April 10, 1972. If this bill is enacted, the Commission will have had a period of 25 years from the date of its first meeting to hear these claims and submit its final report to the Congress. I think all of us who are knowledgeable about Indian affairs are distressed that the claims which the Indians have had for so long have not been tried. However, in fairness to all concerned, it should be pointed out that several circumstances and situations have arisen that slowed the pace of adjudication. For example, a few years ago the question of contingent fee contracts with expert witnesses arose, and until Congress was able to correct the situation the Commission's business came to a virtual halt. Shortly thereafter it became necessary for Congress to create a special revolving loan fund for tribes in order that they could borrow money with which to engage their expert witnesses to testify in their behalf before the Commission. Some little time was required to enact authorizing legislation and for the money to be appropriated and made available to the Indians.

So far as I know all of the major obstacles that contributed to earlier delays have been overcome, and I believe the work of the Commission will be noticeably accelerated in the coming months. One of the purposes of our hearing today is to ascertain how we might further expedite the Commission's task. We have asked the three Commissioners-Hon. Arthur V. Watkins, William M. Holt, and T. Harold Scott-to appear before us to give any recommendations they may have and to inform us of their accomplishments and of the workload remaining. The Department of Justice, which is charged with defending the United States in these claims matters, has representatives here and is prepared to present the status of their work and perhaps some suggestions for speeding up the whole adjudication process, including prospects for settlements.

We have invited representatives from the Department of the Interior who are prepared to tell us about the special revolving loan fund I referred to earlier and its adequacy to meet the needs of the tribes, and also to advise us about the status of Indian attorney contracts.

It is my understanding that some tribal claimants do not have counsel, and I think it important to know what steps are going to be taken to assure that they will be represented before the Commission. The General Services Administration, which has responsibility for preparing accounting reports in response to allegations in the Indians' petitions, is also prepared to tell the committee about its work.

Without objection, a copy of S. 307, together with the reports from the Claims Commission and the various executive departments, will be inserted in this record following my remarks.

Under date of January 25, 1967, the chairman of this committee, Senator Jackson, sent letters to the Indian Claims Commission, the Department of Justice, and the General Services Administration, asking questions concerning the possible cause of delay in the final disposition of pending claims cases. We have received replies to these letters, and they will be included in the hearing record at the appropriate place.

I am sure that every member of this committee will agree with me that our objective is to find ways and means of getting the Indians' cases before the court at the earliest possible time. They have waited many, many years. If they are entitled to recoveries against the United States, the awards should be made as promptly as possible in order that funds appropriated to satisfy those judgments may be used to improve the economic well-being of tribal members. This source of funds offers a tremendous opportunity for individual and tribal betterment, and any suggestions or ideas that will help in getting the adjudicatory process moving more rapidly will be most welcome. (The data referred to follow:)

[S. 307, 90th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Indian Claims Commission Act, approved August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049, 1055), is hereby amended as follows:

(a) After section 26, add a new section 27 to read:

"SEC. 27. (a) The Commission shall, as expeditiously as practical following the date of enactment of this section, set a day no later than January 1, 1970, for the trial of each claim pending before the Commission which, on such date of enactment, has not been set for trial.

"(b) If a claimant is unable or unwilling to proceed with the trial of its claim on the day set for that purpose, the Commission shall enter an order dismissing the claim with prejudice: Provided, That, upon motion of the claimant and for good cause shown, the Commission may grant a continuance of the trial of the claim for not more than six months. If, at the expiration of such period of continuance, the claimant is unable or unwilling to proceed with the trial on its claim, the Commission shall enter an order dismissing the claim with prejudice: Provided, however, That the Commission may stay the entry of such order of dismissal if the Commission finds that a final compromise of the claim is being negotiated in good faith by the parties. An order of the Commission dismissing a claim under this section shall be final and not subject to review by any court. The Court of Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any action upon any claim which has been dismissed by the Commission under this section." (b) Amend section 23 to read:

"SEC. 23. The existence of the Commission shall terminate at the end of five years from and after April 10, 1967, or at such earlier time as the Commission shall have made its final report to the Congress on all claims filed with it. Upon

of the United States."

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1967.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Your committee has requested a report on S. 307, a bill "To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, as amended." We recommend enactment of the bill, subject to consideration of the following comments with respect to the proposed new section 27.

The life of the Indian Claims Commission will expire on April 10, 1967, unless new legislation is enacted. The Commission was established to provide a forum for hearing and deciding all tribal claims against the United States that were in existence before 1946. Much time and money have been invested in the preparation and trial of those claims. It would be both wasteful and unfair to the Indian tribes to allow the Commission to expire before the process has been completed. The tribes are entitled to their day in court, and if they are not allowed to proceed before the Indian Claims Commission they will undoubtedly request the enactment of special jurisdictional Acts, which is a practice Congress sought to avoid when it enacted the Indian Claims Commission Act.

