....” > Eligibility for subsistence uses inside the National Park units in Alaska governed by residence zones. . Priority for Subsistence Uses > When all uses cannot be accommodated “...subsistence uses shall be accorded priority over taking on such lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.” (Tier 1) > When not all subsistence uses can be accommodated, further restrictions based on: 1)customary and direct dependence; 2)local residency; 3)availability of alternative resources. (Tier 2) . Participation in Decision-making > Widespread system of local Fish and Game Advisory Committees. > Six Regional Fish and Game Advisory Council, whose recommendations must be accorded deference. These can be rejected only if not supported by evidence, violative of recognized principles of wildlife management, or adverse to subsistence uses. » Subsistence Resource Conunissions formulate management plans for National Park Units in Alaska. - Analysis of Federal Land Use Impacts > Specific analysis of impacts required for all Federal land use decisions. > Public hearings and series of findings required if significant restrictions on subsistence predicted. . Federal oversight > Regular reports to Congress. > Special recourse to Federal courts for aggrieved subsistence users. 1. Interpretations of ANILCA Title VIII The early implementation period was highly contested. While the state created a program which complied with Federal standards, there was much objection within key branches of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Advisory process was frustrated by delays and lack of funding. There was frequent redress in the Courts, and an unsuccessful citizen initiative to repeal the State’s subsistence law ‘in 1982. The system was generally unwieldy to administer, with many highly specific eligibility decisions required. The Boards of Fisheries and Game were reluctant to diverge abruptly from standing regulatory seasons and bag limits. Many villages saw little new subsistence harvest opportunity or security from the law. From 1982-1990, there were more sympathetic state administrations. The subsistence research program gained stature and experience. Regulatory decisions were still frequently challenged in court, resulting in many key reversals and a revision of the state law in 1986. In late 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court found unconstitutional the rural subsistence priority. As a result, the state was out of compliance and the Federal government established a separate subsistence management program for the 605 of Alaska made up of Federal Public land. Divided management has added to confusion and controversy. 25 26 Events leading to the 1991 Amendments Issues > Fear of business failure and loss of land to tax liability or bad debts. > Fear of losing control of corporations through sale of stock after 1991. > Frustration with status of young Alaska Native born after 1971, who generally did not own stock or participate in the corporations. The Alaska Native Review Commission and the Alaska Native Coalition Sponsored by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, noted Canadian jurist Thomas Berger conducted hearings throughout Alaska in 1983 and 1984 evaluating the outcomes of ANCSA and options for the future. The Commissions Report chronicles a high level of frustration, particularly over the complexity, delays and insecurity of the corporations. The report also records a great frustration over the insecurity of subsistence hunting rights, despite ANILCA Title VIII. Justice Berger recommended. > Transfer of village corporation lands to tribes, to be held under the protection of restricted title, > Continued management of compensation funds by the corporations, with business ventures separated from risk to the land, > Greatly strengthened Tribal Governments with jurisdiction over village affairs, land and subsistence hunting and fishing on tribal lands. The Alaska Native Coalition emerged in the mid 1980’s as the principal organization advocating and lobbying for legislation incorporating the “re- tribalization” option. The Alaska Federation of Natives . AFN held retreats and special conventions through the 1980’s to forge a working consensus among the diverse and now fragmented interests of the regional corporations and villages. The result was a “menu” approach in which individual corporations could vote on the degree of restriction retained on their stock and land. AFN originally supported the re-tribalization option, but met with sharp opposition from the Alaska Delegation in Congress. Reluctantly, AFN compromised on the “re-tribalization” item in order to gain the central protections before the 1991 deadline. Several village organizations withdrew from AFN as a result. Summary of the 1991 Amendments (PL 100-241, 1987) Automatic protection for undeveloped corporation land. > Tax exemption. > Protection from adverse possession. > Protection from seizure for debt, loss through bankruptcy, or involuntary dissolution of corporation. Automatic extension of restrictions on sale of ANCSA stock, with provisions for removal by a vote of the shareholders. 1) Opt-out Approach > Requires a simple majority of total voting shares. > Shareholders may vote to observe dissenters’ rights. 2) Opt-in Approach > Available to regional corporations, and to village corporations in Bristol Bay and Aleut regions. > Board of Directors required to pass “Opt-in resolution” before 2/89. > “Shareholder vote then scheduled to determine whether restrictions extended. > Dissenters rights mandatory. 3) Re-capitalization > Acomplex form of restructuring corporation to maintain restrictions, among other goals. Provided for optional issuance of new shares of Settlement Common Stock based on shareholder vote: '> To Natives born after 1971, who missed enrollment, or who are aged 65 or older. Requires vote of a simple majority of outstanding shares, though higher standard can be applied. Not to exceed 100 shares per individual. Can be issued with or without charge. Also provides for “other” and preferred stock issuance. VVV WV Land transfer options. > Settlement Trust: assets including surface lands and timber can be transferred to trust, under conditions set by original corporation, includes option of trust “in perpetuity”. >» Assets may not be used for operation as business. 27 28 The Milestones of the Land Claims Movement By 1991, ANCSA has been profoundly changed. > Land and assets still held by corporations, but generally in a restricted or protected status. Alaska Native control of the corporations is essentially insured into the future. There is far greater realism about the role of the ANCSA corporations. > While the assets face fewer risks after 1991, the performance of the regional corporations is highly variable and most village corporations have not done well financially. On the whole the corporations are modest employers of shareholders and, with important exceptions, pay modest financial dividends. The corporations have not been the motors of economic prosperity some anticipated. Alaska Natives have invested great effort to obtain more specific protection of subsistence opportunities. > People quickly realized that specific legal recognition of a subsistence priority was needed to offset new levels of competition and potential impacts from resource development. Events since 1990 have underscored the wisdom of insisting on a backup role for the Federal government in protecting Alaska Native subsistence harvests. While divided management poses many practical problems, state policy has retreated sharply form the Federal standards. Overall, subsistence policy remains in crisis, with no overall resolution on the horizon. The large issue of tribal political jurisdiction remains unsettled. > Interest in tribal governance is stronger than ever before, as expressed in the positions adopted on the 1991 Amendments. Key legal questions remain unresolved concerning the powers and authorities of Alaska Native tribal governments, despite a complex web of conflicting court interpretations and a lengthy report from the Department of Interior’s Solicitor. The sovereignty movement is vital and growing in many parts of the state, and a statewide Intertribal Council was recently established. GOVERNMENTAL/ ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF ALASKA Native Government /Organizations ANCSA Village Corporation For-profit Corporation Surface estate State Chartered LOCAL City Council Tribal Council State Chartered Federally Municipal Recognized Government Tribal Government Borough Assembly Regional Tribal Regional Municipal Consortium/Non- Government Profit- Profit Service Delivery-to tribal members/tribal advocacy State of Alaska STATE 29 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council Statewide Tribal Organization (177 tribes) Advocacy for tribes TRIBAL ANCSA Regional Corporation State chartered regional For-profit owns Subsurface Alaska Federation of Natives Statewide Native Organization (Non-Tribal) ANCSA REGIONAL STATEWIDE ¥ Institutions and Governments A multitude of business, government and social services institutions serve Native communities in Alaska. Native Corporations Under the terms of ANCSA, the regional and village corporations were established for profit-making purposes. Although many of the regional corporations conduct programs to benefit shareholders and their families, the corporations are generally prohibited from providing health, welfare, education or other social and political services. Native Non-Profit Associations Many other associations organized before ANCSA incorporated as non-profits to address the needs of Natives within their region. Non-profit corporations have been formed in all 12 regions to contract for health, housing, education and other social service programs. Funding sources include state and federal program contracts and grants from various public and private entities. In some regions, there are separate housing authorities and health corporations. Governments Boroughs — These are municipal corporations, regional in nature and similar to counties in other states. A borough may include incorporated and unincorporated cities within its boundaries. Mandatory borough powers include education, planning and platting, and taxation. There are currently 14 boroughs in Alaska. Unorganized Boroughs — These areas are not incorporated as a municipal government. The Alaska State Legislature serves as the assembly to the unorganized boroughs. Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) — A regional service area established under state law to deliver education services in unorganized boroughs.’ There are currently 19 REAAs. Cities — There are two classes of city government, distinguished by the type of public services they provide. There are currently 148 city governments in Alaska. Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Councils — Villages organized as federal corporations under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, as amended. They provide services similar to local city governments. There are currently 20 villages with a recognized IRA Council. Traditional Councils — Traditional councils serve as the local governing body in areas of Alaska where there is no recognized state or federally chartered local government. Reservation — Alaska has one recognized Indian reservation, Annette Island, located in southeast Alaska. 30 Alaska Native Institutions and Organizations Significant to Alaska Native Peoples Alaska Native Brotherhood/Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANB/ANS) The ANB and the ANS are statewide organizations that help Alaska Natives work for the betterment of their people. Members are from diverse Tribes, clans and value systems. The ANB and ANS conduct community business through local offices called camps. These camps converge annually for what is referred to as Grand Camp Convention. There, area-wide policies and positions are developed. The ANB/ANS claim to be the oldest Tribal, political and fraternal organization existing in the United States. Among its achievements are gaining citizenship, the right to vote, and public education for Native Alaskans and Native Americans in Alaska, help in founding of the Tlingit and Haida Central Council, the organization of many tribal I.R.A. councils statewide and, to some extent, the organization of regional and Village Corporations formed under the ANCSA. Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) The AFN is a statewide political organization of Alaska Natives who are sometimes seen as representing corporate more than tribal concerns. This confusion arises because AFN dues are paid by communities, and some communities allow a corporation or corporations to pay their dues for them. The predominant membership is from the areas north of the panhandle with some members from Southeast Alaska. Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC) This is a statewide consortium of tribal governments that advocates, defends, and enhances the rights of Tribal governments to perpetuate cultural, spiritual, and traditional life-styles. There are few members from Southeast Alaska. This is not a Tribal government and government-to-government relations are not required. The relationship with entities like this one is at the discretion of the appropriate line officer. ANCSA Corporations The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 awarded Alaska Natives $962.5 million and 44 million acres in settlement of aboriginal claims. Twelve for-profit Regional Corporations and 220 for-profit Urban and Village Corporations were created to manage the settlement land and money. The corporations were given the task of using the money and land way produce economic and social benefits for individual shareholders. This act represents the largest settlement of aboriginal lands claims in history and is unprecedented in the history of the federal government. It made Alaska Natives the largest private landowners on earth. Regional ANCSA Corporations Under ANCSA, the State of Alaska was divided into 12 geographic regions. As directed by the Secretary of the Interior, these regions were composed of Natives having a common interests. Each of these regions was to incorporate under the laws of the state of Alaska to conduct business for profit. Management of these Regional Corporations is vested in a board of directors made up of shareholders. 31 A 13" regional corporation was later formed and located in Seattle, WA. That corporation is made up of at-large shareholders elsewhere. ANCSA Village or Urban Corporations These are corporations formed under state law and should not be confused with Tribal Councils. Their mission is to produce a profit for the shareholders and not to govern Tribal members. Each Native village entitled to receive lands and benefits under ANCSA was required to organize as a “for-profit” or “nonprofit” business under the laws of the State of Alaska. There were 220 Village Corporations formed under this act. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was passed to accomplish a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal lands claims. This act also called for the incorporation of for-profit Regional. Corporations and for-profit or nonprofit Village Corporations under State of Alaska laws. These corporations were incorporated for business purposes and became the vehicles through which fee simple patents totaling 44 million acres was conveyed. The Regional Corporations own subsurface rights of all village corporation lands. Village, Urban and Regional Corporations own all surface rights to their lands and are guaranteed access under ANCSA. These corporations did not replace Tribal governments in Alaska.. The Federally Recognized Tribes in Alaska have governments that are traditional or have been formed under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, (amended in 1936 to include Alaska Natives). These Tribes and the federal government have a unique, government-to-government relationship. City Councils These are state organized local governments. Sometimes they exist along side Tribal councils in the same community, i.e., Saxman City Council is alongside the federally recognized LR.A., the Organized Village of Saxman. Each would provide its own service(s) to its members. Individuals may serve on both councils. In some cases, such as in Metlakatla, the Council is both the Tribe and the City Council. Service Providers These nonprofit development and service corporations provide services involving realty, housing, health and social programs resulting from the Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of 1974 (P.L. 94-638). These service providers are often referred to as “638 contractors or compactors” with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Some Tribes have united within their region to control and perform different functions. Tribal Councils. 32 Tribal Governments Each community may have a federally recognized Tribe. The United States has a government-to- government relationship with the Alaska Natives who are represented by either Traditional Councils or ILR.A. (Indian Reorganization Act) Councils (authorized by a 1936 amendment of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934). Tribes have limited sovereign immunity from suit. Traditional Councils have inherent governmental authority to control social behavior and programs, administer justice, etc. I.R.A. Councils also have inherent governmental authority to control social behavior and programs, administer justice, etc. In addition, they have the authority to protect Tribal lands, employ legal counsel, and negotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments. A village organized under section 16 of the Act is recognized as an R.A. government; it could also be granted an R.A. business charter under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. The Tlingit and Haida Central Council is a Federally Recognized Tribal Government and provides a large portion of the governmental services to Indians in southeast Alaska. It is also recognized as one of the Southeastern Alaska Indian Tribes. This is unlike the other non-profit Native associations that are recognized only as Native organizations. The Tlingit and Haida Central Council has community presidents, who are separate from Tribal Council offices. See the Regional Key Contact List for current lists of most of these organizations. Anchorage Daily News MONEY: Arctic Slope sets earnings record for year — $2.3 billion. Anchorage Daily News Native corporations domi- nate the newest list of the larg- © est Alaska-based, Alaskan- owned businesses. Many of the Native corpo- rations have leveraged spe- cial access to federal contract- ing to build significant revenue this decade. They provide se- curity at military bases across the country, provide techno- logical assistance to. feder- al agencies, and deliver en- gineering and construction services, among many other business lines. Besides federal contract- ing, they hold ownership in- terest in hotels in many Alaska cities, in North Slope oil fields and in the largest mine in the ~ state — the huge Red Dog zinc and lead mine near Kotzebue. They also own office buildings across Anchorage and have retail holdings, including the ‘Tikahtnu Commons mall in Northeast Anchorage. “This year Arctic Slope Re- gional Corp. had 2008 gross revenues of more than $2 bil- lion. We have never seen that kind of prosperity from any company in our 25 years of do- ing this listing,” said Jim Mar- tin, general manager of Alaska Business Monthly, the maga- zine that produces the list. Native corporations com- prise 11 of the 15 largest com- panies, and 21 of the top 40, based on annual revenue. Because the annual list considers only those business- es that are headquartered in the state and owned by Alas- kans, many large companies are left off, including Cono- coPhillips Alaska, BP Explo- ration (Alaska), Providence Alaska Medical Center, Fred Meyer stores, Alaska Airlines, as well as the telecommuni- cations giants GCI and ACS, which are based in Anchorage but owned by investors from all over the world. ALASKA Native firms thrive on business list Largest Alaskan-owned companies The table shows the largest businesses based in Alaska and owned by Alaskans, ranked by annual revenue. Eleven of the top 15 are Native corporations, which are involved in a diversified set of businesses and investments. 23 Peak Oilfield Service Co. 24 Sealaska Corp. 25 Construction Machinery Industrial 26 Frontier Alaska 27 Udelhoven Oilfield System Services Inc. 28 Alaska Interstate Construction 29 Carlile Transportation Systems 30. The Aleut Corp. 31. Bering Straits Native Corp. 32 Neeser Construction Inc. 33 Goldbelt Inc. 34 Matanuska Telephone Association 35 Koniag Inc. 36 The Tatitlek Corp. 37 Olgoonik Corp. 38 Watterson Construction Co. 39 Usibelli Coal Mine Inc. 40 Peninsula Airways Inc. 41 Colville Inc. 42 Seekins Ford Lincoln Mercury Inc. 43 UNIT Co. 44 Roger Hickel Contracting Inc. 45 Airport Equipment Rentals © 46 Northrim Bancorp Inc. 47 Alaska Industrial Hardware Inc. 48 Anchorage Chrysler Dodge Center 49 Alcan Electrical & Engineering Source: Alaska Business Monthly magazine Rank Company Annual revenue — Headquarters 1 Arctic Slope Regional Corp. $2.3 billion - Barrow 2 Bristol Bay Native Corp. $1.3 billion Anchorage 3 NANA Development Corp. $1.2 billion Anchorage 4 Chugach Alaska Corp. $952 million — Anchorage 5 Chenega Corp. $894 million Anchorage 6 Lynden $780 million — Anchorage 7 Afognak Native Corp. $730 million Kodiak 8 Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corp. $334 million Barrow 9 Alaska USA Federal Credit Union $312 million Anchorage “10 Doyon Ltd. $296.million Fairbanks 11 Chugach Electric Association $290 million Anchorage 12 The Eyak Corp. $282 million Anchorage 13 Cape Fox Corp. $224 million Anchorage 14 Calista Corp. : $224 million Anchorage 15 Golden Valley Electric Association $214 million Fairbanks 16 Ahtna Inc. $194 million —Glennallen 17 US Travel $192 million Anchorage 18 Davis Constructors & Engineers Inc. $178 million Anchorage 19 First National Bank Alaska $171 million Anchorage 20 The Wilson Agency $160 million Anchorage 21 Tyonek Native Corp. * $135 million Anchorage 22 Cook Inlet Region Inc. $132 million Anchorage Anchorage “Juneau. $124 million’: “Anchorage - $124 million Fairbanks i Anchorage “Anchorage $123 million Anchorage $116 million Anchoarge $113 million Nome... $110 million Anchorage $106 million Juneau $103 million Palmer $101 million Kodiak $90 million Anchorage $82 million Anchorage $78 million Anchorage $73 million Healy $70 million Anchorage $64 million Prudhoe Bay $60 million Fairbanks $59 million Anchorage $58 million Anchorage $58 million . Fairbanks $57 million Anchorage $53 million Anchorage $52 million Anchorage $51 million — Anchorage Primary Business Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Transportation Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Finance Diversified businesses Electric utility Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Electric utility Diversified businesses Travel Construction Finance Finance, insurance Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Oil services “Diversified businesses Construction Transportation Oil services Construction Transportation © ** 3". Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Construction Diversified businesses ; Telecommunications Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Diversified businesses Construction Mining Transportation Oil services Car dealer Construction Construction Retail Finance Wholesale Car dealer Communications KEVIN POWELL / Anchorage Daily News Native Business Page 1 of 1 1Business Lite Meith | HOME | ABOUT US SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISING [ EDITORIAL ARCHI Native Business Alaska Native regional corporations continued to grow their respective business revenues in 20 government contracting work, oilfield service work, and natural resource revenues stemming fre lands. Cumulatively, the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations headquartered in the state reported $t their fiscal year 2008 reporting periods, growing more than 18 percent over total revenues poste The Alaska Native regional corporations were created in 1971 under the Alaska Native Claims : manage land and cash received for settling land claims prior to North Slope oilfield developmen Alaska oil pipeline. On Alaska Business Monthly's Top 49ers listing, representing the Top 49 Alaskan-owned and -: based on gross revenues, Native businesses topped the charts. Twelve of the 13 regional corp« listing. They ranked first for number of employees, with more than 13,000 Alaska employees an Sources: Alaska Business Monthly, Sept. 2009, Patricia Liles; Alaska Business Monthly, < Prev “Being in the Automotive Business in Alaska it's important to reach the people’ We believe that the professionals at Alaska Business Monthly help us achiev valuable member of our team. Thanks for the good jot ~ Steven Angel ~ Fleet Sales Manager Seekins Ford Lincoln Mercury ~ You are here: Home » Native Business HOME ABOUT US SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISING EDITORIAL ARCHIVE RESOURCES Copyright © Alaska Business Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Web site by Sundog Media. http://www.akbizmag.com/native-business.htm] 2/10/2010 Top 49ers Announced Page 1 of 2 SEARCH Search search... Go pay HOME | ABOUT US | SUBSCRIBE | aoverrisine | EDITORIAL ARCHIVE | RESOURCES | conracr us | Osuare #00.) Top 49ers Announced ea Alaska State Chamber of Commerce/Alaska Business Monthly Announce Top 49 Alaskan-Owned Companies Native corporations bring in 71 percent of revenue and 80 percent of worldwide jobs. ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Business Monthly and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce joined together to present ABM's Top 49ers at a luncheon at the Dena'ina Center on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2009, with more than 400 business leaders in attendance. This year's theme for Alaska's Top 49ers is "Trailblazers: Leading the state's top businesses." The Top 49ers celebrates the Top 49 Alaskan-owned and -operated businesses in the state, based on gross revenues. This year 2008 revenue figures were used. “It's amazing what these companies do," said Jim Martin, vice president and general manager of Alaska Business Monthly. “They are home grown and some of the wealthiest in the state. This year Arctic Slope Regional Corporation had 2008 gross revenues of more than $2 billion. We have never seen that kind of prosperity from any company in our 25 years of doing this listing." Listed are the Top 49 companies by rank and revenue. Rank, Company, Revenue ($Mil.), Hdqtrs., Type of Business, Alaska Employees Arctic Slope Regional Corp., $2,300.00, Barrow, Native Organization, 3,500 Bristol Bay Native Corp., $1,294.85, Anchorage, Native Organization, 500 NANA Development Corp., $1,175.5, Anchorage, Native Organization, 3,000 Chugach Alaska Corp., $952.