[Senate Hearing 112-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-174
SETTING THE STANDARD: DOMESTIC POLICY
IMPLICATIONS OF THE UN DECLARATION
ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-606 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Loretta A. Tuell, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 9, 2011..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Akaka....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 2
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 37
Witnesses
Anaya, James, Professor, University of Arizona James E. Rogers
College of Law; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, United Nations Human Rights Council................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Coulter, Robert T., Executive Director, Indian Law Resource
Center......................................................... 13
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 16
Ettawageshik, Frank, Executive Director, United Tribes of
Michigan with attachments...................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Knight, Melanie, Secretary of State, Cherokee Nation............. 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Laverdure, Donald ``Del'', Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior............ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Red Corn, Thomas Ryan, Filmmaker; Member, 1491................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Robertson, Lindsay G., Judge Haskell A. Holloman Professor of
Law; Faculty Director, Center for the Study of American Indian
Law and Policy, University of Oklahoma College of Law.......... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Sharp, Fawn R., President, Quinault Indian Nation................ 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Yazzie, Duane H., Chairperson, Navajo Nation Human Rights
Commission..................................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Appendix
Acosta, Tupac Enrique, statement from the May 20, 2009 UN
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues........................... 167
Ainoa, Vivian, President, Papa Ola Lokahi, prepared statement
with attachment................................................ 172
American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights at Home Campaign,
joint prepared statement....................................... 98
Amnesty International USA's Native American and Alaska Native
Advisory Council, prepared statement........................... 103
Barnett, D'Shane, Executive Director, National Council of Urban
Indian Health, prepared statement.............................. 133
Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, prepared statement...... 117
Crawford, Jeffrey A., Attorney General, Forest County Potawatomi
Community, prepared statement.................................. 138
David, Hon. Peter, First Chief, Native Village of Alatna, letter. 195
Deacon, Stacy, Administrative Assistant, Alaska Newspapers Inc.,
prepared statement with attachment............................. 175
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., U.S. Representative from American
Samoa, prepared statement...................................... 126
Harris, LaDonna, Founder and Chairman of the Board, Americans for
Indian Opportunity (AIO), letter............................... 195
Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Onondaga Nation, prepared statement... 182
International Indian Treaty Council, prepared statement.......... 110
Keckler, Hon. Kevin C., Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 141
McCarty, Micah, Chairman, Makah Tribal Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 180
McDaniels, Hon. Dennis L., Elder Chief, Madesi Band of the Pit
River Tribe, prepared statement................................ 179
Metis National Council and the International Organization of
Indigenous Resource Development, joint prepared statement with
attachment..................................................... 119
National Congress of American Indians and Native American Rights
Fund, joint prepared statement................................. 93
Parker, Alan R., Secretary, United League of Indigenous Nations,
prepared statement with attachment............................. 105
Porter, Robert Odawi, President, Seneca Nation of Indians,
prepared statement with attachment............................. 159
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement.................... 156
Sanders, Tavis (RedTail Hawk ThunderBird), Co-founder of InDEED,
prepared statement............................................. 192
Shelby, Velda, Citizen of the Ktunaxa Nation, prepared statement. 170
U.S. Department of State, prepared statement..................... 165
SETTING THE STANDARD: DOMESTIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE UN
DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. Good morning. It is a beautiful day, and
thank you for all the smiles.
I call this hearing of the Committee on Indian Affairs to
order.
Aloha, and thank you all for being here with us today.
Toda's hearing is entitled Setting the Standards: Domestic
Policy Implications of the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. Before I begin, I want to draw attention to
the video that was playing as you were here, and I was coming
here from a vote on the Floor for this hearing. It is called,
and I am sure you don't know it, you guessed, it was called
Smiling Indians, and it was produced by one of our witnesses,
Mr. Red Corn, in response to the more commonly known photos of
Indians from the turn of the last century. As native peoples,
it is important for us to tell our own stories from our own
perspective, especially when common perceptions are not
accurate ones.
More than two million Americans are indigenous peoples in
this Country, members of native nations recognized and also
those unrecognized. I have long been a proponent of the United
States setting a high standard where indigenous rights are
concerned and holding ourselves and the world accountable.
It is kuiliana, our responsibility on this Committee to
look at whether additional implementing legislation is needed
to give true meaning to our support for the Declaration. That
is our purpose here today, and I am so glad to see all of you
here and sorry about those who have to stand. But at least,
there are no empty chairs.
The declaration affirms that indigenous peoples enjoy all
the human rights and the fundamental freedoms recognized under
the UN charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the international law. While I believe we must be a leader in
the rights of indigenous peoples across the globe, that
leadership, that leadership must start here at home.
I want to extend a special mahalo, thank you, to all of
those who have traveled far to join us today. Vice Chair
Barrasso from Wyoming is my partner on this Committee, and I am
happy that we are able to work together on the important work
that we do here. I want you to know that for me, he is a
gentleman and a good friend. And Vice Chair Barrasso and I have
worked together and will continue to do that and try to advance
the concerns and to help our indigenous peoples of our Country.
We have assembled a diverse group of witnesses to give wide
representation to the views on the UN Declaration and what the
United States can do to better fulfill its goals. I look
forward to hearing from each of them. But before I do move on,
and before Vice Chairman Barrasso appears, I would like to call
my very good friend here, Al Franken, for any statement he
would like to make at this time. Al? Senator Franken.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Thank you. Al is fine, for everyone here.
Or you can call me Senator, or Senator Franken.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, Danny, for
holding this important hearing and thank you to all the
witnesses for being here, and everyone who is in this room
today. Unfortunately I will not be able to be here for all the
testimony, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to express my sense of
value for today's hearing.
President Obama did the right thing by signing the U.S.
onto the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
joining virtually every other nation in the world. The
declaration establishes a framework for recognizing the rights
of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples. In the
context of the United States, it sets a standard or an
aspiration for the Federal Government's responsibilities in its
government-to-government relationship with sovereign Indian
tribes.
Traveling to reservations around my State of Minnesota,
meeting with tribal leaders, learning about the issues
important in Indian Country always drives home to me how much
work we have to do. Whether it is in law enforcement,
education, housing, unemployment, energy policy or economic
development, we face many challenges. The Declaration should
spur us to do more and to do better.
Take energy development. Tribal areas make up 5 percent of
land in the United States, but they contain 10 percent of our
Nation's energy resources. Yet so far, we have missed the
opportunity to harness these wind, biomass, solar, and
conventional energy sources. Tribal leaders tell me again and
again about their inability to access financing, enormous
regulatory hurdles and a lack of technical assistance. The
Declaration speaks to precisely those issues and directs us to
overcome those challenges. That is something we must do. It is
something I feel is our obligation, Mr. Chairman.
But this is just one example. I look forward to pursuing
the many ways that domestic policy can be improved, so that we
can meet the responsibilities and aspirations spelled out in
the Declaration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken, for
your statement. Thank you for your interest in what we are
doing in this Committee. And I certainly do appreciate it.
I again want to, because I want to hear from tribes, I want
to hear from people out there, I will keep the hearing record
open for two weeks from today. I encourage everyone to submit
comments or written testimony if you want to be heard about
what is going on, or if you want to let us know what you are
thinking. I want to remind the witnesses to please limit your
oral testimony to five minutes today. Your full written
testimony will be included in the record.
So I would like to invite a member of the first panel, Mr.
Del Laverdure, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs within the Department of Interior to come
forward. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr. Laverdure.
Will you please proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OF DONALD ``DEL'' LAVERDURE, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Laverdure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. My name is Del Laverdure, I am the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of
Interior.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the United States'
support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
Less than 10 months after President Obama was sworn into
office, he joined members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries,
senior Administration officials and hundreds of tribal leaders
from across the Country at the White House Tribal Nations
Conference. A number of those tribal leaders recommended to
President Obama that he reexamine the United States' position
on the Declaration.
Six months later, UN Ambassador Susan Rice announced that
the United States would undertake a formal review of its
position on the declaration. On December 16th, 2010, at the
second White House Tribal Nations Conference, President Obama
announced that the United States would support the Declaration.
The Administration also released an accompanying document that
provides a more detailed statement about the United States'
support for the Declaration and our ongoing work in Indian
Country.
The Declaration includes a broad range of provisions
regarding the relationship between nations, organizations, and
indigenous peoples. While not legally binding, the Declaration
has both moral and political force. It is an important
instrument, in part, because of the breadth of its positions on
issues of concern to indigenous peoples, including
consultation, the protection of sacred sites, the protection of
tribal lands and natural resources and tribal economic and
social improvement, among others.
In announcing our support for the Declaration, President
Obama stated, ``What matters far more than words, what matters
far more than any resolution or declaration, are actions to
match those words.'' We are working hard to live up to the
President's standard of action in a number of ways. First, we
are reinvigorating Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. In November 2009,
President Obama signed a memorandum directing all Federal
agencies to develop plans to fully implement the Executive
Order.
The Department of Interior published its proposed tribal
consultation policy in the Federal Register on May 17th. We are
seeking comments from the public before finalizing the policy.
President Obama's directive has had its intended effect.
Tribal consultations are occurring at an unprecedented level
across the Federal Government. Some tribal leaders will tell
you that the effect has been too many requests for
consultations. We are exploring ways to coordinate consultation
efforts among the different agencies.
Second, we are also firm in our commitment to the
protection of tribal lands, territories and natural resources.
The Department of Interior has made the restoration of tribal
homelands a priority by improving the fee to trust process. In
addition, we have also expressed our unqualified support for
legislation that would address the harmful effects of the
Carcieri decision.
The Department recognizes that tribes must be able to
determine how their homelands will be used. That is why we have
undertake the most substantial reform to Indian land leasing in
50 years by revising our Indian leasing regulations.
Similarly, I recently testified before this Committee in
strong support of Senate Bill 703, the Hearth Act, which would
restore tribal authority to govern leasing on tribal lands for
those tribes that wish to exercise that authority.
Third, we are also taking many steps to promote economic
and social development in tribal communities. In partnership
with Congress, we have provided an infusion of more than $3
billion into Indian Country through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. A critical part of promoting the economic and
social development of Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
communities is to prepare workers for good jobs in knowledge-
based global economy. The Department of Labor has provided a
number of grants to support employment and training services
designed to help indigenous Americans.
Another crucial component of economic and social
development is the health of our people. President Obama took a
major step toward addressing health care gaps in tribal
communities by signing the Affordable Care Act, which
reauthorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
In addition, First Lady Michelle Obama has included Indian
youth in her Let's Move initiative to address childhood
obesity, by recently launching Let's Move in Indian Country in
the Menominee Nation.
Finally, tribal leaders have told us that no community can
prosper unless its basic needs for public safety are met. This
Administration worked closely with Congress to improve public
safety through the enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act.
In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has launched an
intense community policing program on four large reservations
with high crime rates. We are already seeing promising results
and hope to expand the program in the near future.
More than 20 Federal agencies provide a full range of
programs to Native Americans. I have provided just a few
examples of our efforts to address the needs of tribal nations
in ways that utilize and complement the Declaration. We know
that more needs to be done and we look forward to working with
this Committee, tribal leaders and representatives from other
indigenous organizations and communities to ensure that Native
Americans, like all Americans, have the opportunities that they
deserve.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I will be
happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverdure follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald ``Del'' Laverdure, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name
is Del Laverdure and I am the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the United States' support for the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration).
I. Introduction
On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Declaration by a vote of 143 in favor, 11 abstentions, 34 not
participating, and 4 opposed. The United States was one of the four
nations that voted against adoption of the Declaration at that time.
Less than 10 months after President Obama was sworn into office, the
President held the first White House Tribal Nations Conference, on
November 5, 2009. \1\ President Obama, joined by Members of Congress,
several cabinet secretaries and other senior administration officials
from the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Education, Energy,
Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, and the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
met with leaders invited from all of the then 564 federally recognized
tribes to forge a stronger relationship with tribal governments. During
the conference, tribal leaders recommended to President Obama that he
reexamine the United States' position on the Declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-
obama-opens-tribal-nations-conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six months later, on April 20, 2010, at the United Nation's
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Ambassador Susan Rice, the
Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations,
announced that the United States would undertake a formal review of its
position on the Declaration, in consultation with Indian tribes and
with the input of interested nongovernmental organizations. Ambassador
Rice stated that the United States recognized that ``for many around
the world, this Declaration provides a framework for addressing
indigenous issues.'' During the review, the Administration held
multiple consultation sessions with tribal leaders and other meetings
with interested groups and individuals. The Administration received
over 3,000 written submissions. An interagency team reviewed and
considered all of the comments received and carefully considered the 46
articles contained in the Declaration.
On December 16, 2010, at the second White House Tribal Nations
Conference, President Obama announced the United States' support for
the Declaration. The President stated that ``[t]he aspirations [the
Declaration] affirms--including the respect for the institutions and
rich cultures of Native peoples--are one[s] we must always seek to
fulfill.'' The Administration also released a document to accompany
President Obama's announcement that provides a more detailed statement
about United States' support for the Declaration and our ongoing work
in Indian Country. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples--Initiatives to Promote
the Government-to-Government Relationship & Improve the Lives of
Indigenous Peoples at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/
153223.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The Declaration is a not legally binding, aspirational
international instrument that includes a broad range of provisions
regarding the relationship between nations, organizations and
indigenous peoples and individuals. While not legally binding, the
Declaration has both moral and political force. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For further explanation of these issues, see http://
www.state.gov/documents/organization/153223.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration is an important instrument, in part, because of the
breadth of its provisions on issues of concern to indigenous peoples,
including:
Consultation and cooperation before adopting measures that
may affect indigenous peoples;
Maintaining, protecting, and accessing in private indigenous
religious and cultural sites;
Protecting indigenous lands, territories, and natural
resources;
Improvement of the economic and social conditions of
indigenous peoples; and
Living in freedom, peace, and security as distinct peoples.