In our opinion, it is highly desirable to extend the life of the Commission for a reasonable period, and the 5-year period provided in the bill seems reasonable to us.

The

S. 307 also adds a new section 27 to the Indian Claims Commission Act. purpose is to promote the expeditious disposal of the pending claims, and we are in co complete agreement with that purpose. The Indian Claims Commission Act was enacted August 13, 1946, and all claims were required to be filed by August 13, 1951. The Commission was originally scheduled to expire April 10, 1957, and its life has been extended twice to April 10, 1967. It would of course be to the advantage of the Indians now living if their tribal claims could be settled within the near future.

The new section 27 requires the Commission to set each pending claim for trial on or before January 1, 1970. Claims are ordinarily tried in three stages, one each on title, value, and offsets. We understand that the 1970 date is intended to refer to trial of the initial stage of each claim, but the bill does not actually say so.

Although we do not have the data available to the Indian Claims Commission and the Department of Justice, we believe that this requirement of section 27 is too rigid. Rather than require that all claims be set for trial of the initial stage by 1970, we believe that the Commission might be required to prepare a trial calendar that would include all cases, regardless of whether they have previously been calendared for trial. This could be done by the following amendment:

1. On page 1, line 9, delete "set a day no later than January 1, 1970," and substitute "prepare a trial calendar". On page 1, lines 10 and 11, delete "which, on such date of enactment, has not been set for trial."

The new section 27 then provides that if a claimant is unable or unwilling to proceed with the trial on the date set, the Commission must dismiss the claim with prejudice unless for good cause shown the Commission grants a continuance. Only one continuance for not more than 6 months may be granted.

We understand the reference to a claimant who is unable or unwilling to proceed with the trial to mean no more than a claimant who fails to proceed with the trial. The precise meaning of "unable or unwilling" is therefore not significant. You might consider, however, the following amendment:

2. On page 2, lines 1 and 8, change "is unable or unwilling" to "fails". The prohibition against granting more than one continuance, and the requirement that the one continuance granted may not exceed 6 months, are drastic. Some provision should be made for further continuances for reasons that are beyond the control of the claimant. This could be done by the following amend

ment:

3. On page 2, line 7, change the period to a semicolon and add "and the Commission may grant further continuances when justified by facts that are beyond the control of the claimant."

Some tribes with claims pending before the Commission are not represented by attorneys. Before dismissing one of these claims we believe the Commission should consider carefully the reasonableness of the efforts made by the tribe to obtain an attorney. It might consider using the authority under section 13 of the Act, which provides for an Investigation Division of the Commission to search the claims referred to it, and if the facts warrant a further extension of time to obtain an attorney, the Commission should grant the extension.

The new section 27 also provides that a Commission order dismissing a claim shall be final and not subject to review by any court, and that the Court of Claims may not adjudicate any claim dismissed by the Commission. This provision would preclude clude the correction of arbitrary and capricious action, and is inconsistent with normal judicial processes whcih provide for at least one appellate review. We therefore recommend the following amendment:

4. On page 2, lines 13 to 18, delete the two full sentences.

We also wish to point out a possible fallacy in the premise on which the bill is drafted. The premise is that all pending claims dould be disposed of in the next 5 years if the Indians were forced to adhere to a comprehensive trial calendar. The assumption is that the Government and the Commission would be able to perform their functions within that time-frame. That assumption should be verified. If the Government cannot be prepared to try, and if the Commission is not equipped to decide, all stages of the remaining claims during the next 5 years, your committee should be aware of those facts.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours,

HARRY R. ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D.C., February 14, 1967,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of January 24, 1967, requested the views of the General Services Administration on S. 307, 90th Congress, a bill "To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, as amended."

The primary purpose of the proposed legislation is to expedite consideration and final disposition of all claims which have been filed against the United States under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 and which have not yet been acted upon by the Indian Claims Commission.