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 1,200 Chenega Corp. , $894.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 329 Lynden, $780.00, Anchorage, _ Transportation, 748 Afognak Native Corp./Alutiiq, $729.80, Kodiak, Native Organization, 147 Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corp., $334.30, Barrow, Native Organization, 486 Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, $311.6, Anchorage, Finance, 1,179 10 Doyon Limited, $295.56, Fairbanks, Native Organization, 1,602 11. Chugach Electric Association Inc., $289.5, Anchorage, Utilities, 319 12. The Eyak Corporation , $281.70, Anchorage, Native Organization, 83 13 Cape Fox Corp., $224.19, Ketchikan, Native Organization, 114 14 Calista Corp., $224.09, Anchorage, Native Organization, 261 15 Golden Valley Electric Association Inc., $214.00, Fairbanks, Utilities, 249 16 Ahtna Inc., $194.17, Glennallen, Native Organization, 612 17 USTravel, $192.00, Anchorage, Tourism, 95 18 Davis Constructors & Engineers Inc., $178.2, Anchorage, Construction, 210 19 First National Bank Alaska, $170.67, Anchorage, Finance, $729 20 Wilson Agency LLC, The, $159.90, Anchorage, Finance, Insurance, 17 21 Tyonek Native Corp., $135.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 50 22 Cook Inlet Region Inc., $132.20, Anchorage, Native Organization, 75 23 Peak Oilfield Service Co., $132.00, Anchorage, Industrial Services, 625 24 SealaskaCorp. , $125.77, Juneau, Native Organization, 171 25 Construction Machinery Industrial LLC, $124.00, Anchorage, Construction, 114 26 Frontier Alaska, $124.00, Fairbanks, Transportation, 700 27 Udelhoven Oilfield System Services Inc., $123.62, Anchorage, Ind. Services, 495 28 Alaska Interstate Construction LLC, $123.5, Anchorage, Construction, 600 29 Carlile Transportation Systems, $123, Anchorage, Transportation, 600 30 The Aleut Corp., $116.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 126 31 Bering Straits Native Corp., $113.34, Nome, Native Organization, 295 32 Neeser Construction Inc., $110.00, Anchorage, Construction, 339 33 Goldbelt Inc., $106.00, Juneau, Native Organization, 200 34 Matanuska Telephone Association Inc., $103.29, Palmer, Utilities, 400 34 Koniag Inc., $101.26, Kodiak Native Organization, 45 36 The Tatitlek Corporation, $90.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 156 37 Olgoonik Corp., $82.00, Anchorage, Native Organization, 87 38 Watterson Construction Co., $78.00, Anchorage, Construction, 119 39 Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., $73.12, Healy, Mining, 141 40 Peninsula Airways Inc., $70.10, Anchorage, Transportation, 490 41 Colville Inc., $64.4, Prudhoe Bay, Industrial Services, 80 42 Seekins Ford Lincoln Mercury Inc., $60.40, Fairbanks, Retail Trade, 113 43 UNIT Company, $59.00, Anchorage, Construction, 75 44 Roger Hickel Contracting Inc., $58.05, Anchorage, Construction, 120 45 Airport Equipment Rentals, $57.67, Fairbanks, Retail Trade, 102 46 Northrim BanCorp Inc., $57.2, Anchorage, Finance, 302 47 Alaska Industrial Hardware Inc., $53.20, Anchorage, Wholesale Trade, 230 OMNAMARWN= http://www.akbizmag.com/alaska-news/597-top-49ers-announced.html 2/10/2010 Top 49ers Announced Page 2 of 2 48 Anchorage Chrysler Dodge Center, $51.61, Anchorage, Retail Trade, 100 49 Alcan Electrical & Engineering, $50.5, Anchorage, Construction, 178 Of note, the Top 49ers employ more than 65,000 workers, of which more than 22,500 were employed in Alaska. Companies on the list had combined total gross revenue of $13.9 billion, up from last year's $11.8 billion. And of the 49 businesses represented here, 36 (last year it was 38) saw an increase in revenues ranging from about less than 1 percent to more than 271 percent, as was the case with Cape Fox Corp. Thirteen saw a decrease in revenues, most of those less than 10 percent. "These companies represent a healthy Alaska," Martin said. "Most have seen growth during tough times and provide decent wages to thousands upon thousands of workers. These truly are trailblazers, an example for all to follow.” The Role of Native Business An important trend, but not a new one, is the growth of Native corporations in the state. This year, 12 of the 13 Alaska Native regional corporations were included on the listing. In addition, nine other Native organizations made rank. Native organizations rank first for number of employees, with more than 13,000 Alaskan employees and nearly 55,000 total employees worldwide, both increases from last year. Their total revenues, combined, were about $9.9 billion, up from $7.8 billion last year. Native organizations bring in 71 percent of the revenue represented by all industries that made the Top 49er listing. They also employ more than 58 percent of all Alaska employees. They provide 83 percent of the jobs provided by all companies on the listing. Arctic Slope Regional Corp. has topped the listing for 15 consecutive years, this year, as previously stated, with gross 2008 revenues of $2.3 billion. It is the first time any company has topped the $2 billion mark and the first time three companies, all Native, have topped the billion dollar mark. Bristol Bay Native Corp. ranked second with about $1.3 billion and NANA Development Corp. third with $1.2 billion. Other corporations are on their heels: Chugach Alaska Corp. has reported 2008 gross revenues of $952 million, Chenega Corp, $894 million and Lynden, $780 million. Definitely companies to watch. "These companies are the foundation for a healthy economy," Martin said. "This is our 25th year compiling the list, and each year it looks brighter. We have never seen such tremendous wealth by Alaskan-owned corporations. Though many work on a worldwide scale, their operations are in Alaska, bringing dollars into the state, versus the large companies with headquarters elsewhere who provide jobs, but take dollars out of the state into their operations offices. We are very proud of our Alaska companies and expect to see growth continue through the year and into next." This is the first year ABM and the Alaska State Chamber joined together to present the 49ers. In the past, it was done during the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce's Monday forums. "We decided these companies have a statewide presence and the Alaska State Chamber was a better partner for this kind of program," said Martin. "It's win-win for both of us." Companies that made the list reside all across the state, including Anchorage, Barrow, Fairbanks, Glennallen, Healy, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Nome, Palmer and Prudhoe Bay. For more information, contact Debbie Cutler or Jim Martin at 907-276-4373 or toll free at 800-770-4373. <Prev Next > "Alaska Business Monthly continues to provide valuable and beneficial business, corporate and economic news to its readers. We’ve been advertising in ABM since the 90s and will continue to use their professional services and supportive staff for our advertising needs. | would recommend ABM to any business entity and wholly endorse their efforts in promoting Alaska businesses and economic growth.” ~ Stephanie Ryan ~ Arctic Transportation Services ~Owner and Office Manager ~ Anchorage ~ You are here: Home + Alaska News » Top 49ers Announced HOME ABOUT US SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISING EDITORIAL ARCHIVE RESOURCES CONTACT US. Copyright © Alaska Business Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Web site by Sundog Media http://www.akbizmag.com/alaska-news/597-top-49ers-announced.html 2/10/2010 From the Executive Director - Jason Brune Recently I sent a letter to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) strongly encouraging her to understand the impacts any proposed changes to the 8(a) program could have on Alaska Natives and the original intent of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). I also wrote the senator to thank her for her willingness to consider and incorporate information on the Alaska Native 8(a) businesses and subsequently modify her position on proposed reforms to the 8(a) program. I encouraged her to listen to the bi-partisan Alaska congressional delegation on this issue. RDC supports the mission and directives of Alaska 8(a) businesses and although there has been significant progress since Congress established the 8(a) program, Native the original reasons for its creation still exist. Many RDC members do business in the Lower 48, including McCaskill’s home state of Missouri. The success these companies have in Alaska impacts their efforts around the rest of the United States, and vice versa. Missouri has been able to develop its resources and create a healthy, diverse economy. Among that diverse economy are automobile assembly plants and a large agricultural base, both of which have shown significant reliance on government assistance. Alaska, not having a climate or geography for farming and being disadvantaged by distance to market for manufacturing, constantly strives to diversify its economy in other arenas. The 8(a) program helps Alaska do this. Due to the potentially serious impact proposed changes to the program could have, this issue is of great importance to RDC. The concern of the membership includes both those who participate in the 8(a) program and those who do not, evidence that the program is working to help align Alaska’s diverse interests on the economy. When enacting ANCSA, Congress saw a way to end the poverty that gripped many Alaska Native communities. As the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported while deliberating the Act, “[Alaska Natives] are among the most Native 8(a) program should be improved, not eliminated “The 8(a) program is critical to the future economic viability of Alaska Native Corporations and in turn, their Alaska Native shareholders. This tool should be improved and used as a model to further the economic status of Native Americans, not eliminated.” disadvantaged citizens of the United States in terms of income, employment, educational attainment, life expectancy, health, nutrition, housing, and every important indicator of social welfare.” Today, many rural Alaskans still have difficulty making ends meet. Alaska Natives comprise 82% of the population in rural parts of the state. Poverty and unemployment rates among rural Alaskans still far outpace those of their urban counterparts. Per-capita income is about half that of non-Natives. The precipitously high cost of living in rural Alaska exacerbates the economic hardships. Alaskans living in rural villages pay extraordinarily high prices for food, energy, and transportation due to their communities’ isolation far from the road system and power grid, their villages’ low populations, not to mention Alaska’s extreme climate. Indeed, Congress enacted ANCSA in order to provide a means by which Alaska Natives could derive economic benefit from the resources around them, oftentimes in rural Alaska. Native corporations are the largest private landowners in Alaska and responsible resource development offers these corporations the opportunity to generate jobs and economic benefits for their Alaska Native shareholders. Resource development on ANCSA lands partially offsets the economic challenges by stimulating the job market and providing greater financial self- sufficiency for a growing number of Alaska Natives. These opportunities support the implicit promise Congress made to Alaska Natives when it offered them resource-rich lands in exchange for extinguishment of their aboriginal claims. The 44 million acres of fee-simple land that were allocated to Alaska Native corporations through ANCSA were meant to help bring Alaska Natives to the path of economic self-sustainability. Alaska Native people sacrificed millions of acres of land in exchange for meaningful economic development opportunities. Much of this remaining acreage now exists as national parks and wildlife refuges, unavailable for economic opportunities. Through 7(i) and 7(j) revenue sharing, profits from resource development on their lands are shared with other Native corporations statewide. But, despite Congress’ best intentions resource development and land title alone have proven insufficient to materially overcome the economic and social challenges Alaska Natives face. The 8(a) program has been an effective tool the federal government has used to help meet the goals of ANCSA. With success in the 8(a) program, Alaska Native corporations build capacity, develop a trained workforce in diverse sectors, and ultimately provide opportunities for shareholders to advance other causes, such as responsibly developing the natural resources on their land here in Alaska. However, without