The United States' support for the Declaration is a milestone in
the international community's efforts to identify and address the needs
of indigenous peoples around the world. By supporting the Declaration,
the United States joined more than 140 countries in support of it,
including the three other countries that voted against adoption of the
Declaration in 2007: Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
The Administration, however, does not see support for the
Declaration as an end in itself, because--again quoting President
Obama--``[w]hat matters far more than words--what matters far more than
any resolution or declaration--are actions to match those words.'' The
President set a standard of action to which he expects his
Administration to be held, and we are already being challenged to meet
that standard. We view this challenge as a good thing. The Obama
Administration is committed to working with tribal leaders to address
the many challenges facing their communities. Toward this end, the
Administration is looking to the principles embodied in the Declaration
to meaningfully address the challenges that Indian communities face and
to improve the lives of Native Americans. We are doing this in a number
of ways.
III. Actions of the United States that Complement the Principles
Embodied in the Declaration
A. Consultation and Cooperation Before Adopting Measures That May
Affect
Indigenous Peoples; and Maintaining, Protecting and Accessing
in Private
Indigenous Religious and Cultural Sites
We are working with tribal leaders to identify the matters that
they believe are priorities for Federal government action and to
formulate appropriate responses. Indeed, President Obama himself
reached out to tribal leaders and invited them to Washington, D.C. to
meet with him and many of his Cabinet officials at the two White House
Tribal Nations Conferences that I mentioned briefly earlier in my
testimony. Those sessions gave tribal leaders unique opportunities to
discuss their priorities with the President and his most senior
officials. \4\ Many of the priorities identified by tribal leaders at
both White House Tribal Nations Conferences are very closely related to
the principles outlined in the Declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To access the report summarizing the main comments and
recommendations made by tribal leaders at the December 2010 White House
Tribal Nations Conference; see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/Tribal_Nations_Conference_Final_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first White House Tribal Nations Conference was organized, in
part, in response to tribal leaders' emphasis on the importance of
government-to-government consultation with tribes before actions are
taken that directly affect them. In response, the United States has
been working to reinvigorate implementation of Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments.'' The
Executive Order requires federal agencies to consult with tribal
officials on ``policies that have tribal implications,'' a term that is
broadly defined in the order. To improve the implementation of the
order, President Obama, at the first White House Tribal Nations
Conference with tribal leaders, in November 2009, signed a Presidential
Memorandum directing all U.S. Government agencies to develop detailed
plans to fully implement the Executive Order. I understand that the
federal agencies completed their detailed action, plans. For example,
the Department of the Interior submitted its plan of action on February
3, 2010, and its proposed consultation policy was published in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 28446 (May 17, 2011).
The Department is seeking comment from the public before making
publishing a final consultation policy.
President Obama's directive has had its intended effect. Tribal
consultations are at an unprecedented level throughout the U.S.
government. Indeed, some tribal leaders will tell you that the effect
has been too many requests for consultations. The Administration is
therefore exploring ways of coordinating agency requests for
consultation and of using technology to smooth the consultation
process.
One example of a significant ongoing process of consultation with
tribal leaders is the effort by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest
Service) in U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding sacred
sites. Because the agency heard from many tribal governments that
improvements were needed, the Forest Service now engaged in a year-long
series of tribal consultations to identify better processes that can be
put in place to protect sacred sites. \5\ This effort also complements
the principle in the Declaration regarding maintaining, protecting, and
accessing in private indigenous religious and cultural sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/
sacredsites.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal consultations are not only taking place, they are also
having an effect. For example, in response to concerns expressed by
tribal leaders, the USDA opened eligibility to the Renewable Energy for
America Program to tribal business entities, thus improving their
access to renewable energy program funding.
B. Protecting Indigenous Lands, Territories, and Natural Resources
The Administration understands that tribal homelands are essential
to the health, safety, and welfare of Native Americans. Thus, the
Department of the Interior has made the restoration of tribal homelands
a priority by improving the process by which it acquires land in trust
on behalf of tribes and individual Indians. In addition, President
Obama, Secretary Ken Salazar, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs Larry
Echo Hawk, and I have all expressed our support for legislation that
would address the harmful effects of the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, which held that under the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 the Federal Government cannot take land into
trust for Indian Tribes not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934.
The Department also recognizes that Indian tribes must be able to
determine how their homelands will be used. That's why we are revising
our regulations governing leasing on Indian lands. Once completed, we
believe this effort will mark the most significant reform to Indian
land leasing in 50 years. The Department's revisions will streamline
the process by which leases of Indian lands are approved, thereby
promoting homeownership, economic development, and renewable energy
development on tribal lands. We conducted three tribal consultation
sessions on this initiative in April, and are now reviewing and
considering all tribal comments on the draft leasing regulations. Once
that is completed, the Department will proceed to a formal Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. We intend to conduct further consultation at that
time, in addition to receiving public comments on the proposed
regulations. As it stands, our plan is to complete the rulemaking for
these regulations in early 2012.
I also recently testified before this Committee in strong support
of S. 703, the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal
Homeownership Act of 2011, which would restore tribal authority to
govern leasing on tribal lands, for those tribes that wish to exercise
that authority. Under this legislation, tribes would submit their own
leasing regulations to the Secretary for approval, and then process
leases under tribal law without prior express approval from the
Secretary of the Interior. \6\ This bill has the potential to
significantly reduce the time it takes to approve leases for homes,
small businesses, and renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://indian.senate.gov/hearings/upload/Donald-Laverdure-
testimony-S-636-S-703.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Improvement of the Economic and Social Conditions of Indigenous
Peoples
As we all know, the global economic downturn has affected
communities all across the country. But Native Americans have been hit
particularly hard. The Administration has responded by taking many
steps to promote economic and social development in Native American
communities in both the short and the long terms.
Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L.
No. 111-5, the Administration provided an infusion of more than $3
billion into Indian Country to improve infrastructure and provide jobs.
\7\ More than $22 million of this money was provided through the
Department of the Interior's program to improve housing in tribal
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/
idc010971.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most important long-term investment for any country,
people, or individual is in education. Tribal leaders have stressed, in
particular, the importance of greater tribal control over the education
of Native American students. The Administration has proposed changes to
enhance the role of tribes in the education of their youth and to give
them greater flexibility in the use of federal funds to meet the unique
needs of Native American students. We have also accelerated the
rebuilding of schools on tribal lands and are working to improve the
programs available at tribal colleges.
A critical part of promoting the economic and social development of
Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities is to prepare
workers from these communities for good jobs in the knowledge-based
global economy. Grants under section 166 of the Department of Labor's
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) support comprehensive employment and
training services and targeted assistance designed to help indigenous
Americans, including those with multiple barriers to employment, obtain
the education, work experience, and skills needed to secure good jobs,
especially in high-growth industries.
Another crucial component of economic and social development is the
health of our people. Yet health care is often insufficient in
indigenous communities.
President Obama took a major step towards addressing health-care
gaps (for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities) by signing
into law last year the Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148.
Significantly, the Act provides permanent authorization for the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, which modernizes and updates the Indian
Health Service, which provides health services for approximately 1.9
million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 35 states. The
Administration expects this law to improve the lives and health of
Native Americans.
First Lady Michelle Obama has also made a particular effort to
involve Native American youth in her ``Let's Move!'' initiative to
address childhood obesity. On May 25, 2011, the First Lady launched
Let's Move! in Indian Country (LMIC) at the Menominee Nation in
Keshena, Wisconsin. \8\ In addition, the First Lady and American Indian
youth planted native seeds of corn, beans and squash in the White House
Kitchen garden last Friday. LMIC brings together federal agencies,
communities, nonprofits, corporate partners, and tribes to end the
epidemic of childhood obesity in Indian Country within a generation. To
further the efforts of LMIC, the First Lady recruited Native American
athletes, like football stars Sam Bradford, a member of the Cherokee
Nation, and Levi Horn, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, to
encourage Indian kids to adopt healthy lifestyles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See http://www.letsmove.gov/indiancountry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One public-health challenge on which we are focusing particularly
intensely is the unacceptably high rate of suicide by Native American
youth. From November of 2010 through February of 2011, the
Administration held listening sessions with tribal leaders from across
the country on suicide prevention. These listening sessions sought
input from tribal leaders on how the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Indian Health Service, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration can effectively work with Indian tribes to
prevent suicide. These listening sessions will culminate in two
national conferences on this topic. The first conference will be in
Scottsdale, Arizona, in August, and the second conference will be later
this year in Alaska.
Tribal leaders who have met with President Obama have stressed to
him the importance of investment in infrastructure. President Obama
agrees and we have supported many economic development initiatives that
are focused on the needs of Native Americans. One exciting initiative
was the announcement in December by Energy Secretary Chu of the
establishment in the Department of Energy of an Office of Indian Energy
Policy and Programs, led by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
The office is charged with directing and implementing energy planning
and programs that assist tribes with energy development and
electrification of Indian lands and homes. It has done extensive
outreach to Indian tribes regarding energy issues on tribal lands and
last month held a Department of Energy Tribal Summit that brought
together over 350 participants, including tribal leaders and high-
ranking cabinet officials, to interact directly on energy development
and related issues. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See http://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/tribalsummit.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration is also working with tribal leaders to bring
their communities into the 21st Century by equipping them with high-
speed access to the Internet. Both the USDA and the U.S. Department of
Commerce (Commerce) have programs to do so. USDA awarded loans and
grants worth over $133 million to expand broadband access in tribal
communities in the continental United States and an additional $122
million to provide high-speed Internet infrastructure across many
Native Villages in Alaska. Similarly, Commerce awarded approximately
$1.4 billion for broadband projects to benefit tribal areas.
These infrastructure investments go hand in hand with a wide range
of projects to create jobs in Indian communities and prepare Native
Americans to fill them.
D. Living in Freedom, Peace, and Security as Distinct Peoples
As we have been told repeatedly by tribal leaders, no community can
prosper, economically or socially, unless its basic needs for public
safety are met. For this reason, this Administration has taken a number
of steps to strengthen tribal police and judicial systems. More
flexible funding has been key. But perhaps more fundamental was the
July 2010 signing by President Obama of the Tribal Law and Order Act
(TLOA), Pub. L. No. 111-211. As you know, this comprehensive statute is
aimed at improving public safety on tribal lands, including
unacceptably high rates of violence against women. TLOA gives tribes
greater authority to prosecute crimes and increases federal
accountability for public safety in tribal communities. Moreover, in
anticipation of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act,
this month, the Department of Justice will hold tribal consultation
sessions to solicit recommendations from tribal leaders on whether
additional Federal statutory authorities could enhance the safety of
Native American women. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See http://www.tribaljusticeandsafety.gov/inv-ltr-framing-
paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a related initiative, the Bureau of Indian Affairs launched an
intense community-policing pilot program on four reservations with high
crime rates. Operation Alliance provided 560 uniformed officers from
four Interior bureaus and the USDA Forest Service who performed 10,000
officer days of police service to tribal communities. The officers far
exceeded traditional law enforcement duties by also performing social
and community service projects to build positive relationships and
partnerships with the communities. The Department is already seeing
promising results in decreased crime rates and the Bureau hopes to
expand the program in the near future.
IV. Conclusion
There are over 20 Federal departments and agencies that provide a
full range of programs to Native Americans. I have given you a few
examples today to help demonstrate the extent of our Administration
wide initiatives to address the needs of Native American governments
and communities across our country in ways that complement the United
States' support for the Declaration. However, we recognize that a lot
more needs to be done and we look forward to working with Congress,
tribal leaders, other indigenous peoples and representatives from other
indigenous organizations and communities to ensure that Native
Americans, like all Americans, have the opportunities they deserve.
Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on the United
States' support for the Declaration. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement. It
was wonderful to know of the support that is coming from our
Administration and really to present it directly, coming from
the President and Department of Interior and also from your
office in supporting the Declaration of the UN, and noting the
ways in which we can support it.
And so let me ask you, and we may have other questions as
well, do you believe the United States can be a world leader in
indigenous rights? And that our current Indian law framework is
the best model for implementing indigenous rights worldwide?
And another part of that is, how can the U.S. improve our
framework?
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you for the questions, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of being a world leader, I think that the United
States has been a world leader. And most recently, I traveled
to New York City to the UN Permanent Forum. And at that time,
collaborated and discussed with the four most recent countries
to declare their support for the declaration, New Zealand,
Canada and Australia. I think that even though we were looking
for best practices among the groups for the rights of
indigenous peoples, we felt that the framework for the United
States was very solid. Certainly more could be done and should
there be changes that are requested to improve that, where
appropriate, we certainly look forward to working with the
Congress to make those improvements.
We do view the Declaration as being an aspiration and non-
binding. But because it has that moral and political force that
we utilize and complement it with all of the programs which are
detailed in the announcement that accompanied the President's
statement on all the things that we're trying to do in the
Obama Administration.
