Mr. ECHOHAWK. Yes, I would. I just might add, Congressman Meeds, that in carrying out the trust responsibility, you are going to have to be involved in several different areas of administrative proceedings, litigation, and as you say, I think very appropriately, legislation also. And I think that is the heart of the Menominee situation. Mr. MEEDS. Do you feel that the trust counsel should in any way represent tribes in land claims before the Claims Commission?

Mr. ECHOHAWK. I really have no opinion on that at all, Congressman. We are not involved in claims cases ourselves. And I would leave that to the claims attorney. I really have had no feeling for it.

Mr. MEEDS. We certainly ought not to restrict the trust counsel to nonfee generated cases, though, had we? There may be some instances in which there would be fees involved in a case if the trust counsel didn't take it.

In other words, private attorneys could take it. Should we restrict trust counsel to nonfee generated cases?

Mr. ECHOHAWK. I would think not, Congressman Meeds, in terms of legal services attorneys, there are general prohibitions against taking fee generated cases. But there is a procedure set up for reviewing those. That is, if you have a fee generating case-I am talking about the OEO legal services guidelines now as I understand themyou can take that case to three different attorneys, and if the three attorneys that you take it to one by one are not interested in bringing the case themselves, then the program itself is authorized to bring the case.

Mr. MEEDS. Isn't that different, though, Mr. Echohawk, that in legal services cases there are no obligations on the part of the Federal Government to furnish an attorney for anybody in a private noncriminal matter; unfortunately, there is no obligation? I think you and I would agree that there should be, but there is none. In this instance, there is a very clear obligation on the part of the Federal Government to furnish legal services to tribes in these conflict matters, it would seem to me there is a very clear obligation, an obligation which the Justice Department and the Department of Interior have heretofore very inadequately been carrying out? There is that distinction; would you not agree with that?

Mr. ECHOHAWK. Yes, I would acknowledge that distinction.

I would just anticipate objections by the private bar, I think, is about all I can say.

Mr. MEEDS. I am sure we will get objections by the private bar, based on that same concept that there are legal services, for instance, and that they have only nonfee generated cases. But I think the illustration is different.

Mr. ECHOHAWK. We are involved in one particular case involvingit is really a trust counsel case involving the Walker River Reservation in Nevada, and a trespass which has been going on by a particular railroad for years and years, they don't have a right-of-way. And we are challenging that in court, in addition to trying to get a declaration from the court that their occupation of the reservation is illegal. We are asking for damages. So I know the two things are consistent.

Mr. MEEDS. Minority counsel wants to know about what your track record is at the Native American Rights Fund. You have been in

existence 3 years now. How many times have you been to bat and what is your average?

Mr. ECHOHAWK. I haven't really kept numbers. We have won a case on behalf of the Pyramid Lake Tribe from the Secretary of the Interior last fall. We won the Cocopah case that I mentioned earlier in the area of education. We have won several discrimination suits in New York in the last year or two.

Mr. MEEDS. Weren't you also successful in forcing the President to release money for Indian education?

Mr. ECHOHAWK. Yes, there was an issue of the impoundment of Indian education funds, we were successful on that.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Echohawk. And we will look forward to your prepared statement, and also your written answer to those questions. That will give you a little more time on those questions with regard to cost. We would very much appreciate your giving that serious consideration, because that is a serious matter before the subcommittee right now.

Mr. ECHOHAWK. OK, thank you, Congressman.

Mr. MEEDS. We will now stand in recess until 1.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 1 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. MEEDS. The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the full Committee on House Interior and Insular Affairs will be in continued session from this morning's session for the taking of testimony on H.R. 6106, H.R. 6374, and H.R. 6494, to provide for the creation of an Indian Trust Counsel Authority and for other purposes."

Our first witness this afternoon is Gov. Robert Lewis, of the Zuni Tribal Council, who is a representative of the National Tribal Chairman's Association.

Governor Lewis, please come forward.

We are delighted to see you here, sir, and we look forward to your testimony.

If you have a prepared statement, sir, you may read it into the record or summarize it, whichever you wish.

Mr. LEWIS. May I read it, sir?

Mr. MEEDS. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF GOV. ROBERT LEWIS, ZUNI TRIBAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMAN'S ASSO

CIATION

Mr. LEWIS, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we come here today to urge enactment of H.R. 6374, a bill, "To Provide for the Creation of the Indian Trust Counsel Authority and for Other Purposes."

As you gentlemen well know, there exists between the American Indian and the Government of the United States a unique relationship, a relationship based upon treaties between the American Indian and the Government of the United States. That relationship was, to a large extent, created to help the American Indian preserve some of the land that he claimed by virtue of his aboriginal title.

The land set aside or reserved for the American Indian is today what we call the reservations. Today, it's on these islands of land in this great country that the American Indians try to maintain their culture, their heritage, and so to speak, their identity as Indians. Over the years, we have found that the land base and its attendant rights have grown steadily smaller.

To a large extent this diminishing of Indian land and attendant rights has come about because the Government of the United States has found itself faced with a conflict between its duty and responsibility to the people of this Nation and its duty and responsibility as a trustee for the land and natural resource rights of the American Indians. In most instances over the years, the Indians have come out on the losing end of each of the conflict situations.

We are here today supporting this legislation because it, for the first time, creates within the Federal Government an institution that will have as its only aim the preservation and protection of the land and natural resource rights of the American Indian people; that is, rights to land, to use of water, timber, minerals, and rights to hunt and fish.

It creates an institution that will be under the control of a board dominated by American Indians. It will have as its principal officer an official who will have the authority to go to court to protect the land and natural resource rights of the American Indian.