the economic diversification earned from 8(a) revenues, these companies would oftentimes be unable to bring such responsible Alaskan projects to fruition, ultimately risking jobs, — educational opportunities, and further revenue outside of the 8(a) program, potentially increasing reliance on other government programs. Ultimately, for programs like 8(a) to succeed, sufficient time must be given to realize their positive impacts. The 8(a) program is critical to. th future economic viability of Alaska Nativ Corporations and in turn, their Alaska Native shareholders. This tool should be improved and used as a model to further the economic status of Native Americans, not eliminated. Alaska Natives & Rural Alaska - Issues & Priorities - United States Senator Lisa Murkow... Page 1 of 1 Keyword Search United States Senator Lisa Murkowski Home > Issues & Legislation > Issues & Priorities > Alaska Natives & Rural Alaska Alaska Natives & Rural Alaska Alaska has more indigenous people as a percentage of our State’s total population than any other State in the Union. Alaska’s Native people, descendants of the original Aleut, Eskimo and Indian peoples that settled Alaska, live in every community in the state and in every one of the 50 United States. Although Anchorage is regarded today as Alaska’s largest Native village, Alaskans continue to maintain traditional subsistence ways of life, much as their ancestors did, in the villages of rural Alaska, also known as “bush Alaska”. Rural Alaska is described by its great beauty, vast roadlessness, and diverse Alaska Native cultures. The great remoteness that marks rural Alaska also provides tremendous economic and social challenges in our rural communities. Alaska Native communities continue to tackle health and education disparities that present challenges to the overall wellbeing of our rural communities. The Alaska Native community is strong and cohesive. The Bureau of Indian Affairs federally recognized tribes list includes 225 Alaska Native villages and the 12 regional non-profit corporations, more tribes than any other state in the union. The 12 regional land based Native Corporations and the over 200 village corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 are the largest private land owners in the State of Alaska, entitled to 44 million acres of land. Nearly 40 years after the passage of ANCSA, the Native _ corporations are tremendous economic drivers in our State, employing significant numbers of Alaskans, Native and non-Native and funding scholarships for Alaska Native students to obtain undergraduate, graduate and technical education. Alaska is a leader in tribal self governance. Health care is delivered by the 100 percent Native owned and controlled Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and a network of tribally operated hospitals and clinics in rural Alaska hubs and villages. The Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage has earned “Magnet” designation by the American Nurses Credentialing Center for the quality of its nursing care. It is an innovator in telemedicine technology and in training Community Health Aides to deliver primary health care in communities too remote to attract physicians. It also helps to reduce the incidence and spread of infectious diseases by constructing modern water and wastewater facilities in rural communities with “third world” like sanitation conditions. During the 110" Congress | had the honor of serving as Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. | remain an active member of the committee. Through my new roles as Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and my continuing role on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, | remain committed to increasing the standard of living for our rural residents, and supporting the vibrancy of our Alaska Native cultures. In 2009, | was honored with a Congressional Leadership Award by the National Congress of American Indians. | am the first Alaskan to receive httv://murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=A laskaNativesRuralAlaska 8/19/2009 (minders. | 4 4 The Changing Economic Status of Alaska Natives, 1970-2007 Institute of Social and Economic Research ) University of Alaska Anchorage By Stephanie Martin and Alexandra Hill ‘otes Note No. 5 + July 2009 oil was about to transform Alaska’s economy— f Alaska Natives had among the lowest income, em- ployment, and education levels in the U.S. Today their economic conditions are better, but they still fall consid- erably below averages among other Alaskans and other Americans. This note first reports how current economic conditions among Alaska Natives compare with U.S. averages, and then looks at changes since 1970 in poverty, employment, income, and education levels among Alaska Natives. We relied mainly on data from federal censuses in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 and from the annual American Com- munity Survey for 2005 to 2007. We also used the most recent population estimates from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. ' Backcrounp: Ataska’s Native PEopLes Alaska Natives have made their home in Alaska for thousands of years, and today there are an estimated t orty years ago—when the discovery of North Slope } Percent of people Ce 22% below poverty line AI ; 3 7, Households without [igaRSSRSSUSER 1390 complete plumbing |0,4% Unemployment rate oe HE " Percent adults (16 and & older) not in labor force EET 26% Drop-out rate, eR grades 9-12 11.7% (2005-06 school year) SERRA 8.0% ei Percent of people 25 and older with Lyea college degrees === 27, Al ka Natives and All Americans 2007) 48 Alaska Natives HH All Americans All Alaskans ES 21% et 37% 122,000 Alaska Native people, with many distinct cul- tures and languages. They make up nearly 20% of all Alaskans—a higher percentage of indigenous people than in any other state. When the Russians arrived in Alaska, in the mid 1700s, there were an estimated 50,000 Alaska Natives. But their numbers declined from the 1700s through the early 1900s—due to smallpox, influenza, and other dis- eases introduced by Russians and later Americans. Only Alaska Native HH Eiesinease ne unseee CL IEC 564333 | *The national unemployment rate in mid-2009 had risen to 9.5%. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2007; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Median Household Income (In 2007 Dollars) ANUS. HH in 1970 did the population rebound to what it had been 300 years earlier. But the number of Alaska Natives more than doubled between 1970 and 2000, and by 2020 it is projected to be nearly triple what it was in 1970. There are also an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Alaska Natives living outside Alaska, including some who are attend- ing colleges or universities. The figures presented here are only for Alaska Natives living in Alaska. On page 5 we briefly describe how conditions among Alaska Natives inside and outside Alaska compare. Current Economic COMPARISONS « Poverty among Alaska Natives remains nearly twice as high as the U.S. average, with 22% of Alaska Native people and 13% of all Amer- icans living below the federal poverty line (Figure 1). + About 13% of Alaska Native households still lack plumbing, com- pared with less than half of 1% nationwide. + The unemployment rate among Alaska Natives was three times the national average during the period 2005-2007. Even today, when the national average is at 9.5%, the Alaska Native rate is still twice as high. + More than third of Alaska Native adults aren't in the labor force—they don’t have jobs and aren't looking for work—compared with about one-quarter nationwide. Some people aren't in the labor force because of age or disabilities or other personal reasons, but in Alaska villages many people don’t look for jobs because they know there aren't any. + Alaska Native students drop out of high-school at a rate three times the U.S. average,’ and the percentage of Alaska Native adults with college degrees is less than a third that of the U.S. as a whole. + The median income of Alaska Native households is only two-thirds that of all Alaska households and is close to 20% below the U.S. average. Economic CHANGES Since 1970 Alaska’s economy has grown tremendously since 1970, fueled mostly by oil development but also by increased federal spending for its many military and civilian activities in the state. Alaska Natives have benefited from that growth in various ways, but on all economic measures they still lag behind other Alaskans and other Americans. Alaska Natives are far less likely to live below the poverty line and much more likely to have jobs and high-school degrees today. Alaska Native women in particular have moved into the labor force in the past several decades. In 1970 just over one-quarter of adult Native women had jobs; by 2000 that figure was approaching half. But as Figure 2 shows, the Alaska Native population has more than doubled since 1970. So keep in mind that when we're talking about percentage changes, a specific percentage in 2007 represents many more people or households than it did in 1970. Figure 3 shows the numbers. For example, the number of Alaska Natives 16 and older—the potential labor force—nearly tripled beween 1970 and 2007. So when we talk about changes in the per- centage of Alaska Natives in the labor force, the larger percentage in the labor force today also represents a very big increase in the number of people of working age. So how have some of the main measures of economic conditions among Alaska Natives changed since 1970? Less Poverty ————___—__—_ + Poverty among Alaska Natives is less than half what it was in 1970. But as Figure 4 shows, the big improvement was between 1970 and 1980, and the percentage of Alaska Native people living below the federal poverty line has stayed around 23% since 1990. + The share of Alaska Native households without plumbing has dropped from 51% in 1970 to 13% (Figure 5). But there has been essentially no change since 2000. That's partly because the remaining villages without complete water and sewer systems require very expensive Arctic technologies, and the villages lack the economic resources to support ongoing operation and maintenance for such systems. lum! Alaska Native seholds, 1970-2007 = [RRR 18,200 Persons 25 and older TE Sa Persons 16 and older AAA 27,800 ae eee 1 9,700 Households (aaa 33,604 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census and American Community Survey Historical and Projected 144,324 125,728 Projected 122,158 111,598 50,801 2020 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2007 and projections 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 2010 - Alaska Native Households complete Plumbing 1970 1980 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 10-year censuses, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2005-07 54% Percent of people with incomes at least 200% of poverty level \\., Percent of people living below poverty line 29% 2am =| 2% a 0% ee | 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-07 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 10-year censuses, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2005-07 1990 2000 2005-2007 —— More People in Work Force, But More Unemployed —— + The percentage of Alaska Native adults not in the labor force has dropped from 62% to 37% since 1970 (Figure 6). As we mentioned 2arlier, many more women have moved into t the number of Alaska jobs multiplied, as oil development spurred economic growth. The regional and village business corporations cre- ated under terms of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) also employ many Native (and non-Native) Alaskans. Non- profit Native corporations now also administer a number of federal health and social service programs for Alaska Natives. Those non-profits are major employers in rural communities. + Even as numbers of Alaska Natives with jobs grew, so did unemployment. The recent unem- ployment rate is higher than it was in 1970. The number of jobs hasn't increased as fast as he labor force. Also, 62% Not in labor force? 37% 7 Unemployed 21% st Le 1 4 1 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-07 Not working and not actively looking for work Onctively looking for work Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 10-year censuses, 1970-2000, and American Community Survey, 2005-07 the labor force. A growing Native population means more and more people are looking for work. And some of those considered “not in the labor force” (be- cause they aren't actively looking for work) would like to have jobs but aren't looking, because they live in small remote villages with few jobs. Real Incomes Stagnant After Improvement + The real (adjusted for inflation) median income of Alaska Native households is 50% higher than in 1970 (Figure 7). But virtually all the improvement was in the 1970s, and real household incomes have changed little since then. We don’t know all the reasons for the improvement between 1970 and 1980. But one big reason was that thousands of Alaska Native women became wage earners: the number of Alaska Native women with jobs increased 150% in that decade. Construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the mid- 1970s also contributed; close to 6,000 Alaska Natives were hired during construction. usted for Inflation) ‘a Native Households $42,703 Teal $40,128 $39,684 alll neal $28,516 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005-07 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 10-year censuses, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2005-07 Education Level Up + The share of Alaska Native adults who have at least a high-school education has jumped from 14% to 46% since 1970 (Figure 8). Before the 1970s, there were very few high schools in small Alaska Native communities, and those who wanted to attend high school generally had to leave their homes for boarding schools, hundreds or even thousands of miles away. But as a result of a court suit brought by a group of Figure 8s Educational Attainn ng Alaska Natives 25 and Older f SA 79% Less than high school EE 15% rural Alaska Natives in the 1970s, the state government High school graduate Ha 14% B 1970 built high schools in hundreds of remote villages. EEE 6". 