The Chairman. I am glad to hear what you said. I take it as
you saying that you look forward to working with Congress on
this, even if we need some legislative changes. I think you did
indicate that our Indian law framework is probably the best
model that we have today. I take that deeply, because I know
your background certainly is in these areas. If anybody knows
frameworks of the American Indians, you are the one.
This is why I wanted to hear from you about what you
thought about that kind of a standard.
Do you have an idea of how we can improve our U.S.
framework?
Mr. Laverdure. I am sure there are a number of ways,
certainly in my capacity previously as General Counsel, prior
to this appointment, some of the considerations that Senator
Franken had brought up about energy development, reducing
barriers, that is the types of things that triggered some of
the initiatives that we have today, which was to pull back any
of the barriers in the leasing which are more than 50 years
old. And down the line, whether it is some avenues of
recognition reform which we have discussed with your staff. I
think that the number of experts that are about to go on these
next panels will certainly have a number of recommendations and
we look forward to listening and hearing from those and seeing
what we can work toward.
The Chairman. Thank you. And thank you for quoting the
President as saying that we have to put things in action from
our words. That is good for the Congress as well as the
Administration, to work together on.
In promoting the rights identified in the Declaration, and
I know again, I regard you as one who knows it well, what steps
are being taken by the Department of Interior or the
Administration to identify and review regulations, laws and
policies for consistency with the Declaration? And then to
develop proposals to bring them in line with that?
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Obama had
signed and released a memo that directed all the Federal
agencies to look toward efficiencies and streamlining Federal
processes, some of them in the larger context including hiring
of Federal employees and the like, which have been announced in
other media outlets.
So too have we in Indian Affairs looked for that review.
And that is, we have an Office of Collaboration and Regulatory
Affairs which monitors things. The types of things that we have
looked at are recognition reform in a regulatory manner, the
leasing regulatory reform. We started the process on the Buy
Indian Act provisions to have regulations to implement the
statute which is a little over 100 years old.
And in the renewable context, which is a presidential and
secretarial initiative, we have a new sub-part on wind and
solar leasing, which we want to implement within the leasing
regulations, so that we have a foundation for tribes to measure
when they choose to develop renewable resources, they have a
foundation to work from in order to move forward on that. And
involving less permitting and regulatory pieces by the Bureau,
and more control by the tribes in that process as well.
So those are four major areas that we have looked at. We
have certainly utilized and looked to the Declaration's
principles on trying to meet those high standards.
The Chairman. Fine. Thank you. We will have another round.
So let me ask Mr. Franken for any questions that he may have at
this time.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may not be able
to stay for another round.
Mr. Laverdure, in the President's announcement of support
for the Declaration, the Administration listed Indian school
construction as an area that needs to be improved. This is an
issue that I have brought up in this Committee many, many
times. There is currently at least a $1.3 billion backlog of
school construction and repair needs in Indian Country,
including on many of the reservations in my State.
And yet, the Administration only requested $52 million for
Indian school construction as part of the fiscal year 2012
budget proposal. Can you explain to me why the President
requested such a low number, especially given the fact that by
the Administration's own evaluation, Indian school construction
policies need to be improved?
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you for the question, Senator Franken.
I think that the thought was that the Recovery Act had helped
expedite the list that had the backlog that you referred to,
that there were, in that case, five new and replacement schools
that were provided, and a whole host of facilities improvements
that were provided under the Recovery Act. And that the
corresponding match, that the previous totals had gone down and
that we principally viewed the Recovery Act as taking the place
of requesting much larger amounts and balancing all the
priorities for tribal communities in the budget.
A couple of the priorities that we heard typically from the
Advisory Committee, the Tribal Budget Advisory Committee, has
been on contract support costs and the foundation, the floor,
whenever they are exercising self-determination contracts and
self-governance contracts, that that has been the priority
stated from the Budget Advisory Committee. So we have focused
on increases there as well as law enforcement and the like.
Senator Franken. But that $1.3 billion backlog is what is
estimated after the stimulus package, right?
Mr. Laverdure. I believe that is accurate. I think that the
challenges with the annual budget for both the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, the total amount being
$2.5 billion, when you have a backlog of that size, assuming
that the entire budget isn't increased correspondingly, then
you have to pick and choose.
Senator Franken. The entire budget for school construction,
Indian school construction, is $52 million. What is the cost to
build the average school in Indian Country?
Mr. Laverdure. I think it varies on the size. But I assume
that there would be, you would get a few schools out of that
budget as opposed to replacement parts, not an entire new
school.
Senator Franken. Okay, this gets you one school,
essentially. I have to say that I hear a lot of frustration
from the tribes that I speak to and the chairmen that I speak
to and the members of the tribes that I speak to about the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the bureaucracy and the
responsiveness of it. Have you heard anything like that?
Mr. Laverdure. Yes.
Senator Franken. What are you doing about it?
Mr. Laverdure. Well, the types of things, Senator, that I
previously stated, which was all these reform efforts,
management changes, and the like. And then we chose a new BIE
director. And that is coordinated with the Office of Facilities
Management. But certainly much more needs to be done.
Senator Franken. Okay. Well, I thank you for your
testimony. Mr. Chairman, my time is up and I do have to leave
for another hearing. Thank you very much, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your questions,
Senator Franken.
Mr. Laverdure, the Declaration is a fairly comprehensive
assessment of the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Do
you have, and let me stress this, an opinion, an opinion as to
which articles or rights are not currently adequately expressed
in our Federal law? And which ones may provide the greatest
challenges to implement?
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. Out
of the 40 plus articles, there are some in the agency review
that I think various different agencies felt were fulfilled and
augmented or complemented. There were some that had much more
work to be done.
And in my opinion, you would have to go article by article
on those, which was done during the review. I didn't personally
sit in all of those meetings, but the agencies reviewed each of
those. I think the challenges and the interpretation of the
articles is laid out in that very detailed announcement of
support when the President announced his support for it. I
think that contains examples of successes and also areas that
are challenges that remain.
The Chairman. I hope we will have some time to look at that
again closely for the purpose of seeing what we should be doing
about that, and ones that will be causing challenges for us to
implement.
Does the Federal Government support tribes in their
understanding that it is a tribe's sovereign right to govern
cultural heritage by developing tribal laws? The question is,
does the Federal Government support tribes in their
understanding on sovereign rights to govern?
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we do believe
it is in tribes' inherent sovereign right, and the government-
to-government relationship, to regulate tribal cultural
identity and cultural heritage.
The Chairman. Thank you for being so concise on that. We
appreciate your work and look forward to continuing to work
with you. I want to tell you that I really appreciate your
being present here and regard your opinions and your statements
as being valuable to us and to give us an idea also how the
Administration feels about these concerns. And when we can
understand that and work together on it, without question, we
will be helping the indigenous peoples as much as we can.
I also want to conclude with you by giving you a chance
again, your opinion as to whether you have any ideas of how we
can work better together as partners in helping our indigenous
peoples.
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in my
opinion to have continuous communication with the chief of
staff and the others on both sides, and to look at the areas
where we can get movement on sometimes existing legislation
that is there that hasn't quite made it all the way through,
and that we would promise to work in partnership with you on
whatever it takes to improve the lives of indigenous people
here.
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank you very much for
coming today. I really appreciate your contribution to the
hearing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And now I would like to invite the second
panel to please come forward to the witness table. And they
will be Robert Coulter, the Executive Director for the Indian
Law Resource Center in Helena, Montana; James Anaya, a United
Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
and lives in Tucson, Arizona. Also we have Lindsay Robertson, a
Professor and Faculty Director of the American Indian Law and
Policy Center at the University of Oklahoma School of Law in
Norman. And Ryan Red Corn, an Osage Member of the 1491s, a
group of young Native film makers and actors. Mr. Red Corn
joins us from Pawhuska, Oklahoma. Let me thank you so much for
the clip that we are able to show here and really appreciate
that.
So welcome to all of you. Mr. Coulter, will you please
proceed with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. COULTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIAN LAW
RESOURCE CENTER
Mr. Coulter. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I am a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation and as you
said, I am head of the Indian Law Resource Center.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was
initiated in 1976, primarily by American Indian leaders, but
with the participation and support of Indian leaders from
Central and South America. American Indian leaders turned to
the international community principally because of the
longstanding failure of the United States courts and Federal
law to recognize that Indian nations and other native peoples
in this country are entitled to constitutional rights and to
equality before the law. That was denied to us then and it is
denied to us now.
Indian and other native nations in this country live with a
system of Federal law today that is unconstitutional; it is
discriminatory, and it is unworkable. It makes it almost
impossible for native nations to overcome the social and
economic conditions that they endure. It is like the separate
but equal doctrine, it is like the Jim Crow laws that oppressed
African Americans and others for many years in this country.
The Federal courts, for example, say that the United States
Government can take Indian property, Indian land, without due
process of law and without any compensation. And this
Government does do that today. Congress claims that it has
plenary power to do as it wishes when it legislates about
Indian and other native nations, without regard for the Bill of
Rights and without regard for the limitations of the
Constitution. Congress believes that it can terminate Indian
nations. It is said that this body can do away with Indian
governments at will, without limitation, can violate treaties,
normally without any legal liability, and so on, under the so-
called plenary power doctrine.
The Federal courts routinely approve of Federal legislation
that would be declared unconstitutional if it affected any
other group in this country. Well, the Declaration calls upon
the United States to put an end to that kind of discriminatory
legal doctrine and that kind of unconstitutional treatment. The
Declaration is an international human rights instrument that is
non-binding. But it does recognize rights, and it recognizes
the rules that countries are expected to follow when they deal
with indigenous peoples. It is supported by global consensus.
No country in the world opposes the Declaration today.
The Declaration includes many rights, including the right
of self-determination, the right to be free from
discrimination, rights of women, native women; these are very
important. Rights to land and resources, real rights of
ownership, not diminished rights, such as Federal law usually
accords.
Well, what does all this mean? Others, I am sure, will
elaborate more on what those rights are in the Declaration. But
what should it mean for Congress? What should Congress do?
Congress should, I believe, embrace the Declaration. I am very
pleased with the words that you have spoken here today.
Congress should embrace the Declaration, because it is
American. It is based on American values. It is American in its
origin. It is an agenda for change that can easily be embraced.
And it would be very positive.
But the practice of enacting legislation that takes the
property of Indian nations or other native nations must come to
an end. This country doesn't need to go on taking things from
Indian nations. Congress must give up the notion that when it
legislates in the field of Indian affairs or with regard to
other indigenous peoples ``subject to its jurisdiction, that it
can ignore the Bill of Rights or the other limitations in the
Constitution.''
Native peoples too are entitled to Constitutional rights
and to equality before the law. Native leaders are reviewing
now what kind of proposals they want to make. And Congress
should listen carefully to those proposals when they make them.
Now, a starting point for some of the changes that could be
made in Federal Indian law is the set of principles, general
principles of law in this study that the Indian Law Resource
Center has done. I will be submitting the entire study for the
Committee's use. The Congress, this Committee, should conduct
further hearings in the future to monitor what the
Administration does to carry out the aspirations it has so well
proclaimed and so well embraced. Let us see what progress is
being made and whether we are getting at the root issues.
Congress should, I believe, also conduct oversight hearings
and consider what Congress could do to correct the many
damaging, and I believe unconstitutional, decisions that have
been made by the Federal courts. It was, after all, the Supreme
Court of the United States in 1955 that said that this
Government can take the property of Indian nations without any
compensation and without due process. That was invented by the
Supreme Court. And there are other doctrines like that that
Congress didn't invent, the courts did. And they need to be
reviewed, they need to be changed in order to come into
compliance with the Declaration. I believe Congress can find
ways to help in that important process.
Thank you very much for having this oversight hearing, and
I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coulter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Coulter, Executive Director, Indian Law
Resource Center
The Chairman. Thank you so much for your statement.
Personally, I really appreciate it.
Now we will hear from James Anaya. Will you please proceed
with your statement?
STATEMENT OF JAMES ANAYA, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
JAMES E. ROGERS COLLEGE OF LAW; SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
Mr. Anaya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, I
live in Tucson, Arizona. I am a Professor at the University of
Arizona College of Law in that city.
Earlier this year, I was reappointed by the United Nations
Human Rights Council as its Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. My mandate from the Council, whose
membership includes the United States, is to address the human
rights conditions of indigenous peoples worldwide through
various means, including by promoting the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I would like to begin my testimony by stressing that the
Declaration is an expression of a global consensus about the
rights of indigenous people that has developed over decades
upon a foundation of widely accepted international human rights
principles. The Declaration makes clear that indigenous peoples
are subjects of international concern. That is something that
was understood by the founders of this Country, and in the
early Supreme Court jurisprudence, but was lost to subsequent
generations of political actors.
The various provisions of the Declaration build upon core
principles of self-determination and equality within a model of
social cohesion that value diverse cultures and peoples. In
fundamental respects, the Declaration is a remedial instrument
aimed at addressing patterns of social exclusion,
discrimination, cultural suffocation and even physical
extermination that indigenous peoples have experienced and
endured in ways not felt by others.
The Declaration itself calls upon States and the
international community as a whole to take affirmative measures
to bring the actual conditions of indigenous peoples into
conformity with the rights that are articulated in this
instrument. The endorsement of the Declaration by the Obama
Administration on behalf of the United States is a welcome
signal to the world that the United States joins in both the
global consensus about the rights of indigenous peoples and in
the concerted call for action to make those rights a reality.
