to the extent of 55 to 75 percent in the food stamp program, because the States were just not serving them. Unless the Indian tribes can have a forum in whatever you gentlemen select as the best forum in which we can present our views, then, and only then, will we be comfortable.

We have found that tribes have not participated in the farm loan program to the extent of 1 percent of its total budget. And this is the rationale we feel we must have a committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better recess because there is a rollcall vote going on. I will be back after a few minutes to hear you, and we will probably wrap up in 5 or 10 minutes when I get back.

[Short recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I think Mr. Parker was just about to respond to the previous question. Before he does, I want to reiterate publicly the debt we owe on helping us resolve the Indian land claims question, which worked out well in Rhode Island, and we hope it is an example in Maine and throughout the country.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the last point Senator Cannon raised, I think there is a point which has not yet been made this morning. With the Select Committee, the leadership is able to draw from throughout the Senate in making appointments. Granted, it is only five members. But if it were a subcommittee, Energy, Resources, or whatever, it would be confined to the existing members of that standing committee to makeup the body of your subcommittee. I think that is the significant advantage of having a committee that stands out by itself.

It has been my experience in observing the legislative process that it is difficult to find members to serve on the Indian Affairs Committee because they have so many other major committees they can set on. And, granted, it is just never going to be that high a level of concern, so that drawing from throughout the Senate to makeup the membership overcomes that obstacle in terms of a limited number of people that have the time, inclination, and interest and so on to serve on the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much indeed.

Ms. Deer?

MS. DEER. I wanted to respond to both your question and Senator Cannon's question in terms of the staffing of the particular committee.

First of all, I think we have to keep this in historical perspective, that the statistics, the high dropout rate of the Indian youngsters and students at the high school level and college level do take a toll. And it was only very recently, 1965, I believe, that the special program in American Indian law was established at the University of New Mexico. And only since that time have we been able to produce in significant numbers Indians with legal training and legal background. And you see some of them here today.

So there is again the question of supply and demand. I think aside from that question, and there are more and more students that want to become involved and are taking training in various fields so they will be able to participate in the legislative process

here in Congress, aside from that is the overall commitment that this Congress should have toward American Indians. And I think all of us have addressed this in our particular comments that there should be Indian staff members.

But I also want to say that non-Indian staff members can be very effective and have been very effective, and we should not automatically make the assumption that this particular Committee should be entirely staffed completely by American Indians.

I would also like to raise the point, the hiring practices of the Congress. We know that the "old boys" network does operate and that at times it has been difficult for non-traditional groups to get in. By that I mean people of color, women. And because there are vacancies that are opened does not necessarily mean that the persons who apply to be hired are hired. So I would like to have that brought into consideration as you think about this.

The CHAIRMAN. I know the justification of what you say, but I would hope the Indian Subcommittee or Indian Committee, whatever we end up with, would lean over the other way and try to have leaning in favor of Indians.

I would also point out that you do not need all lawyers either. I am not a lawyer, and many of us who are in the Congress, are not lawyers. And that is not an absolute requirement. And there are a lot of other jobs such as secretarial, that could and should be filled this way. To my mind, it is a measure of the zest and passion for which you feel a need for an Indian Affairs Committee. If you have not been able to provide the people for the temporary committee, which is doing an excellent job now, I question the passion for which you are pushing for this permanent committee.

And, as you know, I have some sympathy for your views.

Mr. ANDRADE. We also look forward to the day that we have a chairman of the committee itself who is an Indian. We feel it is equally important to consider the just nature of this Congress and the just nature of the history of the whole congressional relations with the Indian tribes.

We have had very few members of American Indians serving as Representatives or Senators or in any other capacity in this Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Put them up as good candidates. It is the problem with women Senators. When I came here 20 years ago, we had twice as many as we have now. It is a question of putting up good candidates.

Mr. ANDRADE. Getting candidates and making it through always relates to the way the staffing patterns go. We have not had ill feelings of not having Indians on the committee. We would like to see more Indians on the committee.

But, again, we would like to see Indians participate across the whole board instead of only being relegated to staff.

The CHAIRMAN. Going back, if I may, to your point of how many Indian candidates presented themselves for the Senate or the House. I think the days of prejudice are going. I cite to you, a former colleague, Senator Brooke, who was black, and was elected by a State that is probably 98 percent nonblack. So if you put up an Indian of attractive candidate quality, I think such a candidate can be elected.

Mr. LUJAN. If I may be allowed a personal comment on the establishment of a permanent committee, I have found that Indian Tribal Governments are viewed as sovereign nations and sovereign governments. And I think that where the Senate puts this particular committee will reflect their view of how they recognize tribal government. If it is in the subcommittee, I would view that personally it is not high enough priority and further down the issue. But if a permanent committee, then it would signal to me that the Senate views the tribal government as legitimate and having all of these dealings with it on a government to government basis.