2005.07 « Despite the big increase in high-school graduation, the Some college Mill 6% wm EE! drop-out rate among Alaska Native students js still much higher than among all Alaska students or all students na- tionwide. In the 2005-06 school year, nearly 12% of Native students in grades 9 to 12 dropped out, compared with 8% among all Alaska students and about 4% nationwide. College graduate 11% (4-year degree) BRR 8% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 10-year censuses, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; American Community Survey, 2005-07 + Alaska Natives are much more likely to go on to college now than in 1970. About 28% of Native adults have some college credit, compared with 6% in 1970. And 8% have earned 4-year degrees, compared with just 1% in 1970. The percentage of Native college graduates still falls far short of the U.S. average of 27% —but until recently, very few Natives had the chance to go to college. Test Scores Up But Big Gap with Non-Natives + Many more Alaska Native students are passing the High-School Graduation Qualifying Exam now than a few years ago. They are still less likely to pass than non-Natives, but the gap in scores has narrowed (Figure 9). Between 2003 and 2009, the share of 10th-grade Native students passing the reading portion of the test increased from 45% to 76%, and the share passing the math section was up from 50% to 64%. The percentages of both Native and non-Native students passing the writing section of the test declined. ) Figure 9. Perce n-Native 10th Graders Passing lation Qualifying Exam ise GBH Alaska Native Reading aa anne 7796, | EA Non Nate Source: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 4 Ataska Natives Outsipe ALASKA We estimate there are 20,000 to 25,000 Alaska Natives living dutside the state. This is truly an estimate, because only limited in- Tormation is available about them. We used U.S. census and Ameri- can Community Survey information to make our estimate, counting households as Alaska Native if they had at least one member who was Alaska Native. How do economic conditions among Alaska Natives outside the state compare with those of Alaska Natives in Alaska? + More have college degrees. About 17% of those outside Alaska have college degrees, compared with 8% inside the state. We know that some Alaska Natives travel outside Alaska specifically to get more education, but there is no information on how many are attending colleges and universities and may later return to Alaska. + Median household incomes of Alaska Native households outside the state are similar to those of households in Alaska. + The share of households with incomes below the poverty line is roughly the same among those inside and outside Alaskka—about one-quarter. ENpNoTES 1. Specifically, we used the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), Version 4, produced by the Minnesota Population Center. For census years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000, IPUMS is a 5% sam- ple of individual data from the U.S. census. For non-census years, data come from the annual American Community Survey (ACS). Because ACS is asample and uses different methods than the Alaska Department of Labor uses to estimate population, ACS population estimates are different from those of the Department of Labor. We think the department's total population estimates are more accu- rate than those of ACS, and we use the department's estimates in this note. 2. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development generally publishes drop-out figures based on dropouts from grades 7 through 12, which are lower than the figures from the National Center for Education Statistics, which are based on dropouts from grades 9 through 12. We use the NCES figures here because they al- low us to make a comparison with U.S. averages. Editor: Linda Leask + Graphics: Clemencia Merrill Nortor Sourd Eoonom Developmen Carper alan A20L Steet, Suite 310 Anchorage, Alsk 499501 (7) TH-ZS Glom) (SOT) THA (Ex) Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association BOL Calvta Const, Suite Archorage, AE 3518 (907) 644.0526 (phon) (90% 644.0527 (fx) ~ o™ : ee Coastal Villages “> ft Region Fund TAL HS treat Samm 200 Awhongs, Aloka 9901 07) 27G-S151 (phen) GON 378-5150 ex) Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association P.O. Box 283 St Pash, Alwka 99880 OT) 545-297 (phone) CON) HO-RD alec Paes Western Alaska Community Development Quota Handbook Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association huneas, Alka 3701 07) SI6.0161 (plcen) Prepared byt (607) 535.DN65 (Gx) Sure of Ald /DCED- 5/1900 CDQ Groups Page 1 of 1 Pesce ram F(t bel tem ens iy romela nd There are 6 CDQ Groups. These 6 groups represent the 65 COTTA elegible CDQ communities in western Alaska. This section of the website Te ne contains information about the CDQ groups and their communities. Airigtet Say Ceomonns Move your mouse over the Kennomment location map to display a detailed Corperation map of each cba region. Gondry Hering i ; Sehermen’s << The 65 eligible communities have organized themselves into 6 Agpockioa community alliances called CDQ Groups. The CDQ Groups are the managing organizations for the CDQ allocation application process and for Coactal the development and implementation of the Community Development Plan 'Winges Region (CDP). The CDP details how the allocation will be harvested and used. ach group has incorporated under Alaska law as a nonprofit corporation. And Each group has i d under Alaska | profit corporati They have formed partnerships with other businesses and corporations Marten Sound who participate in the Bering Sea fishery. The royalties received from Epernonce these partnerships are the source of funds for the fishery related Tyeecpeent ree community development projects outlined in the group's CDP. pera Each encompasses an environment with unique challenges and Fukon Data opportunities. We encourage you to take time to explore each of the CDQ Regenes corporations, to learn about their geography, people, and the many positive impacts they are having on jobs, projects, and other investments Ai in their regions. Weeygs oat eggen Bering Sea Fisherman's Association 725 Christensen Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Economic Impacts of the CDQ Program - 1992-2002 65 eligible communities by CDQ group Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA) 41. Akutan 4. Nelson Lagoon 2. Atka 5. Nikolski 3. False Pass 6. St. George Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC) 1. Aleknagik 6. Ekwok 11, Pilot Point 16. Twin Hills 2. Clark's Point 7. King Salmon 12. Portage Creek 17. Ugashik 3. Dillingham 8. Levelock 13. Port Heiden 4. Egegik 9. Manokotak 14. South Naknek 5. Ekuk 10. Naknek 145. Togiak Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA) 4, St.Paul Coastal Villages Region Fund (CVRF) 1. Chefornak 6. Kipnuk 11. Napaskiak 16. Quinhagak 2. Chevak 7. Kongiganak 12. Newtok 17. Scammon Bay 3. Eek 8. Kwigillingok 13. Nightmute 18. Toksook Bay 4. Goodnews Bay 9. Mekoryuk 14. Oscarville 49. Tuntutuliak 5. Hooper Bay 10. Napakiak 15. Platinum 20. Tununak Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC) 41. BrevigMission 6. Koyuk 11. Stebbins 2. Diomede 7. Nome 12. Teller 3. Elim 8. St.Michael 13. Unalakleet 4, Gambell 9. Savoonga 14. Wales 5. Golovin 10. Shaktoolik 15. White Mountain Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association (YDFDA) 4. Alakanuk 4. Kotlik 2. Emmonak 5. Mountain Village 3. Grayling 6. Nunam Iqua (Sheldon's P oint) Page 1 CDQ GROUPS CONTACT SHEET Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association Larry Cotter, CEO 234 Gold Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1211 (907) 586-0161 FAX: (907) 586-0165 Website: www.apicda.com Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation Robin Samuelsen, President/CEO PO Box 1464 Dillingham, Alaska 99576-1464 (907) 842-4370 FAX: (907) 842-4336 Website: www.bbedc.com Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association Phillip Lestenkof, President PO Box 288 St. Paul, Alaska 99660-0288 (907) 546-2597 FAX: (907) 546-2450 Website: http://www.cbsfa.com Coastal Villages Region Fund Morgen Crow, Executive Director 711 H Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501-3461 (907) 278-5151 FAX: (907) 278-5150 Website: www.coastalvillages.org Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation Eugene Asicksik, President/CEO 420 L Street, Suite 310 Anchorage, AK 99501-1971 (907) 274-2248 FAX: (907) 274-2249 Website: www.nsedc.com Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association Ragnar Alstrom, Executive Director 1016 West Sixth Avenue, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99501-1963 (907) 644-0326 FAX: (907) 644-0327 Website: www.ydfda.org CDQ E-mail LCotter371@aol.com sockeyel @nushtel.net plestenkof@cbsfa.com morgen_c@coastalvillages.org eugene@nsedc.com Ragnaraydf@aol.com C:\DOCUME~1\DMSOMERS\LOCALS~1\TEMP\2006 (iii) COQGRPS Contact List.doc [05/11/2006] DECLINE IN ALASKA’S RURAL POPULATION ACCELERATES Leaving eC village © More people from the Bush are moving to urban areas Aleutians West Ru TOM KI77IA Nar soe ‘ MORE PEOPLE ARE MOVING FROM RURAL ALASKA THAN TO IT Betwéen 2002 and 2005, about 1,200 more people a year were moving out of rural Alaska than moving in. In 2006-07, the num- ber had grown to 2,700 per year. Tracking Alaska's population changes Net migration (in minus out) during 2000-2007, by borough/census area Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, U.S. Census and Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage 7 eee Cs RS . Indian Affairs - FAQs rganizations as Sida eatery - Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Education Page 1 of 7 [Search 7 * Knowledge About Us ContactUs FAQs Home f} Services» Base» FAQs 1. Why Tribes Exist Today in the United States What are Indian treaty rights? From 1778 to 1871, the United States’ relations with individual American Indian nations indigenous to what is now the U.S. were defined and conducted largely through the treaty-making process. These “contracts among nations” recognized and established unique sets of rights, benefits, and conditions for the treaty-making tribes who agreed to cede of millions of acres of their homelands to the United States and accept its protection. Like other treaty obligations of the United States, Indian treaties are considered to be “the supreme law of the land,” and they are the foundation upon which federal Indian law and the federal Indian trust relationship is based. What is the legal status of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes? Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government. What is the federal Indian trust responsibility? . The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust" toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942). This obligation was first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law. The federal Indian trust responsibility is also a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. In several cases discussing the trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course of the relationship between the United States and the federally recognized tribes. What Is a federally recognized tribe? A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States, with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self- government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States. At present, there are 564 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. How Is federal recognition status conferred? Historically, most of today's federally recognized tribes received federal recognition status through treaties, acts of Congress, presidential executive orders or other federal administrative actions, or federal court decisions. In 1978, the Interior Department issued regulations governing the Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) to handle requests for federal recognition from Indian groups whose character and history varied widely in a uniform manner. These regulations — 25 C.F.R. Part 83 - were revised in 1994 and are still in effect. Also in 1994, Congress enacted Public Law 103-454, the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act (108 Stat. 4791, 4792), which formally established three ways in which an Indian group may become federally recognized: + By Act of Congress, + By the administrative procedures under 25 C.F.R. Part 83, or + By decision of a United States court. However, a tribe whose relationship with the United States has been expressly terminated by Congress may not use the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Only Congress can restore federal recognition to a “terminated” tribe. The Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish annually a list of the federally recognized tribes in the Federal Register. The list was last published on August 11, 2009 (74 C.F.R. 40218). What does tribal sovereignty mean to American Indians and Alaska Natives? ‘When tribes first encountered Europeans, they were a power to be reckoned with because the combined American Indian and Alaska Native population dominated the North American continent. Their strength in numbers, the control they exerted over the natural resources within and between their territories, and the European practice of establishing relations with countries other than themselves and the recognition of tribal property rights led to tribes being seen by exploring foreign powers as sovereign nations, who treatied with them accordingly. http://www.doi.gov/bia/ia faas.html Indian Affairs | Mailing Address: | Department of the Interior | 1849 C Street, N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20240 | Telephone: | Telefax: | webteam@ios.doi.gov About Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Home | About Us i Contact Us | FAQs WA Calendar 9/23/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 2 of 7 However, as the foreign powers’ presence expanded and with the establishment and growth of the United States, tribal populations dropped dramatically and tribal sovereignty gradually eroded. While tribal sovereignty is limited today by the United States under treaties, acts of Congress, Executive Orders, federal administrative agreements and court decisions, what remains is nevertheless protected and maintained by the federally recognized tribes against further encroachment by other sovereigns, such as the states. Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent. What is a federal Indian reservation? In the United States there are three types of reserved federal lands: military, public, and Indian. A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe. Approximately 56.2 million acres are held in trust by the United States for various Indian tribes and individuals. There are approximately 326 Indian land areas in the U.S. administered as federal Indian reservations (i.e., reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.). The largest is the 16 million-acre Navajo Nation Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The smallest is a 1.32-acre parcel in California where the Pit River Tribe's cemetery is located. Many of the smaller reservations are less than 1,000 acres. Some reservations are the remnants of a tribe's original land base. Others were created by the federal government for the resettling of Indian people forcibly relocated from their homelands. Not every federally recognized tribe has a reservation. Federal Indian reservations are generally exempt from state jurisdiction, including taxation, except when Congress specifically authorizes such jurisdiction. Are there any federal Indian reservations in Alaska? Yes, one. It is the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Island Reserve in southeastern Alaska. Are there other types of “Indian lands”? Yes. Other types of Indian lands are: + Allotted lands, which are remnants of reservations broken up during the federal allotment period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although the practice of allotting lands had begun in the eighteenth century, it was put to greater use after the Civil War. By 1885, over 11,000 patents had been issued to individual Indians under various treaties and laws. Starting with the General Allotment Act in 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act) until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, allotments were conveyed to members of affected tribes and held in trust by the federal government. As allotments were taken out of trust, they became subject to state and local taxation, which resulted in thousands of acres passing out of Indian hands. Today, 10,059,290.74 million acres of individually owned lands are still held in trust for allotees and their heirs. + Restricted status, also known as restricted fee, where title to the land is held by an individual Indian person or a tribe and which can only be alienated or encumbered by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument pursuant to federal law. + State Indian reservations, which are lands held in trust by a state for an Indian tribe. With state trust lands title is held by the state on behalf of the tribe and the lands are not subject to state property tax. They are subject to state law, however. State trust lands stem from treaties or other agreements between a tribal group and the state government or the colonial government(s) that preceded it. American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, businesses, and individuals may also own land as private property. In such cases, they are subject to state and local laws, regulations, codes, and taxation. Does the United States still make treaties with Indian tribes? No. Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871. Since then, relations with Indian groups have been formalized and/or codified by Congressional acts, Executive Orders, and Executive Agreements. Between 1778, when the first treaty was made with the Delawares, to 1871, when Congress ended the treaty-making period, the United States Senate ratified 370 treaties. At least 45 others were negotiated with tribes but were never ratified by the Senate. The treaties that were made often contain commitments that have either been fulfilled or subsequently superseded by Congressional legislation. In addition, American Indians and Alaska Natives can access education, health, welfare, and other social service programs available to all citizens, if they are eligible. Even if a tribe does not have a treaty with the United States, or has treaties that were negotiated but not ratified, its members may still receive services from the BIA or other federal programs, if eligible. The specifics of particular treaties signed by government negotiators with Indian tribes are contained in ‘one volume (Vol. I!) of the publication, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties: 1778-1883, compiled, annotated, and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Published by the United States Government Printing Office in 1904, it is now out of print, but can be found in most large law libraries and on the Internet at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Kappler. The treaty volume has also been published privately under the title, “Indian Treaties: 1778-1883.” Originals of all the treaties are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration of the General Services Administration. For more information on how to obtain copies or for more information about the treaties visit NARA's website at www.nara.gov . ll. The Nature of Federal-Tribal and State-Tribal Relations What is the relationship between the tribes and the United States? 7 The relationship between federally recognized tribes and the United States is one between sovereigns, i.e., between a government and a government. This “government-to-government” principle, which is grounded in the United States Constitution, has helped to shape the long history of relations between the federal government and these tribal nations. What is the relationship between the tribes and the individual states? Because the Constitution vested the Legislative Branch with plenary power over Indian Affairs, states have no authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. While federally http://www.doi.gov/bia/ia_faqs.html 9/23/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 3 of 7 recognized tribes generally are not subordinate to states, they can have a government-to-government relationship with these other sovereigns, as well. Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control. They can enact and enforce stricter or more lenient laws and regulations than those of the surrounding or neighboring state(s) wherein they are located. Yet, tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states through compacts or other agreements on matters of mutual concern such as environmental protection and law enforcement. What is Public Law 280 and where does it apply? In 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588) to grant certain states criminal jurisdiction over American Indians on reservations and to allow civil litigation that had come under tribal or federal court jurisdiction to be handled by state courts. However, the law did not grant states regulatory power over tribes or lands held in trust by the United States; federally guaranteed tribal hunting, trapping, and fishing rights; basic tribal governmental functions such as enrollment and domestic relations; nor the power to impose state taxes. These states also may not regulate matters such as environmental control, land use, gambling, and licenses on federal Indian reservations. The states required by Public Law 280 to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal Indian lands were Alaska (except the Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Island Reserve, which maintains criminal jurisdiction), California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin. In addition, the federal government gave up all special criminal jurisdiction in these states over Indian offenders and victims. The states that elected to assume full or partial jurisdiction were Arizona (1967), Florida (1961), Idaho (1963, subject to tribal consent), lowa (1967), Montana (1963), Nevada (1955), North Dakota (1963, subject to tribal consent), South Dakota (1957-1961), Utah (1971), and Washington (1957-1963). Subsequent acts of Congress, court decisions, and state actions to retrocede jurisdiction back to the Federal Government have muted some of the effects of the 1953 law, and strengthened the tribes’ jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters on their reservations. lll. Tribal Government: Powers, Rights, and Authorities What are inherent powers of tribal self-government? Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies. Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands. Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency. How do tribal members govern themselves? For thousands of years, American Indians and Alaska Natives governed themselves through tribal laws, cultural traditions, religious customs, and kinship systems, such as clans and societies. Today, most modern tribal governments are organized democratically, that is, with an elected leadership. Through their tribal governments, tribal members generally define conditions of membership, regulate domestic relations of members, prescribe rules of inheritance for reservation property not in trust status, levy taxes, regulate property under tribal jurisdiction, control the conduct of members by tribal ordinances, and administer justice. They also continue to utilize their traditional systems of self- government whenever and wherever possible. How are tribal governments organized? Most federally recognized tribes are organized under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), including a number of Alaska Native villages, which adopted formal governing documents under the provisions of a 1936 amendment to the IRA. The passage in 1971 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601), however, provided for the creation of regional and village corporations under state law to manage the money and lands granted to Alaska Natives by the act. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 provided for the organization of Indian tribes within the State of Oklahoma. Many tribes have constitutions, others operate under articles of association or other bodies of law, and some have found a way to combine their traditional systems of government within a modern governmental framework. Some do not operate under any of these acts, but are nevertheless organized under documents approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Contemporary tribal governments are usually, but not always, modeled upon the federal system of the three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The chief executive of a tribe is usually called a chairman, chairwoman or chairperson, but may also be called a principal chief, governor, president, mayor, spokesperson, or representative. The chief executive presides over the tribe's legislative body and executive branch. In modern tribal government, the chief executive and members of the tribal council or business committee are almost always elected. A tribe's legislative body is usually called a tribal council, a village council, or a tribal business committee. It is comprised of tribal members who are elected by eligible tribal voters. In some tribes, the council is comprised of all eligible adult tribal members. Although some tribes require a referendum by their members to enact laws, a tribal council generally acts as any other legislative body in creating laws, authorizing expenditures, appropriating funds, and conducting oversight of activities carried out by the chief executive and tribal government employees. An elected tribal council and chief executive, recognized as such by the Secretary of the Interior, have authority to speak and act for the tribe as a whole, and to represent it in negotiations with federal, state, and local governments. Furthermore, many tribes have established, or are building, their judicial branch — the tribal court system — to interpret tribal laws and administer justice. What is the jurisdiction of tribal courts? Generally, tribal courts have civil jurisdiction over Indians and non-Indians who either reside or do business on federal Indian reservations. They also have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by tribal members residing or doing business on the reservation. http://www.doi.gov/bia/ia_faqs.html 9/23/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 4 of 7 Under 25 C.F.R. Part 115, tribal courts are responsible for appointing guardians, determining competency, awarding child support from Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, determining paternity, sanctioning adoptions, marriages, and divorces, making presumptions of death, and adjudicating claims involving trust assets. There are approximately 225 tribes that contract or compact with the BIA to perform the Secretary's adjudicatory function and 23 Courts of Indian Offenses (also known as CFR courts) which exercise federal authority. The Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-176, 107 Stat. 2005) supports tribal courts in becoming, along with federal and state courts, well-established dispensers of justice in Indian Country. What is meant by tribal self-determination and self-governance? Congress has recognized the right of tribes to have a greater say over the development and implementation of federal programs and policies that directly impact on them and their tribal members. It did so by enacting two major pieces of legislation that together embody the important concepts of tribal self-determination and self-governance: The Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.). Through these laws, Congress accorded tribal governments the authority to administer themselves the programs and services usually administered by the BIA for their tribal members. It also upheld the principle of tribal consultation, whereby the federal government consults with tribes on federal actions, policies, rules or regulations that will directly affect them. IV. Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens Who is an American Indian or Alaska Native? As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person's knowledge of his or her tribe's culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native. There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe. How large is the national American Indian and Alaska Native population? According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the estimated population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, as of July 1, 2007, was 4.5 million, or 1.5 per cent of the total U.S. population. In the BIA’s 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, the latest available, the total number of enrolled members of the (then) 561 federally recognized tribes was shown to be less than half the Census number, or 1,978,099. Why are American Indians and Alaska Natives also referred to as Native Americans? When referring to American Indian or Alaska Native persons, it is still appropriate to use the terms “American Indian” and “Alaska Native.” These terms denote the cultural and historical distinctions between persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the continental United States (American Indians) and the indigenous tribes and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives, i.e., Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians). They also refer specifically to persons eligible for benefits and services funded or directly provided by the BIA. The term “Native American” came into broad usage in the 1970's as an alternative to “American Indian.” Since that time, however, it has been gradually expanded within the public lexicon to include ai! Native peoples of the United States and its trust territories, i.e., American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, and American Samoans, as well as persons from Canada First Nations and indigenous communities in Mexico and Central and South America who are U.S. residents. Are American Indians and Alaska Natives wards of the Federal Government? No. The Federal Government is a trustee of Indian property, not a guardian of all American Indians and Alaska Natives. Although the Secretary of the Interior is authorized by law to protect, where necessary, the interests of minors and adult persons deemed incompetent to handle their affairs, this protection does not confer a guardian-ward relationship. Are American Indians and Alaska Natives citizens of the United States? Yes. As early as 1817, U.S. citizenship had been conferred by special treaty upon specific groups of Indian people. American citizenship was also conveyed by statutes, naturalization proceedings, and by service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge in World War |. In 1924, Congress extended American citizenship to all other American Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States. American Indians and Alaska Natives are citizens of the United States and of the individual states, counties, cities, and towns where they reside. They can also become citizens of their tribes or villages as enrolled tribal members. Do American Indians and Alaska Natives have the right to vote? Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the right to vote just as all other U.S. citizens do. They can vote in presidential, congressional, state and local, and tribal elections, if eligible. And, just as the federal government and state and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria, so do tribal governments. Do American Indians and Alaska Natives have the right to hold public office? Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same rights as other citizens to hold public office. Over the years, American Indian and Alaska Native men and women have held elected and appointed offices at all levels of federal, state, and local government. Charles Curtis, a member of the Kaw Tribe of Kansas, served in both houses of Congress before holding the second highest elected office in the nation — that of Vice President of the United States under President Herbert Hoover. American Indians and Alaska Natives also serve in state legislatures, state judicial systems, county and city governments, and ‘on local school boards. httn://www.doi.sov/bia/ia faas.html 9/23/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 5 of 7 Do American Indians and Alaska Natives have special rights different from other citizens? Any “special” rights held by federally recognized tribes and their members are generally based on treaties or other agreements between the tribes and the United States. The heavy price American Indians and Alaska Natives paid to retain certain rights of self-government was to relinquish much of their land and resources to the United States. U.S. law protects the inherent rights they did not relinquish. Among those may be hunting and fishing rights and access to sacred sites. Do American Indians and Alaska Natives pay taxes? Yes. They pay the same taxes as other citizens with the following exceptions: Federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands held for them by the U.S. State income taxes are not paid on income earned on a federal Indian reservation. State sales taxes are not-paid by Indians on transactions made on a federal Indian reservation. Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land. Do laws that apply to non-indians also apply to Indians? Yes. As U.S. citizens, American Indians and Alaska Natives are generally subject to federal, state, and local laws. On federal Indian reservations, however, only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe, unless Congress provides otherwise. In federal law, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes any violation of state criminal law a federal offense on reservations. Most tribes now maintain tribal court systems and facilities to detain tribal members convicted of certain offenses within the boundaries of the reservation. Do all American Indians and Alaska Natives speak a single traditional language? No. American Indians and Alaska Natives come from a multitude of different cultures with diverse languages, and for thousands of years used oral tradition to pass down familial and cultural information among generations of tribal members. Some tribes, even if widely scattered, belong to the same linguistic families. Common means of communicating between tribes allowed trade routes and political alliances to flourish. As contact between Indians and non-indians grew, so did the necessity of learning of new languages. Even into the 20th century, many American Indians and Alaska Natives were bi- or multilingual from learning to speak their own language and English, French, Russian, or Spanish, or even another tribal language. It has been reported that at the end of the 15th century over 300 American Indian and Alaska Native languages were spoken. Today, fewer than 200 tribal languages are still viable, with some having been translated into written form. English, however, has become the predominant language in the home, school, and workplace. Those tribes who can still do so are working to preserve their languages and create new speakers from among their tribal populations. Must all American Indians and Alaska Natives live on reservations? No. American Indians and Alaska Natives live and work anywhere in the United States (and the world) just as other citizens do. Many leave their reservations, communities or villages for the same reasons as do other Americans who move to urban centers: to seek education’and employment. Over one-half of the total U.S. American Indian and Alaska Native population now live away from their tribal lands. However, most return home to visit relatives; attend family gatherings and celebrations; participate in religious, cultural, or community activities; work for their tribal governments; operate businesses; vote in tribal elections or run for tribal office; retire; or to be buried. Do American Indians and Alaska Natives serve in the Armed Forces? Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have a long and distinguished history of serving in our nation's Armed Forces. During the Civil War, American Indians served on both sides of the conflict. Among the most well-known are Brigadier General Ely S. Parker (Seneca), an aide to Union General Ulysses S. Grant who recorded the terms of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia that ended the war, and Brigadier General Stand Watie (Cherokee), the last of the Confederate generals to cease fighting after the surrender was concluded. American Indians also fought with Theodore Roosevelt in the Spanish-American War. During World War | over 8,000 American Indian soldiers, of whom 6,000 were volunteers, served. Their patriotism moved Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. In World War II, 25,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men and women fought on all fronts in Europe and the South Pacific earning, collectively, at least 71 Air Medals, 51 Silver Stars, 47 Bronze Stars, 34 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and two Congressional Medals of Honor. Alaska Natives also served in the Alaska Territorial Guard. Starting in World War | and again in World War II, the U.S. military employed a number of American Indian servicemen to use their tribal languages as a military code that could not be broken by the enemy. These “code talkers” came from many different tribes, including Chippewa, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Comanche, Hopi, Navajo, Seminole, and Sioux. During World War II, the Navajos constituted the largest component within that elite group. In the Korean Conflict, one Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to an American Indian serviceman. In the Vietnam War, 41,500 Indian service personnel served. In 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, some 24,000 Indian men and women were in the military. Approximately 3,000 served in the Persian Gulf with three among those killed in action. American Indian service personnel have also served in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom). While American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same obligations for military service as other U.S. citizens, many tribes have a strong military tradition within their cultures, and veterans are considered to be among their most honored members. Vv. The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, the