Although the Declaration is not itself a treaty, it is a
strongly authoritative statement that builds upon the
provisions of multilateral human rights treaties to which the
United States is abound as a party within the broader
obligation of the United States to advance human rights under
the United Nations charter.
The Declaration is meant to serve as a frame of reference
for reflecting upon the existing conditions of indigenous
peoples, and the laws and policies that affect them, as well as
a standard for developing needed reforms and programmatic
action, both within domestic settings and at the international
level. Legislative bodies, such as this one, should look to the
Declaration to help guide its priorities and action. I am
hopeful that this hearing will be an important step toward that
end.
The Declaration has bearing as well for executive agencies
whose actions and responsibilities touch upon the interests of
Native Americans in a multitude of ways. I am encourage to hear
that already a number of executive agencies are learning about
the Declaration and considering how to use it in decision-
making.
Additionally, the courts should take account of the
Declaration in appropriate cases concerning indigenous peoples,
just as Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have
referred to other international sources to interpret statutes,
constitutional norms and legal doctrines in a number of cases.
Finally, I would like to point out that the United States
has an important role to play in promoting the Declaration,
both at home and abroad, as you, Mr. Chairman, have noted. In
addition to guiding action concerning Native nations within the
United States, the Declaration should also help guide the
Federal Government's foreign aid, which in many places across
the globe touches upon the lives of indigenous peoples. And the
Declaration should be an important focal point of the United
States' cooperation to advance human rights in multi-lateral
settings, including at the UN.
In my role as United States Special Rapporteur on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I look forward to pursuing
discussions with the United States Government and tribal
leaders through appropriate channels and procedures,
discussions on how the Declaration can help catalyze action to
address the aspirations of indigenous peoples in this Country
and to fulfill unfulfilled promises.
I believe that the United States' cooperation with the
international system in this and other ways will not only help
to advance the Declaration's objectives in this Country but
will also contribute to greater cooperation within the United
Nations and worldwide to advance the rights of indigenous
peoples in keeping with the Declaration.
Mr. Chairman, the United States was a principal leader in
the UN's adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and has since then been a leader in pursuing
implementation of that declaration. Mr. Chairman, the United
States can and should now play that leadership role again.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anaya follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Anaya, Professor, University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, United Nations Human Rights Council
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is James Anaya. I
am a professor at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of
Law in Tucson. Earlier this year I was reappointed by the United
Nations Human Rights Council as its Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. My mandate from the Council, whose membership
includes the United States, is to address the human rights conditions
of indigenous peoples worldwide through various means, including by
promoting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I would like to begin my testimony by stressing that the
Declaration is an expression of a global consensus about the rights of
indigenous peoples that has developed over decades, upon a foundation
of widely accepted international human rights principles. The
Declaration makes clear that indigenous peoples are subjects of
international concern, something that was understood by the founders of
this country and in early Supreme Court jurisprudence but was lost to
subsequent generations of political actors.
The various provisions of the Declaration build upon core
principles of selfdetermination and equality, within a model of social
cohesion that values diverse cultures and peoples. In fundamental
respects the Declaration is a remedial instrument, aimed at addressing
patterns of social exclusion, discrimination, cultural suffocation, and
even physical extermination that indigenous peoples have experienced in
ways not felt by others. The Declaration itself calls upon States and
the international community as a whole to take affirmative measures to
bring the actual conditions of indigenous peoples into conformity with
the rights that are articulated in this instrument.
The endorsement of the Declaration by the Obama administration on
behalf of the United States is a welcomed signal to the world that the
United States joins in both the global consensus about the rights of
indigenous peoples and in the concerted call for action to make those
rights a reality. Although the Declaration is not itself a treaty, it
is a strongly authoritative statement that builds upon the provisions
of multilateral human rights treaties to which the United States is
bound as a party, within the broader obligation of the United States to
advance human rights under the United Nations Charter.
The Declaration is meant to serve as a frame of reference for
reflecting upon the existing conditions of indigenous peoples and the
laws and policies that affect them, as well as a standard for
developing needed reforms and programmatic action both within domestic
settings and at the international level. Legislative bodies, such as
this one, should look to the Declaration to help guide its priorities
and action, and I'm hopeful this hearing will be an important step
toward that end. The Declaration has bearing as well for executive
agencies whose actions and responsibilities touch upon the interests of
Native Americans. I am encouraged to hear that, already, a number of
executive agencies are learning about the Declaration and considering
how to use it in decisionmaking. Additionally, the courts should take
account of the Declaration in appropriate cases concerning indigenous
peoples, just as federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have
referred to other international sources to interpret statutes,
constitutional norms, and legal doctrines in a number of cases.
Finally, I would like to point out that the United States has
important role to play in promoting the Declaration both at home and
abroad. In addition to guiding action concerning Native Nations within
the United States, it should also help guide the federal government's
foreign aid, which in many places across the globe touches upon the
lives of indigenous peoples.
And the Declaration should be an important focal point of the
United States' cooperation to advance human rights in multilateral
settings. In my role as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, I look forward to pursuing discussions with the
United States Government and tribal leaders through appropriate
channels on how the Declaration can help catalyze action to address the
aspirations of indigenous peoples in the country and to fulfill
unfulfilled promises. I believe that the United States' cooperation
with the international system in this and other ways will not only help
to advance the Declaration's objectives in this country, but will also
contribute to greater cooperation within the United Nations and
worldwide to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in keeping with
the Declaration.
The United States was a principal leader in the UN's adoption in
1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has since been a
leader in pursuing implementation of that Declaration. The United
States can and should now play that leadership role again.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for your kind
attention.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Anaya, for your
statement.
And now Professor Robertson, will you please proceed with
your statement?
STATEMENT OF LINDSAY G. ROBERTSON, JUDGE HASKELL A. HOLLOMAN
PROFESSOR OF LAW; FACULTY DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW AND POLICY,
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW
Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
have been invited to participate in this.
As you mentioned earlier, I am a professor of law at the
University of Oklahoma. I am also an historian, and I have to
apologize, because I find it difficult to think or speak about
events of this magnitude without drifting into contextualizing
them.
I think it is important to appreciate, building on what my
friend Mr. Coulter said earlier, and Mr. Anaya a moment ago,
that there is some history to this, the preparation of this
document. It actually even goes back even further than the mid-
1970s in a sense. This international expression resolves
questions first raised at least in this hemisphere when the
Spanish arrived in the late 15th century. So this has been 500
years plus in coming, at least for this life-long resident of
the western hemisphere, and I think that is worth reflecting
upon.
The other element of the construction of the Declaration I
think is important, that hasn't been mentioned, is the extent
to which indigenous peoples themselves were invited to
participate and did participate in the formulation of the
document, which is evidenced by the strong support that one
sees in Indian Country in the U.S. and in indigenous
communities around the world for the document. It really is an
historic opportunity here to bring two large group together,
the descendants of European colonizers and the indigenous
peoples in the various countries of the world, and come up with
a new regime that works better and in a fairer manner for
everyone. I applaud the Committee for launching this exercise
in the United States, and building on the initiatives that the
Obama Administration has already started.
I also thought it important to say a word about the
Declaration in international context. This is also something
that Mr. Anaya mentioned, and I am glad that he did. This is a
global document, it is a comprehensive document. It is a global
document as well. In my capacity as a law professor, I have had
the opportunity since the Declaration has been passed to travel
to different parts of the world as a private sector person, but
invited to come in and consult in various countries on how to
comply with its provisions.
And one sees a range of experiences. One country, for
instance, has simply adopted the whole thing as a statute. That
is one extreme.
At the other end, I might mention Japan, to which I
traveled last fall at the invitation of a committee organized
to put together their first statement of indigenous policy,
relating to language and culture rights of the Ainu people on
the northern island of Hokkaido. It is extraordinary to witness
the birth of something like that, and to follow up on one of
your comments a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, in that sense I
did acquire a perception that in certain ways, the United
States could well act as a global leader, at least for some
countries. It is not that we have done everything right, far
from it. We have done a lot of things wrong .
But the point is, we have done some things right, and we
have done a lot of things. And that may be the most important
lesson for this historian of all. We have over 200 years of
experience of wrestling with the legal nature of this
interaction between colonizers and indigenous peoples,
experiments with all sorts of programs that other states in the
world might be considering.
I think it is important that the United States share its
experience to the extent that that information is requested at
the same time that we are analyzing it ourselves. We started a
year and a half ago a clinic at the University of Oklahoma Law
School focused on indigenous rights worldwide. We have sent
teams of students out now to half a dozen countries with
indigenous populations who have been largely voiceless. They
are smaller countries, without the caliber of representation
the tribes have had in the United States in recent years.
And we have discovered the same sorts of issues in those
countries. We do this to support the Universal Periodic Review
process at the UN Human Rights Council. But as I said, we have
discovered that there, too, the Declaration is a living
document, but it is in some ways even more important, because
their rights are well behind what they are in other parts of
the world, to a certain extent including the United States.
Now a word on current efforts and future efforts. I
appreciated Del Laverdure's comments, which were similar to
those of Kim Teehee at the Permanent Forum in May, emphasizing,
among others, the current Administration's efforts to help
indigenous peoples in the United States in the areas of
education, health, safety, infrastructure and jobs.
I would only add a few other things that might be thought
about, and these are broad things. One has to do with process,
and the other has to do with what I would call reconsideration
of fundamentals. On process, I think one of the best things
that came out of the Declaration and out of the current
Administration's aggressive engagement with these issues is an
emphasis on consultation with indigenous peoples themselves. I
think that that ought to be continued, I think it ought to be
expanded. I would like to see it happen more at the State level
than it has been in many States. I think that is of crucial
importance. The inclusion in the process results in a feeling
of respect, which is understandable. Anyone would feel it. Also
an opportunity to shape policy and to buy into the result. I
think that has policy advantages that are maybe broader than
may have been appreciated.
Reconsideration of fundamentals I raise to echo and build
on a bit on something that Mr. Coulter said. Three areas occur
to me which are raised in the Declaration which do invite us to
rethink things that were done a long time ago, and maybe not
done well. One of those has to do with the nature of land
rights and the distinction that Mr. Coulter alluded to
indirectly between different types of Indian land holdings.
Aboriginal lands, executive order lands and treaty lands, are
treated very differently for constitutional purposes. It is not
entirely clear why. That is something that the Declaration
invites us to reconsider.
Second, cultural and religious sites, which are an
important part of the Declaration and something that we haven't
entirely solved here is a problem. I think that is worth
spending a little bit of brainpower, time and energy on.
Lastly and maybe most importantly, self-governance. The
self-governance stem works here, but it is extremely
complicated, and I think a Federal initiative to help simplify
self-governance, I don't advocate any particular position, but
when you have a regime that is constructed by a patchwork of
statute, treaty and lately, primarily Supreme Court decisions,
at least in the civil jurisdiction area, it is confusing, it is
unpredictable, it is hard to manage on the ground.
And I think it is inconsistent with the goals of the
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which I read
to be that the tribes, indigenous groups, be able to govern
themselves and understand how that is supposed to operate and/
or facilitate effective self-governance. That also I think
relates to the comment that Senator Franken made about
impediments to economic development, which I think
simplification of self-governance rules would facilitate.
My time is more than up. I thank you again very much for
the opportunity to appear here. As my colleagues, I welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lindsay G. Robertson, Judge Haskell A. Holloman
Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for the Study of American
Indian Law and Policy, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee, and
thank you. It is an honor to have been invited to participate in this
hearing.
My name is Lindsay Robertson and I am the Judge Haskell A. Holloman
Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Center for the Study of
American Indian Law and Policy at the University of Oklahoma College of
Law. From 2006 to 2008, I served as Private Sector Advisor to the
United States delegation to the Working Group Sessions on the Draft
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In addition to being a professor of law, I am a historian, and I
find it difficult to think or speak about events of this magnitude
without contextualizing them. I think it is important to appreciate
that there is a history to the preparation of this document, which
actually goes back further than the mid-1970s. This international
expression resolves questions first raised in this hemisphere when the
Spanish arrived in the late 15th century. The Declaration has been 500
years plus in coming, at least for us residents of the western
hemisphere, and this is worth reflecting upon. Another important aspect
of the construction of the Declaration is the extent to which
indigenous peoples themselves were invited to participate and did
participate in the formulation of the document, which is evidenced by
the strong support for the document that one sees in Indian country in
the United States and indigenous communities around the world.
The drafting of the Declaration was historic, as two groups, the
descendants of colonizers and indigenous peoples in the various
countries of the world, came together and designed a new regime that
works better and in a fairer manner for everyone, and I applaud the
Committee for launching this exercise in the United States, building on
the initiatives that the Obama administration has already started.