Thank you.

MS. DEER. I have spent many hours on the Hill working on various Indian matters, and it is a real problem trying to educate the numerous staff members. And it has been a real pleasure to be able to go to one committee, one staff, and proceed with the discussion of the issue. If this is not continued as we are proposing and supporting, and this is broken down into various subcommittees, it is going to be a monumental task for people coming up to the Hill to educate the staff members and to get the work of the various bills accomplished.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed, Ms. Deer, and gentlemen.

I would add that I think Mr. Max Richtman, the present staff director, has done an excellent job and is very popular in the Indian community.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrade follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD P. ANDRADE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, National

CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Ronald P. Andrade. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. On behalf of the officers and 150 Tribes of this organization, I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to present testimony before the members of this committee.

The Indian Tribes of the United States enjoy a unique relationship with the United States Government that is resultant from treaties, Executive Orders and Acts of Congress, and has been reaffirmed time and time again by the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. It is a relationship peculiar to Indian people and sets us apart from all other minority, ethnic and special interest groups in the country. The National Congress of American Indians is comprised of such Indian Tribes.

NCAI has long recognized the need for a separate, permanent committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate to ensure that the issues and legislation affecting Indian people would be dealt with in a timely and effective manner, and would reflect our concerns. That position has been reiterated with the adoption of a resolution supporting a permanent committee on Indian Affairs during our MidYear Conference which was held June 17-20, 1980.

As you are well aware, an enormous amount of staff time and energy goes into the development of one piece of legislation. And when one considers how many bills the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs has handled since its beginning in February 1977, it is easy to see how important one committee can be: 128 bills have been referred to it; 59 have been reported out and 39 have become public law. For the 96th Congress 49 hearings have been held with approximately another 12 to be held before Congress adjourns, and of the 49, 18 have been oversight hearings. If Indian Affairs had been under the jurisdiction of any other committee such as the Judiciary or Human Resources or Energy and Natural Resources, we could not hope for even one-half of the work now done by the Select Committee to have been taken care of simply because no one would have had the time to do it. It is well-known that Indian Affairs does not enjoy "high priority" status and tends to get lost in the shuffle of other issues.

The strength of the Select Committee to be effective lies with a staff whose expertise in the complex arena of Indian Affairs and knowledge of the legislative

process as well as the inner-workings of Congress makes it extremely valuable to Indian people. If that expertise were to be scattered about among the various other committees in the Senate or become gone from the Hill, the loss to Indian Country would be incalculable. Furthermore, we feel that the division of jurisdiction between or among committees will serve only to dilute the interest, indeed, the responsibility of the Senate in matters relating to American Indian and Alaska Native people. Although Indian committees are not unknown to Congress, there has not been a long standing committee throughout its history. We feel that the time is now for the Senate to formally recognize within itself the necessity for a permanent committee that, given the relationship we as Indian people have with the United States for so many years, should have happened a long time ago.

The CHAIRMAN. I have checked with the minority and have come to the conclusion it would probably be wise to print this hearing. I would now ask, without objection, that the hearing record be left open for 10 days for the benefit of those persons, organizations, or groups who would like to submit statements or letters to be printed in the hearing. In this regard, I believe Senator DeConcini will have a statement coming in to us today, and there may be others. If you want to supplement your testimony in any way, feel free. We have 10 days to do it, and it will be printed.

Thank you and good luck to all of you.

[At this point, the committee considered other legislative and administrative items on the agenda.]

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will be adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

[The text of S. Res. 448 and statements and letters submitted for the hearing record by individuals, tribes, organizations, or groups are as follows:]

To make the Select Committee on Indian Affairs a permanent committee of the

Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 22 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 1980

Mr. MELCHER (for himself, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BOREN, Mr. PRESSLer, Mr. HART, Mr. BOSCHWITZ, Mr. MATSUNAGA, Mr. HELMS, Mr. DOLE, Mr. MORGAN, Mr. HATCH, Mr. NELSON, Mr. GARN, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. HAYAKAWA, Mr. STONE, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. MOYNIHAN, and Mr. JAVITS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

To make the Select Committee on Indian Affairs a permanent committee of the Senate.

1

Resolved, That section 105(a)(1) of the Committee

2 System Reorganization Amendments of 1977 (Senate Reso3 lution 4, Ninety-fifth Congress, agreed to February 4, 1977) 4 is amended by deleting "Temporary".

5

SEC. 2. Section 105(d) of the Committee System Reor

6 ganization Amendments of 1977 is repealed.