The interest of the General Services Administration in S. 307 stems from the fact that much of the material relied upon by the Department of Justice and the Indian tribes in proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission is based upon original documents held in the National Archives. Since creation of the Commission by the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049, 1055), letters have been received from the Attorney General of the United States enclosing copies of a total of 578 petitions which have been filed with the Commission and requesting that the Department of Justice be furnished accounting reports in response to the allegations set out in the petitions. Generally, these reports include an accounting showing the extent to which various treaty obligations have been fulfilled by the United States, an accounting of investments and trust funds, and in most cases a statement of gratuitous expenditures for consideration as possible offsets against any judgment which may be rendered against the United States. Such reports are presently prepared for the Department of Justice by the Indian Tribal Claims Branch of GSA's Region 3 National Archives and Records Service. Prior to February 28, 1965, the reports were prepared by the General Accounting Office. Over the years some of these 578 petitions have been dismissed by the Indian Claims Commission but accounting reports on all the other petitions have been furnished the Department of Justice with the exception of 64 which are in the process of being prepared by GSA. With respect to these remaining 64 petitions we expect to furnish the Justice Department accounting reports responding to the allegations made in the petitions not later than June 30, 1970. Our tentative schedule calls for completion of the work on accounting reports involving 13 of the petitions by the end of fiscal year 1967, completion of the work on accounting reports involving 22 of the petitions during fiscal year 1968, and completion of the work on accounting reports involving 29 of the petitions in fiscal year 1969.

Section (a) of S. 307 would amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 by adding a new section 27 thereto so as to provide that (1) each claim not previously set for trial would be set by the Indian Claims Commission for trial on a day not later than January 1, 1970, and (2) if the claimant is unable or unwilling to proceed with the trial on that day the Commission shall enter an order dismissing the claim with prejudice, except that on motion of the claimant and for good cause shown the Commission may grant a continuance of the trial for not more than six months and may stay the dismissal if the Commission finds that a final compromise of the claim is being negotiated in good faith by the parties. With respect to the adequacy of the time element as well as the merits of the other provisions of this proposed new section 27, GSA defers the views of the Department of Justice and the Indian Claims Commission.

Section (b) of S. 307 would amend section 23 of the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 so as to provide that (1) the existence of the Indian Claims Commission shall terminate at the end of five years from and after April 10, 1967, or at such earlier time as the Commission shall have made its final report to the Congress on all claims filed with the Commission, and (2) upon its dissolution the records of the Commission shall be delivered to the Archivist of the United States. The General Services Administration concurs in this proposed extension of the existence of the Indian Claims Commission as well as the delivery of its records to the Archivist of the United States upon dissolution of the Commission.

In view of the foregoing and insofar as the responsibilities and functions of GSA are concerned we have no objection to the enactment of S. 307.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1967.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 307, a bill "To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, as amended."

The views of the various agencies concerned have been forwarded to the Committee. We are all in agreement that the life of the Indian Claims Commission should be extended and this Bureau would support an extension of five years.

The views of the Departments of Justice and Interior differ somewhat on certain of the provisions in the bill designed to expedite the presentation and resolution of pending claims. For your convenience the following points are in the same order as discussed in the Interior report.

1. We believe the bill should provide for preparation of a trial calendar, to be completed within some reasonable time period. We see no reason why one year would not be sufficient. The present provision in the bill directing that all cases be brought to trial by January 1, 1970, seems overly optimistic to us given the present state of preparation by some tribes.

2. We agree with Interior's recommendation calling for substitution of the word "fails" for the words "unable or unwilling."

3. We support the general idea reflected in Interior's amendment providing for further continuances. However, this should not be left completely openended. In our view, it would be reasonable to provide for continuance only to the extent that these could be granted and still allow time for the Commission to make a decision on the case within the five-year extension. We suggest for your consideration the following amendment to S. 307. On page 2, line 4, change the proviso to read as follows:

"Provided, That, upon motion of the claimant and for good cause shown, the Commission may grant continuances from time to time, but in no event shall a continuance be granted which will result in there being insufficient time for the Commission to adjudicate the claim on or before April 10, 1972."

4. Finally, Interior recommends deletion of the part of the bill which provides that dismissal by the Commission shall be final, and not subject to review by any court. We believe that the continuances provided by the above amendments in cases where there is good cause shown is a fair and reasonable way of insuring an opportunity to the Indians for their day in court. However, we have no objection to Interior's proposed amendment since a dismissal under this provision would constitute a final disposition of the claim.

Subject to your consideration of the foregoing comments, the Bureau of the Budget recommends enactment of S. 307.

Sincerely yours,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

Senator McGOVERN. Congressman Ruppe, of Michigan, has sent a letter for inclusion in the hearing record, without objection, that will

be printed at this point.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Senator HENRY M. JACKSON,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1967.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that on February 15, 1967, hearings will be held on S. 307, a bill to terminate the Indian Claims Commission.

I have a substantial number of Indian constituents in my District, according to the latest official census over 2,800 Indians of 3 tribes. Many of these Indians have claims filed before the Indian Claims Commission.