I also thought it important to say a word about the Declaration in
international context. This is a comprehensive document, and it is a
global document. In my capacity as a law professor, I have had the
opportunity since the Declaration was adopted to travel to different
parts of the world and consult in various countries on how to comply
with its provisions. One finds a range of experiences. Bolivia, for
instance, has simply adopted the Declaration as a statute. I might also
mention Japan, to which I travelled last fall at the invitation of a
committee organized to put together Japan's first statement of
indigenous policy, which focuses on language and cultural rights of the
Ainu people on the northern island of Hokkaido. It was extraordinary to
witness the birth of a new legal relationship, and the experience
helped me appreciate the ways in which the United States could act as a
global leader on these issues, at least for some countries. It is not
that we have done everything right, far from it. We have done a lot of
things wrong. But we have done some things right, and we have done a
lot of things. We have over 200 years' experience wrestling with the
nature of the legal relationship between colonizers and indigenous
peoples, and we have experimented with all sorts of programs that other
states in the world might be considering. It is important that the
United States share its experience, to the extent that information is
requested, even as we are assessing it ourselves. A year and a half
ago, we started at the University of Oklahoma College of Law a clinic
focusing on indigenous rights worldwide, which submits reports in
support of the Universal Periodic Review process at the UN Human Rights
Council. We have sent teams of students out to half a dozen countries
with indigenous populations that have been largely voiceless, and we
have seen first hand the extent to which for indigenous peoples in
those countries the Declaration is a living document, in some ways
perhaps even more so than for indigenous peoples in other parts of the
world whose rights are relatively more secure. We all have much to
learn from one another.
Finally, I would like to share some thoughts on current and future
efforts. I appreciate the Obama Administration's efforts to assist
indigenous peoples in the United States in the areas of education,
health, safety, infrastructure, and jobs. The Declaration provides an
opportunity for additional efforts, and I would encourage focusing on
process and a reconsideration of fundamentals.
On process, I think one of the best things that came out of the
Declaration and out of the Administration's aggressive engagement with
these issues has been an emphasis on consultation with indigenous
peoples themselves. That ought to be continued--and expanded. I would
like to see more consultation at the state level than currently occurs
in many states. Inclusion of indigenous peoples in the process
evidences respect, provides an opportunity for indigenous peoples to
shape policy, and makes it likelier that indigenous peoples will
support the result.
On reconsideration of fundamentals, first, we might look again at
the nature of land rights and the distinction between different types
of Indian land holdings. Aboriginal lands, executive order lands, and
treaty lands are treated very differently for constitutional purposes.
It is not entirely clear why. We might also look at protection and
access issues relating to cultural and religious sites, which continue
to be contentious. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, we might
simplify self-governance. The self-governance system works here, but it
is extremely complicated, built on jurisdictional rules derived from a
patchwork of statutes, treaties, and Supreme Court decisions. It is
confusing, limiting, unpredictable, and hard to manage on the ground.
Simplification of the self-governance system would bring us closer to
realizing the goals of the Declaration.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
testimony, Professor Robertson.
Our next witness is Mr. Red Corn. But before we hear him, I
would like to show a short video entitled Geronimo, Ekia. It
will be on the screens, which is an example of reclaiming our
icons and telling our own stories as Native peoples.
[Video shown.]
[Applause.]
The Chairman. That was moving. Thank you very much, Mr. Red
Corn. That was a moving presentation.
I just want to recall between Senator Udall and me, that he
chaired a hearing for me of this Committee on stereotypes. And
of course, it pertains to this, what we are doing now. And it
was unfortunate at that time that Geronimo was up in the news.
But thank you again, Mr. Red Corn. I thought we would show it
before I called you to make our statement. Will you please
proceed?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS RYAN RED CORN, FILMMAKER; MEMBER, 1491
Mr. Red Corn. [Greeting in native tongue.]
I would like to acknowledge you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
having me here. I acknowledge Mr. Udall. My brother was a Udall
scholar, got his bachelor's in civil engineering at the
University of Kansas off that scholarship. I appreciate that. I
follow Mr. Franken on Twitter, so I will catch up with him
later.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Red Corn. I come here from the Wa.xa.k'o.lin district,
actually outside of Pawhuska, Oklahoma. I would also like to
acknowledge some of the people here in the panel, who have been
working on this thing longer than I have been alive. I probably
have no business being up here, because I don't represent
anybody. I am not an elected official, I don't have a masters
degree or a doctorate or anything like that, simply live in the
exact spot where the road hits the pavement, as it were.
So I am kind of here, like I said, representing nobody. But
I would like to talk about the Declaration. And I would also, I
don't really want to spend too much time talking about the
past. Obviously being as young as I am, I know what happened.
But I am really more concerned about the future. And I am
concerned about the future of my young family, concerned about
the future of my community.
A lot of that has to do where law intersects with actually,
where it intersects with people. The first place is that it
intersects in jurisdiction. I live on trust land in a community
that sits under Federal jurisdiction. I have neighbors that
deal drugs, and they have been raided over and over and over
and over, and I can't say that enough, how many times they have
been picked up and raided by Federal agents. But no prosecution
takes place. I see this as problematic. I see this as
problematic if we can't police our own communities and we can't
provide for the safety of our own citizens. And if the Federal
Government isn't going to do that, I'd like to really see that
power transferred over to tribes.
At the time the Major Crimes Act was passed, perhaps the
tribes were not infrastructurally viable to handle those
situations. But I think that mode of thinking is probably
outdated at this point.
I would like to see these powers are given to cities and
States. The Federal Government doesn't manage drug cases on
that level. And if the State of Oklahoma is not going to do it
either, I think it is just another reason for tribes to be able
to manage that.
The next thing I want to talk about is, drugs aren't the
only issue in our community. I think nationally, the statistics
say that one in three Native American women will be sexually
assaulted or raped in their lifetime. These cases as well also
fail to get prosecuted. I have a one year old daughter, she
just turned one last week. I don't want to see her grow up in
that situation. It is disturbing to me.
I don't think any woman, any Native woman on a reservation
should have to be subjected to grow up in that type of
situation. Those people are our mothers, they are our aunties,
they are our relatives, they are a lot of things.
The next thing I would like to talk about, I was born in an
Indian hospital in 1979 to a white mother and an Osage father.
During the time that my mother was there, she was pressured for
sterilization the entire time, until she was transferred out to
another hospital where she could recover. I have friends that
are my age that have given birth recently that are also still
being pressured for sterilization.
Lastly, where these two things intersect is that right now,
as some of these gentlemen have mentioned, we have a case
before the Supreme Court. It is pretty much a case, I would as,
from my inexpert opinion, of legal amnesia. They are saying
that we are not a reservation. Basically they are saying we can
be a reservation when we have gaming compacts, we can be a
reservation when we have tobacco compacts, we can be a
reservation when they want oil and natural gas resources.
And we say that, well, if we have our own jurisdiction and
if we are a reservation, we should not be paying State income
tax when we don't live on State jurisdiction and we do not work
on State jurisdiction. If the State has jurisdiction over us,
then where are they when the drug dealers are in my
neighborhood? Where are they when rapes are going unprosecuted?
So these things, they coincide, they all touch each other.
I want to live in a time when human rights is not seen as a
radical idea. I believe these are not extra right, but these
are human rights, these are basic human rights that other
people are afforded in the Country. I believe that is why this
resolution passed on an international scale, and that is why I
am here today, to set a series of events that took place to put
me here to ask you for these things.
So in that respect, I would just like to say that much. I.e
ka.she.na ko.ko.na.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Red Corn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Ryan Red Corn, Filmmaker; Member, 1491
Hawe, Thatsi.e. Wazhazhe zhazhe wita Wakontia. I.e to.e ekipshe
konbra.
I came here from the Wa.xa.k'o.lin district
I'd like to acknowledge the Senators and staffers. And I'd like to
acknowledge all the nobodies watching on C-SPAN the ocho as well as the
Daily Show Intern watching this. Aye!
I'm not an elected official. I'm not an expert. I'm not any kind of
anybody. I come to you today representing nobody. I come to you
representing all of the nobodies. I'm here to talk to you about the
passage of the UN Delcaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I did not come here to talk about the past. I came here to talk
about the future. The future of all nobodies.
Where my home sits, in the Wa.xa.k'o.lin district outside the town
of Pawhuska, Oklahoma, I live under a different set of rules than most
Americans. Where I live there are people who sell drugs whose homes
have been raided by federal drug agents over and over again and nothing
ever happens, because no one is ever prosecuted. The power to enforce
the law resides with the federal government and not the tribal
government. And the federal government has little interest in rooting
out this type of behavior in my neighborhood. If this Declaration is
adopted, I want jurisdiction for my community over these affairs.
Localized control has always proven to be more effective than Federal
control over these matters. These powers are given to states and
cities. They can be given to Tribes as well. Because, if the federal
government will not address this situation, then give us the power to
do it ourselves.
Drugs arn't the only problems running rampant in my community, and
the countless other reservation communities like it, because of the
lack of true sovereignty, 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped or
sexually assaulted in her lifetime. As appalling as that statistic is,
the women in my life, real women, stats, have relayed their words to
me. This breaks my heart and is not acceptable.These are my relatives.
My cousins. My friends. My people. I have a daughter who just turned 1-
year old. I would very much like to see this power to protect her
shifted to tribes in her lifetime. In the hopes that not one more
Native woman, not one more daughter, auntie, or sister, has to grow up
under these circumstances. This institution has that power to transfer
the protection of our women to us. The Declaration and the Executive
branch recognize that when tribes have this power, that we thrive
instead of falter. There is a 40-year track record of the benefits of
this power shift towards tribal sovereignty and self-determination to
back that claim up.
In 1979 I was born c-section in Hastings Indian hospital in
Tahlequah Oklahoma, to a white mother and an Osage father. My white
mother contracted an infection from that surgery. And while she sat
there in the hospital, the staff repeatedly pressured her for consent
to sterilize her. My grandmother had her transferred to Tulsa where she
fully recovered eventually giving birth to three more boys. One has a
master's degree in education and is a teacher. One is a civil engineer
and the other one has a master's in architecture. My brothers are doing
great things with their lives, and I'm proud of them. But my mother was
nearly sterilized, and she was one of the lucky ones. Many other women
were pressured and relented or were never even asked. I would like to
tell you that this practice died with the 1970s but the Native women of
my life today tell me that they are still being pressured in the same
manner.
As I speak right now, my Osage people have a case that waits to be
heard by the Supreme Court. The case effects our full reservation
status. The Attorney General last week made a recommendation for it to
be thrown out. It is our last ditch effort to have a legally fully
recognized home. Lawyers play semantics with words over demographics
and not actual written law, instead of letting us call it what it is.
Judicial erosion of our home. Our land. The land of those that came
before us and hopefully those that will come after us. No treaties were
signed. No new laws were passed. But the legal definition and premise
that everyone had been functioning off of for the past 100 years now
hangs in the balance. We are a reservation when the state wants money
to build roads. We are a reservation when the state wants our gaming
and tobacco compact money. We are a reservation when the state wants
our Oil and Natural Gas resources. We are a reservation when we pay a
gross production tax on those resources. Every land deed within our
boundaries states that we are a reservation. We are a reservation for
the tourists who pass signs, paid for by the state of Oklahoma that say
YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE OSAGE INDIAN RESERVATION. But the courts say
we are not a reservation when we say we should not be paying state
income tax when we do not live or work on land under the jurisdiction
of the state of Oklahoma. If we are under Oklahoma jurisdiction then
where are they when drug dealers are selling methanphetamines? Where
are they when the women are being raped? Where are they when our homes
are falling in? Give us the power to raise our own taxes to provide for
our own infrastructure. Give us the power to prosecute outsiders,
native or non-native, that break the law on our lands. This is not an
``extra'' right. This is a human right. Rights this country was founded
on.
I want to live to see a day when the idea of human rights is not
seen as radical. I am asking for the right not to be legally erased. I
am asking for the right to be able to put my daughter's Indian name on
her birth certificate in our own alphabet. I am asking for the right to
attend a university where there are more live indians on campus than
dead ones. The right for the Iroquois Nationals Lacrosse team's
passports to be recognized so they can attend the World Championships
for the sport that they invented. The right for the Prairie Band
Potawatomi to put a tax on their tribal gas station to pay for roads
and bridges on their reservation. I am asking for the right of self-
governance. The right for Tribal police departments not to be expected
to permanently sustain themselves on grants and the federal funding
whims of someone in Washington DC, someone who will never visit my
reservation or see my face. I want Indian lands to be the last to be
flooded for dam construction along the Missouri river, and not the
first. I don't want consultation. I want the right to say NO. I want
the United States to be a leader on Indigenous rights so that they do
not have to suffer the international embaressment of being one of the
last countries to sign on.
And I do not want lip service. I want to be looked in the eye. I
want you to shake my hand and tell me that you're on board to change
the future of Indian Country. That you will adopt this declaration and
make it binding. That you will give it teeth. That it will be the law
of the land.
I was born Indian and I will die Indian but today, my nation is at
war by way of judicial amnesia. This supreme court case is a classic
example of the corrosive efforts enacted by the US federal goverment to
assimilate us, the indigenous people of this land, and in order to
ultimately be rid of us. So our land, our people, our way of thinking
can be absorbed and conveniently forgotten. And the thing is,
legislation containing words from this declaration can stop a 500 year
long quest to wipe indigenous people from the maps of this hemisphere.
It will allow us, all of us, to develop ourselves economically and to
provide for our citizens so that the federal government does not have
to. In 2004, Republican Congressman Lucas from Oklahoma provided
historic legislation that kept Osages from being abolished as a legal
entity and allowed us, for the first time in our history, to function
as a democracy. With that legislation we have made great strides. We
have made health care and housing improvements as well as bolstered our
scholarship opportunities for our youth. But the legislation stopped
short of shoring up our reservation status which is what we are now
fighting.