BIA, and the BIE Who Is the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs? The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (AS-IA) has responsibility for fulfilling the Interior Department's trust responsibilities to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and individuals, as well as promoting the self-determination and economic well-being of the tribes and their members. The Assistant Secretary together with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs oversee the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE); the Office of External Affairs; the Office of Federal Acknowledgment; the Office of Regulatory Management, as well as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary - Management. htto://www.doi.gov/bia/ia faas.html 9/23/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 6 of 7 There have been 10 assistant secretaries since the Office of the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs was established by DOI Secretarial order in 1977. The most recent was Carl J. Artman, an enrolled member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, who was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 5, 2007, and served until May 23, 2008. The assistant secretaries for Indian Affairs are: Forrest J. Gerard, Blackfeet (1977-1980) Thomas W. Fredericks, Mandan-Hidatsa (1980-1981) Kenneth L. Smith, Wasco (1981-1984) Ross O. Swimmer, Cherokee (1985-1989) Dr. Eddie F. Brown, Tohono O’odham- Yaqui (1989-1993) Ada E. Deer, Menominee (1993-1997) Kevin Gover, Pawnee (1997-2001) Neal McCaleb, Chickasaw (2001-2002) David W. Anderson, Lac Courte Oreilles Chippewa-Choctaw (2003-2005) Carl J. Artman, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin (2007-2008) What Is the Bureau of Indian Affairs? The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the primary federal agency charged with carrying out the United States’ trust responsibility to American Indian and Alaska Native people, maintaining the federal government-to-government relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes, and promoting and supporting tribal self-determination. The bureau implements federal laws and policies and administers programs established for American Indians and Alaska Natives under the trust responsibility and the government-to-government relationship. What is the BIA's history? The Continental Congress governed Indian affairs during the first years of the United States — in 1775 it established a Committee on Indian Affairs headed by Benjamin Franklin. At the end of the eighteenth century, Congress transferred the responsibility for managing trade relations with the tribes to the Secretary of War by its act of August 20, 1789 (1 Stat. 54). An Office of indian Trade was established in the War Department by an act of April 21, 1806 (2 Stat. 402) specifically to handle this responsibility below the secretarial level. It was later abolished by an act of May 6, 1822 (3 Stat. 679) which handed responsibility for all Indian matters back to the Secretary of War. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun administratively established the BIA within the his department on March 11, 1824. Congress later legislatively established the bureau and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs post via the act of July 9, 1832 (4 Stat. 564). In 1849, the BIA was transferred to the newly created Interior Department. In the years that followed, the Bureau was known variously as the Indian Office, the Indian bureau, the Indian department, and the Indian service. The name “Bureau of Indian Affairs” was formally adopted by the Interior Department on September 17, 1947. Since 1824 there have been 45 Commissioners of Indian Affairs of which six have been American Indian or Alaska Native: Ely S. Parker, Seneca (1869-1871); Robert L. Bennett, Oneida (1966-1969); Louis R. Bruce, Mohawk-Oglala Sioux (1969-1973); Morris Thompson, Athabascan (1973-1976); Benjamin Reifel, Sioux (1976-1977); and William E. Hallett, Red Lake Chippewa (1979-1981). For almost 200 years—beginning with treaty agreements negotiated by the United States and tribes in the late 18th and 19th centuries, through the General Allotment Act of 1887, which opened tribal lands west of the Mississippi to non-Indian settlers, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 when American Indians and Alaska Natives were granted U.S. citizenship and the right to vote, the New Deal and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which established modern tribal governments, the World War II period of relocation and the post-War termination era of the 1950s, the activism of the 1960s and 1970s that saw the takeover of the BIA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., to the passage of landmark legislation such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, which have fundamentally changed how the BIA and the tribes conduct business with each other—the BIA has embodied the trust and government-to-government relationships between the U.S. and the 562 tribal nations that bear the designation “federally recognized.” What Is the BIA’s relationship today with American Indians and Alaska Natives? The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a rarity among federal agencies. With roots reaching back to the the earliest days of the republic, the BIA is almost as old as the United States itself. For most of its existence, the BIA has mirrored the public's ambivalence towards the nation's indigenous people. But, as federal policy has evolved from seeking the subjugation of American Indians and Alaska Natives into one that respects tribal self-determination, so, too, has the BIA’s mission evolved into one that is based on service to and partnership with the tribes. The BIA Mission Statement, which is based on principles embodied in federal treaties, laws and policies, and in judicial decisions, clearly describes the bureau's relationship today with the American Indian and Alaska Native people: “The BIA’s mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. We will accomplish this through the delivery of quality services, maintaining government-to- government relationships within the spirit of self-determination.” How does the BIA carry out its mission? Today, in keeping with their authorities and responsibilities under the Snyder Act of 1921 and other federal laws, regulations, and treaties, BIA employees across the country work with tribal governments in the administration of employment and job training assistance; law enforcement and justice; agricultural and economic development; tribal governance; and natural resources management programs to enhance the quality of life in tribal communities. The following are just some examples of what we do: + We provide funding to and administer government program services for the 562 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes located in 34 states, and through them to their approximately 1.9 million members. + We work with tribes in the administration of approximately 56 million acres of trust land, and the natural resources therein, for the use and benefit of the tribes and individual Indians. + We maintain five law enforcement district offices nationwide to provide police protection and investigative services for both Indian and non-Indians living in Indian Country. We also directly operate or fund tribally operated law enforcement programs, courts, and detention facilities in tribal communities across the U.S. + We build and maintain thousands of miles of roads, as well as bridges, dams, and other physical infrastructure throughout Indian Country which benefit both Indians and non-Indians alike. + We work with other federal, tribal, state, and local emergency personnel in responses to wildland fires and other natural disasters. httn://www doi sav/hias/ia faas html 9/93/2009 Indian Affairs - FAQs Page 7 of 7 We administer the Guaranteed Indian Loan Program to stimulate, increase, and sustain Indian entrepreneurship and business development in tribal communities. We assist tribes in administering federal economic development and employment and training programs. We administer BIA programs for tribes unable or who choose not to operate those programs. We directly serve thousands of individual Indian trust beneficiaries by providing assistance in the probating of Indian trust estates, administering leases approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and performing other fiduciary duties. Until 1955, the BIA’s responsibilities included providing health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. That year, the function was legislatively transferred as the Indian Health Service to the U.S. Public Health Service within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, known now as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), where it has remained to this day. What is the Bureau of Indian Education? The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), formerly know as the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP), is under the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs. It is responsible for the line direction and management of all BIE education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, the supervision of all program activities, and the approval of the expenditure of funds appropriated for BIE education functions. The BIE mission, which can be found in 25 C.F.R. Part 32.3, states that the BIE is to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with the tribe's needs for cultural and economic well-being in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. The BIE also shall manifest consideration of the whole person by taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical, and cultural aspects of the person within his or her family and tribal or village context. The BIE school system has 184 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories located on 63 reservations in 23 states, including seven off-reservation boarding schools and 122 schools directly controlled by tribes and tribal school boards under contracts or grants with the BIE. The bureau also funds 66 residential programs for students at 52 boarding schools and at 14 dormitories housing those attending nearby tribal or public schools. The school system employs approximately 5,000 teachers, administrators, and support personnel, while an estimated 6,600 work in tribal school systems. In School Year 2006-07, the schools served almost 48,000 students. In the area of postsecondary education, the BIE provides support to 24 tribal colleges and universities across the U.S. serving over 25,000 students, and directly operates two institutions of higher learning: the Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIP) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It also operates higher education scholarship programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. There have been three major legislative actions that restructured the Bureau of Indian Affairs with regard to education since the Snyder Act of 1921. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 introduced the teaching of Indian history and culture in BIA schools, which contrasted with the federal policy at the time of acculturating and assimilating Indian people through the BIA boarding school system. The Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 90-638) gave authority to the tribes to contract with the BIA for the operation of local schools and to determine education programs suitable for their children. The Education Amendments Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-561) and further technical amendments (P.L. 98-511, 99-89, and 100-297) provided funds directly to tribal schools, empowered Indian school boards, permitted local hiring of teachers and staff, and established a direct line of authority between the OIEP Director and the Assistant Secretary — Indian Affairs. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) to bring additional requirements of accountability and academic achievement for supplemental program funds provided by the U.S. Department of Education through the OIEP to the schools. In 2006, the OIEP was formally elevated to bureau status by secretarial action and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education. For additional information To obtain contact information for the 562 Federally recognized tribes, visit the Indian Affairs web page at www.doi.gov/bia/docs/TLD-Final, pdf and click on the “Tribal Leaders Directory” link. For information about tracing American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry to any of the federally recognized tribes, click on the “Trace Indian Ancestry” link on the front page (left side) of the DO! website at www.doi.gov. For information about the U.S. Indian Health Service, visit www.ihs.gov or call the IHS Public Affairs Office at (301) 443-3593. Site Map | Accessibility | Contact Us | Feedback | Notices | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | BIA Home OIA | No Fear Act Data | E-Gov | USA.gov | USAJobs.aov | DOL gov This is an Official U.S. Government Web Site. Last Updated: August 3, 2009 httn://Aaxrana dai oav/hia/ia faas html 9/23/2009