This body will not have to be an advocate for the rights and interests of other groups, but can take action to let the courts of this land make a legal determination as to what the rights of any one group may be. The American Indian will not, because of conflicts built into the governmental system, be deprived of his day in court.

While strongly supporting this legislation and the office that it creates, we want to make it clear that we think that the bill can be improved.

First, the definition of "Indian" should be made clear; that is, in relation to federally recognized tribes and communities.

We believe that the board of directors of the Indian trust counsel could be expanded to 6 or 7 members to give that board broader representation. The broader representation would, in our opinion, give the board greater credibility. We would hope that this body could see its way clear to enlarging the membership of the board of directors.

We also would like to see the bill include some provision for assuring the Indians a voice in the selection of the membership of the board. We do not want to limit the President's power of appointment, but the bill might provide that the President must consider a list of potential appointees submitted to him from the various Indian organizations such as NTCA and others, before making this appointment.

Who but the Indian people would know who would best represent them on this board? We would also like to see the Department of Justice still have some responsibility for the protection of the land and natural resource rights of the Indian people. We will look primarily to this new institution for such protection, but we know the vast legal expertise that the Department of Justice has built up over the Nation's life and we feel that this expertise should be available to the Indian people if they need it. The Justice Department

should in no way be put into the position, by relieving them of responsibilities toward Indian natural resource claims, whereby its only function will be to declare full-scale attack against Indian claims. We applaud the provision in this bill that has the United States waive its sovereign immunity to suits brought by the Indian trust counsel authority, but feel that that authority should be broadened to include any suit brought to protect the land and natural resource rights of the American Indians. If the legislation were written to waive the immunity to suit of the United States in those cases where the courts found that the suit was justified and was in fact brought for the purpose of protecting the land and natural resource rights of the American Indian, it would, in our judgment, be a fairer bill and would not create an avalanche of litigation.

It would also be our recommendation that the various agencies and departments of the Government be required to furnish information and documents requested by the trust counsel authority rather than authorize them to cooperate as the legislation now does. Cooperation might include no information and documents.

In conclusion, let me say that this bill offers the American Indian the first real hope that his land and natural resource rights will be protected as they should be. It is for this reason that we strongly endorse the concept. We believe that the changes we have suggested will make it a stronger institution.

This legislation has been promised for many years and the Indians have been looking and waiting for this type of legislation. There are many issues vital to the development of Indian lands and protection of their lands which remain unresolved because there is no office which exercises this advocacy on matters of water, fishing, and boundary disputes, critical to Indian self-sufficiency.

We feel it absolutely essential that this institution be created if there is to be a strong and harmonious relationship between the American Indian and the Government. We urge the timely passage of a trust counsel authority bill by the Congress.

Thank you.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Governor Lewis.

I see you have been joined by Roger Jim, chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council and also a member of the NTĆA.

Do you have a statement, Mr. Jim?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. JIM, JR., CHAIRMAN, YAKIMA TRIBAL COUNCIL, AND AREA REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. JIM. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Robert B. Jim, chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council, I am the area representative for the National Tribal Association. I agree to come up here and assist my associate, who represents the National Tribal Chairman's Association, as I have testified on S. 2305 in the Senate in 1971 in a hearing over there.

The basic thing. I think, that must be attacked by this committeeand I am sure that many of you with your research personnel, including Mr. Neshler, are much more knowledgeable in this field than I am. But the primary interest of the Indians is, one, it goes without say

ing that this does attack one problem, and I believe that you have to be commended for bringing this type of bill to the attention of the public, where you have a conflict of interest.

We cite many cases where the Department of Justices has to furnish attorneys for both sides. Take the Ahtonum water case, 50 years of water fighting. In that case one attorney was fighting for the north side, which were the white. And next door was Mr. Veeder fighting for the Indians. And they were both under the land division of the Department of Justice.

This conflict of interest, thought it might be justifiable, goes back to the Department of Justice where, under article VI, it says that the Department of Justice is the other representative to the treaty signer, they represent the other side of the Indian treaty. And I think that conflict of interest-I am sure it will be, as you are representing all the people-considered, in the ultimate bill that comes out, to the benefit of the people that you are considering here today, and our people that we represent.

The second thing is that if they do talk about a sever, justice away from the Indians, and relieving them of the responsibility, and to be able to be sued, then that automatically puts them on the other side, so that they have 200 or 300 attorneys with our maybe 1 or 2 or 9, whatever we've got. And that brings a burden upon the Indians.

But it is not only us. There are many tribes and many little people whose rights are at stake that cannot even afford a council to come here and testify, or an attorney, or even get legal services for the poor that must be considered. And they have the same rights as we do.

So I think if this is passed, then great consideration should be given that in the appropriations one of the implicit things expressed should be to have the attorneys to protect the Indians.

We would like to commend the committee for requesting that we appear here. And in behalf of the chairman's association, we will try to answer all questions. That is all I have to add. I am sure the Governor has more.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jim.

Governor, the first question I would have would be to ask if you could further enlighten me about your statement on page 2 where you

say:

First, the definition of "Indian" should be made clear; that is, in relation to federally recognized tribes and communities.

What do you mean by that?

What are you suggesting that we do?

Mr. LEWIS. I believe that the main idea behind this particular statement was that all the litigation that is coming about right at this time, and that may come about perhaps in the future, is strictly concerned with the Indians who are federally recognized and living on reservations. And I think that the definition would simply be guided toward specifically saying, in the light of litigation that is now in process and that which will be coming up in the future.

Mr. MEEDS. I notice also, Governor, that you suggest that it be expanded to six or seven members.

Don't we just get into-we have all been considering these matters for a number of years-get into Indian politics if we get too manydoesn't it become kind of a thicket that we don't want to be in, but we