That fight extending to Oklahoma passing state question 755,
currently in litigation and billed as the ban of Sharia Law; it also
banned recognition of tribal law. My marriage certificate was issued by
a tribal court of the Pawnee Nation. Under such laws even my marriage
is considered not valid.
This Geronimo code name is just another way for the United States
to paint Natives as enemies of the state. That has to change if we are
not only to survive but thrive as respective nations. I am just one
person. From one tribe. The issues I have raised here are not new and
not relegated to my people alone. Many others struggle under the same
set of laws. All that can change with this declaration. It can turn all
those nobodies into somebodies.
I.e ka.she.na ko.ko.na
The Chairman. Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Red
Corn. Thank you so much for your candid presentation here and
your statement.
We will have more than one round, Senator Udall. I will
lead off with some questions and I will have you do the same as
well.
Mr. Coulter, thank you so much again for being here. Much
of your testimony suggests the need for a, maybe this is an
understatement, a fairly comprehensive review, and in cases
revision of current Federal Indian law in order to be
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and international
standards. In my opening statement, I said we want to begin to
look at setting these standards, such as the Declaration.
Are there specific articles in the Declaration or specific
areas of existing Federal law you prioritize for early review
by this Committee and the Administration?
Mr. Coulter. Well, sure. I can point out some of them. Just
to be clear, the United States does a lot in its law and its
policies that is pretty good. It is certainly ahead of many
other countries in certain respects.
But what I point out are fundamental problems that need to
be corrected. It is not meant to say that everything the United
States does is horrible, I don't believe that. The first
article that I would particularly call attention to is Article
2 that says that indigenous peoples are entitled to be free
from discrimination in the exercise of their rights. That is,
if I can say so, perhaps the fundamental problem. Indian and
other native peoples subject to U.S. jurisdiction are treated
badly in a way that is not in keeping with our American values.
It is not in keeping with our Constitution. It is a case of
being denied equality before the law.
That fundamentally needs to be reviewed. That would sweep
in this problem about treating tribal property as if it is not
really property, treating money that belongs to tribes as if it
doesn't really belong to them, treating other forms of property
and other supposed legal rights of tribes as if they are not
really protected by the law and that they can just be dealt
with willy nilly without regard for the Bill of Rights when the
Federal Government chooses to do so.
That is all discriminatory. Other groups don't seem to
suffer from that.
I do call attention to the position of people who live in
the territories of the United States that are also denied many
constitutional rights. So that is a big one.
Article 26 on land and resource rights is another important
one, because there, United States law explicitly and expressly
denies Indian and Alaska Native tribes the kinds of property
rights that everyone else, including corporations and
businesses and churches and canasta clubs have. They all have
property rights that are protected by the Constitution. But not
indigenous nations. There is no justification for that. It
can't possibly be justified. It is un-American, if I can say
so.
So those are two big ones. Now, we could keep going, I
suppose. But if we could deal with those, it would be awfully
important and I think it would move us forward.
The Chairman. Thank you for your response. Professor
Robertson, having served as private sector advisor to the U.S.
Delegation to the UN Declaration negotiations in Geneva, can
you briefly describe the negotiation process that was taken?
Mr. Robertson. Sure, I would be happy to, I will do my
best. You realize you are speaking to a guy who is used to
speaking in 50-minute blocks, but I will refrain from that.
The negotiation process meetings, and I just helped out
with this for the last three years or so, two and a half or
three years, meetings held roughly twice a year, ten days to
two weeks per session in Geneva. States and indigenous
representatives were all in the same room for plenary sessions
and for breakout sessions, so that we begin with assigned
provisions from the draft, which everyone had had the
intervening months to look over, to shop around their domestic
governments. And we would begin addressing those on the floor.
The chair would ask for comments from the states. The states
would make comments, and then there would be weigh-in from
members of the indigenous caucus.
If negotiations went ahead and there was agreed-upon text,
we would keep moving. If they broke down, we would break out
into smaller groups to hammer out language that would then be
brought back to the plenary. It was a slow process. In some
ways a very frustrating process. I was an observer in certain
measure, because I was sort of on both sides of the room.
But in the end, a document was produced and we are here
talking about implementation. So I guess I would have to say it
was a successful process.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I have further questions
for Mr. Anaya and for Mr. Red Corn. But let me pass this on to
Senator Udall for his questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Akaka. It was a pleasure
chairing that stereotype hearing. I know that you had looked
really forward to being there and you were unavailable to get
there. But you were there in spirit and the staff really helped
and backed me up on that. So I appreciate that.
Let me ask kind of a broad question that I think maybe all
of you may be able to jump into. One of you I think mentioned
the Declaration that FDR talked about and the International
Declaration on Human Rights. President Roosevelt talked about
Four Freedoms. He talked about freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom from want, freedom from fear. And when you
have these declarations and you talk about freedoms like this,
one of the things that happens is it moves us all forward.
There is no doubt about that.
I think when we have a universal declaration like this, a
universal declaration of rights of indigenous peoples, it is,
Professor, you talked a little bit about it. It is a struggle
getting there, but it is a struggle worth having and worth
going through the process.
I am wondering, can any of you give us some examples of
what is happening around the world? What are the exciting
things going on that we see growing out of this UN Declaration
of rights? Is any of that applicable to the United States? What
are the areas we could be doing a better job on?
Mr. Coulter, do you want to start on that?
Mr. Coulter. One of the very gratifying things was that
even as we were developing the Declaration and pushing it
through years and years of negotiations, countries all over the
world began to take up these rights and understand that they
were really good things that really helped the governance in
their countries. Self-determination and autonomy regimes were
implemented in country after country before they were ever
adopted in the Declaration, that is before the adoption of the
Declaration. Countries found out that these rights are good
things. It is really helpful to everyone involved.
That was very gratifying, and I think that is continuing.
Mr. Anaya. Just briefly, I have been very happy to see in
various countries that I have engaged in in my role as UN
Special Rapporteur, that there is more and more awareness at
all levels of government and discussions in the broader public
about the Declaration itself and the rights of indigenous
peoples more generally. What we see is a pattern of legislation
and even constitutional reform taking place that incorporates,
if not explicitly the Declaration, it incorporates the
principles that are found in the Declaration. So that is
extremely positive.
The educational value of the Declaration, I think, cannot
be underestimated. There are of course still negative attitudes
towards indigenous peoples worldwide. I think the last hearing
that was referenced has to do with those negative attitudes
persisting in this Country, as they do elsewhere.
The Declaration, I think, can and should be thought of as
an educational instrument. What we see in many countries is it
being used and promoted as an educational instrument within the
public schools even, within various media, through various
media, through films. That perhaps is something that can be
learned from experiences elsewhere, that educational value of
the Declaration, which is I think necessary for real change to
come about in any society. We can talk about good policies, we
can talk about good legislation, but unless there is that solid
social foundation for those policies, and for those changes,
they are going to be difficult to come about.
Mr. Robertson. I agree with what both my colleagues have
just said, and I would only add to that, another sort of side
effect of this that I have observed first-hand has to do with
simple communication. Ten years ago, I sat down and thought, I
should really teach a class in Canadian First Nations law. And
about a minute later, I thought, I know nothing about Canadian
First Nations Law, and I would be the worst person in the world
to teach it.
So I called a friend of mine, Brad Morse, who is now a dean
in New Zealand, teaching at the University of Ottawa then, and
said, hey, Brad, I don't know anything about what you do and
you know a lot about what I do, but maybe your students don't.
And we set up a distance ed course, turned out to be the first,
between law schools, or so we have been told, where my students
and I taught Brad and his students U.S. Indian law and they
taught us Canadian First Nations law.
That opened our eyes to the fact of the utter ignorance of
most everybody we knew as to what other countries with similar
legal questions, I am talking about English-speaking countries
here, had done, sort of an interaction with indigenous
populations. So we expanded this, we now have six, seven
universities around the world, in Canada, New Zealand,
Australia and the University of Oklahoma, engaged in this
conversation. That has been enormously enlightening.
What the Declaration did, as Tim mentioned, is it sort of
made this a live issue everywhere. There wasn't a country in
the world that could ignore it. So we have started to, and I
have started to get communications from people all over the
place who are interested in learning what is going on here and
sharing what they are doing and talking about questions.
One thing I would mention to both of you gentlemen as
members of the United States Senate is that a lot of this seems
to be happening on the university level or as Jim is doing, as
Special Rapporteur, making contact with people around the
world. There hasn't been, to my knowledge, outside of some
stuff that Interior has done, that Del Laverdure mentioned
earlier, a focused U.S. comparative effort on this. I think
maybe the place to house it would be Interior. Maybe it would
be the State Department.
I would just mention that the Canadian equivalent of the
State Department, the Canadian Foreign Office and the
Australian both have desks dedicated to international
indigenous issues. It seems to me that if we are really serious
about this, providing some sort of funding to the legal office
of the State Department to put somebody in place to start
having these conversations on behalf of the United States would
go a long way not only toward helping us get educated as to
what was happening in the rest of the world, but to help the
rest of the world understand what was happening here on these
issues. Then we might have some real meaningful global effort
to improve what the species does on the issue of the rights of
indigenous peoples.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Red Corn. I am going to be really honest. I don't leave
Oklahoma that much, so I have no idea.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Red Corn. That is just really brutally honest. The only
thing that I can tell you is that in my lifetime, and I am not
very old, I have seen a large improvement in m own community.
When I was a little kid, the road in front of my house was
dirt, and now it is super keen, it has curbs and everything.
But a lot of that has to do with an influx of money. It is not
sustainable money, it is Federal money. It doesn't respond to
or it doesn't represent a structural change for sustainability
within the community.
Now, on a global level, I can tell you that the communities
in New Zealand, the communities in Australia and the
communities in Canada have all started kicking out incredible
films in and around indigenous issues. And it has really, I
think, served to put wind in the sail for a lot of these types
of issues that otherwise people wouldn't know about. There was
a great film out of Australia, I think, called Rabbit Proof
Fence, that came out. There is an elder that I met from Canada
named Alana Subomsowim, who did an amazing documentary on the
Oka Crisis in Canada, when they were trying to put a golf
course over a burial ground. Had a standoff there, it was not
pretty.
But those types of things can be avoided. I think in the
modern area, with the democratization of media, which is how I
am even here, because I don't have a big movie studio behind me
or anything like that, I have a camera, I point it at
something, I edit it and I throw it up on the internet along
with a bunch of my friends. That is pretty much it.
Without any type of funding, that message spreads. And it
spreads to Canada. We have a lot of people in Canada that
follow us and contacts we have made, and these other countries
that are considering this declaration, like I said, New
Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Like I said, I don't leave Oklahoma that much, so I just
know what I see on the internet. And everybody knows everything
on the internet is perfectly true.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Akaka.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. If you
have further questions, we can certainly pick it up.
Let me ask this to Mr. Anaya. And again, I am going to ask
for your opinion. Will meeting the Declaration standards
substantially affect our standing in the world or enhance our
ability to achieve other foreign policy goals?
Mr. Anaya. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that
softball that you have thrown me. And of course, unexpectedly,
the answer from me is yes, absolutely yes. The U.S., as I said
in my initial statement, has, has been a leader for human
rights in the world and has stood for human rights in the
world.
It has been somewhat slow to take any kind of leadership
role on the issue of indigenous peoples for reasons that have
to do with negotiations and the no vote on the Declaration and
other reasons.
But with the endorsement of the Declaration by the
Government, by the Obama Administration, the attention of the
world has been focused on the United States to see now what
that is going to mean in practical terms. That, as I said, was
an extremely and still is an extremely welcome development. It
is rare when a Government delegate at a meeting on indigenous
peoples at the United Nations gets an applause.
In the last few statements I witnessed by the United States
representative at the UN Permanent Forum on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, the representative has gotten applause.
There is a lot of hope in what the United States will do
because of its leadership role. And that leadership role can
help to catalyze developments elsewhere. It can help to
motivate action on a global scale. It can help to solidify the
United Nations and other international institutions' focus on
the issue, and specific action by specific countries as well.
Not only by the example that the U.S. may give, but also by its
bilateral and multi-lateral cooperation, which I think is very
important and has a great potential to genuinely contribute to
specific and concrete, positive developments on the ground for
indigenous peoples worldwide.
So yes, absolutely, the U.S. can take a leadership role,
and its endorsement of the Declaration positions the Country
extremely well to do just that.
The Chairman. Thank you so much for that. The reason why I
am asking you that is that this panel is pretty well acquainted
with what is going on with the Declaration. I want your
opinions, not necessarily that of other groups or the
Administration or the Congress, but your opinion on this. So
thank you very much for that.
Mr. Red Corn, I want to tell you agin, thank you for the
clips and what you are doing with young people, and using the
media to get to them and attract their attention as well to
these issues. So let me ask you in a sense a different kind of
question. As a young native man, what does the Declaration mean
to you?
Mr. Red Corn. I would say that it means there is hope. Like
I said, there is a lot of work that has been done before I was
even born. I live in a completely different time than my father
has, a completely way different time than my grandfather did.
And all the work that has been done really serves to even like,
I run a small business out in the middle of nowhere. Without
the rising tide of all of Indian Country, I would not be able
to sustain a living to provide for my family on my reservation.
I would be in a big city somewhere working for a large white ad
agency or something like that, in all likelihood.
But because of all the work that has been done and all the
work that continues to be done, it create, the rising tide
raises all boats.
As far as reaching the youth, there is relatively little
indigenous new media that is being created, at least on a high
end basis that has viral capacity, able to access their minds
and their thoughts. We are in a different era of assimilation
and acculturation. There is more than one or two or three or
four or five threats that are served to replace our languages,
to replace our songs and our iPods, to replace what we do on
the weekends, from going to ceremony as opposed to going to Six
Flags. There are a lot of different things that serve to pull
our attention away.
Without those things, without those cornerstones of who we
are, which I consider cornerstones of our sovereignty, those
types of things will go away. And I don't, at least for me and
my family, I am not going to stand there and watch that happen
in my lifetime. So you know I am going to make sure my daughter
knows her language. I try to only speak Wa.xa.k'o.lin to her. I
am trying to raise her with everything that I have been taught.
When I got to college, I realized what a unique situation I was
in, because there were kids from relocation families that were
there that had probably five times the blood quantum, looking
at me having right now. And they were without their ways,
without their culture. And that move back towards that and
their ability to reclaim that is paramount in this struggle,
because this Declaration protects those things. It protects the
erosion of those things and it holds them up and says that they
are important as alternative ways of thinking, alternative ways
of farming, alternative ways of behaving, of alternative ways
of respect and all the protocol that goes in that. It is
embedded in the way that we conduct ourselves. It is the very
fabric which holds what we have left together.
From that respect, I fully support this and I would like to
see teeth put into it, so that I can feel the effects of this
Declaration from where I live at home.
The Chairman. Thank you so much for your statement. Now I
feel good about this hearing. Without question, it is beginning
to reach people out there. I am sure it will ring about a lot
of comment, which we can probably use to make the kinds of
changes that are needed.
So as I said, we will have a second round. Any further
questions you may have, Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. I think I am okay, Senator Akaka. And also,
I am looking forward to the third panel.
The Chairman. Yes. Well, thank you very much.
With that kind of comment, and the comments from our panel,
I want to again really, really thank you folks. Because I look
upon you as experts in the Declaration and legal side. We need
to really look hard on that sand see what we can do to make
things, in Hawaii we call it pono, or make it right. So that is
where I am.
Thank you for joining us and helping us. We are looking
forward to the days ahead to see what we can do about this. So
mahalo nui loa, thank you very much.
Now we will have our final panel to the witness table,
please. We have the Honorable Fawn Sharp, President of the
Quinault Indian Nation from Taholah, Washington. Frank
Ettawageshik, the Executive Director for the United Tribes of
Michigan in Harbor Springs. Duane Yazzie, the Chairperson of
Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, in Window Rock, Arizona,
and Melanie Knight, Secretary of State for the Cherokee Nation
in Tallequah, Oklahoma. I want to welcome our third panel, and
President Sharp, will you please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. FAWN R. SHARP, PRESIDENT, QUINAULT INDIAN
NATION
Ms. Sharp. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Senator Udall. It is
an honor and privilege to be here to provide testimony on this
very important topic.
On behalf of the Quinault Indian Nation, we applaud the
decision of the United States to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think it is
important at this point in time to recognize where we are in
history, and at this generation.
When you think back to centuries of despair,
discrimination, the loss of life, resources, by means that, as
the earlier panel pointed out, were contrary even to the laws
of the United States and unconstitutional, the devastation
continues through today's generation. But on December 16th,
2010, when President Obama announced that the United States
would change its position and now embrace fundamental
principles and values that transcend national borders, I
believe this Country, the United States, began to embark on a
path to heal the soul of Indian Country, a soul that we see the
symptoms every day in every community within our nations, the
levels of poverty, unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse.
So today is a very positive day that Congress is taking
positive steps to ask us tribal leaders, how can we begin to
take steps toward healing, and on that new path. So it is quite
remarkable to point out, and we truly appreciate the time we
have here today.
I am going to point to five specific questions. I have
provided written testimony, but I do want to focus on some
basic questions that I believe will help this Committee and
provide some guidance.
The first question is, what are the next steps? From the
Quinault Nation's perspective, we believe that some of the next
steps are for this Congress to adopt policies and legislation
that address the notion of free prior and informed consent as
well as protections of intellectual property. Throughout my
testimony, I will provide some reference to some very specific
articles within the Declaration to illustrate these points.
The next question that was posed to our nation is, what is
good domestic policy and what are the benefits to tribal
governments, communities and citizens. For us, good domestic
policy will recognize and embrace our long and traditional
histories, our cultures, our values that are unique to Indian
Country and recognize that we do have a unique political
relationship with the United States, as a fundamental
principle.
The second way that we think good domestic policy can be
addressed is to positively recognize, affirm and protect our
jurisdictional sovereign powers. We believe that that action in
and of itself gets to the point that President Obama made that
words are words, but action means so much more. And we have
heard many, many colorful words over the years. But actions
come down to where the rubber meets the road in our
jurisdictional and sovereign powers.
How is good public policy, domestic policy formulated, the
second question. We believe that good policy is so much more
than a consultation process. We believe that implementing
standards for the UN Declaration means that the United States
no longer has the permission nor the power to unilaterally make
decisions that affects our lands, our people and our resources.
Fourth, what has not been addressed in Federal policy and
how have tribal efforts for economic development and commerce
been impacted? This is probably one of the more near and dear
to the Quinault people. In the United States, the
implementation of the Declaration must be taken in the context
of our treaty-reserved rights, including the rights to hunt,
fish and gather our resources. That is the blood line of
communities in the Northwest, our ability to hunt and fish has
provided viable economies from the beginning of time. We hope
that the protections of the Declaration will continue to
sustain those efforts.
Lastly, with the jurisdictional morass that is created by
the courts, Congress and the Administration, we believe we are
at a unique point in time where all three branches of
government can get behind the declaration to ensure that future
generations will have a strong foundation in which to govern
their lands and territories.
A last recommendation that we would like to offer is for
Congress to appropriate $12 million to allow capacity building
for indigenous peoples to participate in international
conferences worldwide. As an example, in the climate change
crisis, the world is making policy decisions without the
important knowledge that Indian people possess. We are not at
the table. And a global crisis like climate change requires
that responsible leadership draws on all forms of knowledge,
social, political, economic and cultural. And until we get to
the table, it is not only hurtful and harmful to us as Indian
nations, but to the rest of the world. They do not have the
benefit of our knowledge.
So we ask that that will, with that action, we would see
strong implementations of Article 3, Article 18, 19, 23,
Article 21, subparagraph 1 with that one initiative. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sharp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fawn R. Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation
The Quinault Indian Nation applauds the decision of the United
States to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP recognizes Indigenous rights in
vital areas of self-determination, rights to lands, territories and
natural resources, cultural rights, and the concept of free, prior, and
informed consent for actions affecting indigenous peoples.
After several decades of debate and negotiation, the world
community has now reached consensus on minimum standards for the
survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples. Although the
United States has a well earned record denouncing the human rights
records of other states that violate the rights of peoples within their
jurisdiction, it was not until 1975 that the U.S. and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics concluded the Helsinki Accords. It is within
the framework of those accords that the U.S. agreed to conduct its
relations with Indian governments on a government-to-government basis
and to implement policies consistent with the accords' Human Rights
baskets. The U.S. Department of State was obliged to report to the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) about U.S.
treatment of Indian peoples. In its 1979 report, the U.S. government
submitted statements, which lend considerable weight and significance
to UNDRIP.
The report included remarkable statements concerning the U.S.
government's policy on Indian self-determination:
[The policy] is designed to put Indians, in the exercise of
self-government, into a decisionmaking position with respect to
their own lives. (USA Helsinki Report to CSCE 1979, p. 149)
The report further asserted that the state's relationship to
Indian nations is one where ``. . . the U.S. Government entered
into a trust relationship with the separate tribes in
acknowledgment, not of their racial distinctness, but of their
political status as sovereign nations.'' (USA Helsinki Report to
CSCE 1979)
At its core, UNDRIP is a vindication of long-standing U.S. human
rights policy since President Woodrow Wilson introduced the concept of
self-determination at the beginning of the 20th century. As the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of
indigenous peoples for the United Nations stated in his August 2008
report:
[The Declaration] ``represents an authoritative common
understanding, at the global level, of the minimum content of
the rights of indigenous peoples, upon a foundation of various
sources of international human rights law.''
Last winter, President Obama announced the support of the United
States for UNDRIP at a gathering of tribal leaders, finally embracing
an international instrument that enshrines the very principles it
claimed as relevant to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975.
Now that the United States has embraced UNDRIP, attention must turn
to implementing its spirit and principles in domestic policy towards
Indian nations. UNDRIP sets forth fundamental principles within an
international framework which can guide political relationships between
the United States and its indigenous peoples.
The Quinault and other Indian Nations of this country have
experienced firsthand the loss of land and resources expropriated
through force, coercion, fraud, treachery, and sometimes treaties, and
continue to experience a sad legacy of devastation, frustration and
despair left behind by a trail of broken promises and disregard for
human rights of their peoples. Poverty, unemployment, and economic
deprivation are extreme. Social systems are inadequate to provide basic
health, education, and public safety. Tribal natural resources continue
to be subject to colonial exploitation and deterioration from neglect.
I do not raise these points to dwell on the injustices of the past,
but rather to express my opinion that full endorsement of the UNDRIP by
the United States opens the way to embark on a path to forge a better
future for the generations of tribal and non-tribal peoples to come;
and constructive relations between Indian nations and the United
States:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen
their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural
institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if
they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural
life of political states.
Indigenous peoples have rights to lands, territories and
resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or
otherwise used or acquired.
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all
other peoples and have the right not to be subject to any kind of
discrimination based on their indigenous origin or identity.
Political states have the obligation to provide for
substantive, good faith participation by indigenous peoples in
legislative or administrative processes and measures which affect
their rights and interests and to obtain their free, prior and
informed consent.
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a
collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human
rights law.
It must be understood, furthermore, that by endorsing UNDRIP,
the United States took a key step to enable the United States
government to constructively contribute to the current climate
change negotiations. The U.S. government's foreign policy is now in
line with its domestic pronouncements, providing a firm foundation
upon which key implementation policies beneficial to both the U.S.
and Indian Nations internally and externally can be built.
In appearing before the Committee today, I was asked to comment on
four basic questions:
Question 1. What's next now that there is a U.N. Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Answer. The United States should adopt policies and enact
legislation as necessary to effectuate the principles enunciated in the
Declaration, particularly those relating to free, prior, and informed
consent, protection of intellectual property rights.
Question 2. What is good domestic policy? What are the benefits to
Tribal governments, communities and citizens?
Answer. Good domestic policy for implementing the UN Declaration
would reflect the unique body of law policy, and political
relationships with the indigenous peoples of the United States. Good
domestic policy would also affirm tribal jurisdiction over their lands,
resources, and peoples, instead of the mish-mash created by the social
engineering of the federal courts, Congress, and the federal
Administration. Implementation of the UN Declaration would demonstrate
the commitment and leadership of the United States to the world
community.
Question 3. How is it formulated?
Answer. Good domestic policy to implement the UN Declaration for
application within the U.S. would be developed through government-to-
government dialogue between Indian Nations. By ``dialogue'', I mean
substantive discussion between sovereigns to resolve differences, not
``consultation'' which has been interpreted to enable the United States
to unilaterally retain all decisionmaking power.
Question 4. What has not been addressed in the federal policy? How
have Tribal efforts for economic development and commerce been
impacted?
Answer. I am unaware of a federal policy that has been adopted to
implement UNDRIP. In the United States, implementation of UNDRIP must
occur within the historical context of treaties, reserved rights, and
judicial decrees
However, it must be recognized and understood that despite its
frequent protestations against other states' governments deem
dismissive of human rights norms, the political, administrative, and
legal arms of the United States government have kept American Indian
nations in a state of perpetual dependency. Tribal communities suffer
from a legacy of over a hundred and fifty years of political and
economic oppression.
The long-term economic and social future of Indian nations is
dependent on maintaining access to sufficient quantities of traditional
foods and medicines both inside and outside the boundaries of reserved
territories. In accord with the Stevens' Treaties signed by Indian
nations and ratified by the U.S. Senate, Indian nations reserved the
right and privilege to hunt, fish, and gather resources to maintain
tribal life ways. The United States Congress should in accord with
Article 3 of these and similar treaties affirm the authority of Indian
nations to regulate and manage tribal hunting and gathering activities
to promote our social and economic well being implementing clauses in
Article 24 and 26 of the UNDRIP. New legislation respecting these two
Articles of UNDRIP and clauses contained in treaties concluded between
Indian nations and the United States should bar federal, state, county
and local governments from interfering with Indian nations' exercise of
reserved rights.
The U.S. Senate should consider and enact legislation that ensures
that all American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians are
able to access and benefit from financial and technical assistance in
the future available to indigenous peoples from states' governments and
multi-lateral agencies acting in support of indigenous peoples as a
result of international cooperation and agreements thereby implementing
Article 23 and Article 39 of UNDRIP.
For Indian nations of the U.S., UNDRIP's general principles must be
implemented under conditions where lands and resources are held in
trust for the benefit of Indians by the U.S. The trust status protects
these resources from alienation to some degree, but it also imparts
special fiduciary obligations on the U.S. which increase transaction
costs for both the beneficiaries and trustee, and imposes difficult
challenges for securing loans to finance economic development
activities.
Lastly, the jurisdictional morass resulting from social engineering
by Congress and the Courts must be rectified. Tribal sovereign powers
need to be affirmed. Jurisdictional conflicts and voids have created a
no-man's land on reservations where the power to govern depends on the
type of land ownership, the nature of offenses, and the tribal
affiliation of the offenders. For regulation of commerce,
jurisdictional problems have increased the difficulty of controlling
development and business activities within reservation boundaries and
created a difficult social environment that has rendered tribal members
extremely vulnerable to victimization by drug and alcohol abuse and
domestic violence.
Tribal concerns and views on Commerce, Environmental Stewardship on
federal lands and Tribal Economic Development and Trade.
The Senate with the free, prior and informed consent of affected
Indian governments should recognize the right of Indian nations to
freely trade and conduct commerce without interference by U.S.
government agencies provided that Indian nations conduct trade and
commerce consistent with agreed international trade and commerce
statues implementing clauses in Article 21 (2), Article 36 and Article
37 of UNDRIP.
Regarding environmental stewardship, there is a long, sad history
of Tribal needs and interests falling victim to policy and economic
decisions made by federal and state jurisdictions. Tribes are suffering
environmental injustice as their rights to self-determination over
their lands, resources, and peoples have often been sacrificed to
benefit non-tribal interests--for instance tribal prerogatives are
being denied to compensate for environmental degradation caused by non-
tribal development. At Quinault, because of extensive and intensive
non-Indian logging of old growth forests, species like the marbled
murrelet and northern spotted owl have become listed under the ESA.
This has led to the imposition of restrictions on tribal activities,
resulting from the loss of tens of millions of dollars in stumpage
revenues, loss of businesses and jobs in the community, and devaluation
of trust assets. An additional concern is that our reservation homeland
that was set aside for our exclusive use and occupancy is becoming a
refuge for ESA-listed species because of continuing environmental
deterioration elsewhere. Displacement of environmental costs onto
tribes is not limited to reservation lands. Desires to provide
additional protection for non-Indian lands in the Chehalis Basin, dams
and levees are being proposed without adequate consideration to the
threats that these structures pose to habitat critical to sustaining
treaty-protected fishery resources that are central to QIN's economy
and way of life.
This travesty must end. Implementation of UNDRIP should include
provisions that protect territorial dominion of Tribal governments over
their lands and resources.
Finally, I wish to recommend that the U.S. Senate consider and
enact an appropriation of $12 million annually for ten years to support
American Indian, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian delegations to
participate in international conferences, workshops, seminars, and
intergovernmental consultations as an International Development
initiative promoting indigenous peoples' dialogue and agreements
advancing trade, commerce, and improved understanding concerning
intellectual property rights, biological diversity, climate change, and
opportunities for economic cooperation thus implementing clauses in
Article 3, Article 18, Article 19, Article 23, Article 29 (1) of
UNDRIP.
Many of these recommendations align with consensus views of
indigenous nations and organizations in the international community. I
have attached two documents which lend context. Annex A is a joint
statement entitled: ``Implementation of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Positive Initiatives and Serious
Concerns'' and Annex B entitled: ``Open-Ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental
Committee for the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and
the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their
Utilization.''
I thank the Committee on Indian Affairs for its invitation to
provide testimony regarding implementation of the clauses and sections
of UNDRIP for consideration.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. And now we will receive
the statement from Mr. Ettawageshik.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ETTAWAGESHIK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED
TRIBES OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Ettawageshik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Udall. I
would like to acknowledge all of the folks that are here that
are listening and that are part of this, those who will read
this record and who are concerned about these issues, and who
are working toward the implementation of this Declaration and
working toward the goodwill of people all over the earth.
There have been a number of different comments that have
been made. One of them was talking about what is happening in
other places in the world and what is happening with indigenous
peoples. And there are, I have more detail in my written
testimony, but there are several documents that I have attached
to that written testimony that demonstrate and talk about some
of these things and what has been happening.
The first one that I talk about is the United League of
Indigenous Nations Treaty. There are in excess of 80 indigenous
nations that are signers to this at this point. And there are
Maori from New Zealand area, from Australia, aborigines, First
Nations from Canada, and tribes from the United States. We have
interests from a number of other areas, of people who are
interested in this.
This is working toward the idea of finding ways to share
with each other and to strengthen each other's endeavors in a
variety of different areas, but mostly just to work together
with each other. These are things that, there have been a lot
of attempts at this at various times in the past. This is
another one, and it is in light of a lot of the discussion that
was occurring at the UN. We actually signed this treaty prior
to the time when the Declaration had passed. And yet it was all
part of that process in a way.
A second one is the statement from the first Roundtable for
the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples from this last
January. I attended this in India, where representatives of the
native indigenous nations all across the continental United
States, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, people from a
variety of other indigenous nations all over the earth that
attended. It was in the idea of working toward implementation,
but in an international way.
Another one is the Message of the Living Spirit of the
Convening of Indigenous Peoples for the Healing of Mother Earth
at the cultural territory of the Maya. It is quite a big title,
takes the full top of the page. You get a pretty good idea what
this is. This was put together by North American indigenous
people from Mexico, Canada and the United States. This was done
in Palenque, in the State of Chiapas, in Mexico. We had nearly
150 representatives who put this document together, talking
about maintaining balance in the direction, the four direction
teachings, maintaining of balance between earth, water, fire
and wind. And the things that need to be done to protect, the
document goes into some detail about assessing the strengths
and our traditional teachings in these areas.
But also the disharmony that is occurring in each of these
directions and the disharmony that is threatening our very
existence on earth, addressing some of the points that
President Sharp talked about, in terms of, it is important for
us to be at the table. We have some very important teachings
that can inform the process.
Other documents are the Mystic Lake Declaration, which came
from the Native Peoples Native Homelands Climate Change
Workshop II. NASA was one of the sponsors of this, as well as
others who were people from all over the continent who came to
that. And this was putting together a statement that would help
inform the process in Copenhagen. Once again, talking about the
harmony and disharmony and things that were there. There are
some very strong things that come out of that.
And the last document that I have is the Tribal-State
Climate Accord in the State of Michigan, where the tribal
governments and the State of Michigan have signed an accord on
how we are going to be working on implementing the discussions
to deal with the issues that come relative to climate.
These all have two major things that they are dealing with.
They are dealing with environmental traditional knowledge and
how that relates to climate. And they are dealing with inherent
sovereignty, and they are making the statement that as
indigenous peoples, we have this inherent sovereignty that is,
no one can give you sovereignty. You are either sovereign or
you aren't.
The indigenous peoples, when you have the recognition
process, for instance, which is one of the areas that I gave
testimony on here before this Committee, in a previous hearing,
the problem that comes up is that we often, the system seems to
look at this as if you are looking at a people and you are
either, you are going to decide whether you are going to grant
them sovereignty.
But that isn't the case. It is a case of deciding whether
you are going to have diplomatic relations with this sovereign
entity. You have to decide that. I don't think that, the
process has not been one that looks at this as a two-way
street. Frankly, it needs to. In light of the Declaration, I
think we need to review all of those things.
To conclude, I am calling for, as well as other people have
called for this, is that there needs to be a comprehensive
review of existing United States laws and relationships with
tribal nations. But this needs to be done carefully and
thoughtfully, but it needs to include all parties that are
affected. A special joint commission of the U.S. and tribal
nations should be created and charged with this review,
creating a record that will inform the process of
implementation.
Indigenous peoples' knowledge, the traditional teachings
guide us in our relationship with our mother, the earth. We
know that we must respect the forces of nature. We must seek
balance in our lives and communities and nations. We must
consider the consequences of our actions through the coming
seven generations. We have gifts, knowledge, traditions and a
way of life that has been handed down from the preceding
generations. These gifts not only benefit our own peoples, they
also enrich and provide guidance for the preservation of all
humankind. We seek the strength and wisdom to do our part to
continue this sacred responsibility.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
I would be glad to answer any questions when the time comes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ettawageshik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Ettawageshik, Executive Director, United
Tribes of Michigan
Introduction
Aanii. Pipigwa ododem. Naakwegeshik n'dizhnikaz. Waganakising
n'doonjibaa. (Hello. Sparrow Hawk is my clan. Noon Day in my name. I'm
from the place of the Crooked Tree.) I live near Harbor Springs,
Michigan in the Odawa homeland of Waganakising. I want to acknowledge
the Elders across Indian Country who have maintained our traditional
ways and shared with us the knowledge, strength and guidance to help us
to live in a good way.
Thank you for the invitation to give testimony today before the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Over the past 20 years I've been
privileged to serve my tribe, the Waganakising Odawak (Little Traverse
Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan), in both elected and appointed
office. After leaving the office of Tribal Chairman in 2009, I became
the Executive Director of the United Tribes of Michigan, a position in
which I still serve. I also serve as the co-chair of the National
Congress of American Indians' Federal Recognition Task Force. In this
capacity on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, I presented the testimony on
behalf of the National Congress of American Indians at an oversight
hearing on the federal recognition process before this Committee.
During my tenure as a Tribal Chairman, I attended several State
Department meetings with tribal leaders regarding the negotiation for
the proposed United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (Declaration). I considered this work to be of the highest
importance and was disappointed when the United States did not vote in
the affirmative when the final declaration was considered by the United
Nations in September 2007. Many tribal citizens and leaders throughout
Indian Country made repeated and consistent efforts to encourage the
United States to reconsider this position and to endorse the
Declaration. Meanwhile, the three other Nation States who voted no, one
at a time, changed their positions over the intervening years. And
then, in December 2010, we were excited to hear President Obama
indicate that after careful consideration the position of the United
States was changed.
The lengthy and difficult process by which this Declaration was
negotiated and approved by the Nation States of the world gives
indication of the ongoing complexity of Indigenous Peoples' positions
within diverse governing systems of the world nations. The Indigenous
Peoples' place in the unfolding history of human development is one of
significant struggle against oppression, exploitation, genocide, and
marginalization.
While there are myriad ramifications for all parties concerned in
the implementation of the provisions of the Declaration, in this
testimony I will be mainly focused on the issues of recognition of
Indigenous Peoples and the collective challenge facing humankind in
dealing with our changing climate.
Federal Recognition
The Declaration acknowledges indigenous peoples and outlines
standards which the world community of Nation States believes that the
member nations should uphold in their relationships with Indigenous
Peoples. In the United States Constitution North America's indigenous
peoples are referred to as Indian Tribes whose existence predates that
of the United States itself. These Indian Tribes are nations with
inherent sovereignty with our own laws and customs. By recognizing or
acknowledging a tribal nation the U.S. government is not creating a
nation or sovereign entity. The U.S. government is merely recognizing
an already existing tribal nation. No one can give sovereignty to a
nation. A nation or entity either is sovereign or it is not.
It is the responsibility of each sovereign to negotiate the
acceptance of its sovereignty by the other sovereigns with whom it
interacts. Tribal nations, like all the world's nations, must
constantly negotiate the acceptance of their sovereignty with each
other and with other national governments in a continually changing
world.
Indigenous Peoples have banded together with each other in support
of this negotiation for the acceptance of their sovereignty. A couple
of examples are the United League of Indigenous Nations Treaty (ULIN)
and the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples, although there are many
other organizational efforts.
The ULIN Treaty has a growing number of Indigenous Peoples as
signers, currently numbering in excess of 80. These signatories are so
far to date from Indigenous Peoples and Nations who are located within
the Nation States of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United
States. The opening principles within the treaty include that ``The
Creator has made us part of and inseparable from the natural world
around us . . .'' and that the ``Political, social, cultural and
economic relations between our Indigenous Nations have existed since
time immemorial and our right to continue such relationships are
inseparable from our inherent Indigenous rights of nationhood.
Indigenous Peoples have the right of self-determination and, by virtue
of that right, our Peoples freely determine our political status and
freely pursue our social, cultural and economic development.'' (copy of
treaty attached)
Booshakti Kendra (Mother Earth Center) near Tumkur, India, was the
location for the First Roundtable discussing the creation of the World
Parliament of Indigenous Peoples on the 7th through the 10th of January
2011. Thirty-nine representatives of Indigenous Peoples from around the
world held three days of discussions and ceremonies, issuing a
statement that said, in part,
''The unrelenting assault on the cultures, histories and
dignity of the Indigenous Peoples and the living Universe must
be understood and responded to creatively by Indigenous Peoples
themselves. The First Round Table of the World Parliament of
Indigenous Peoples asserts that while we recognize our cultural
differences, we simultaneously and synergistically gather
together our common cultural ethics and ancestral
understandings toward the fulfilment of our self-assertion,
self-actualization, self-determination, sovereignty and
ultimately, our transformation. These at once ancient and
contemporary strengths will enable us to move within the
formation of nation-states within which we find ourselves,
transforming them in ways that embody Indigenous ethics of
respect, relationship and reciprocity for Indigenous
communities, along with all other peoples, particularly
marginalised and/or excluded communities. `` (copy of full
statement attached)
In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has grappled with the
issues relating to the Indian Tribes and has made many rulings that
govern the relationship of the U.S. government and its political
subdivisions with the Indian Tribal Nations. The Constitution and court
rulings however do not direct the internal sovereignty and affairs of
the Tribal Nations or limit that sovereignty. These rulings do,
however, make the exercise of sovereignty by a Tribal Nation more
difficult by placing limits within U.S. law on federal, state and local
governments in dealing with tribal issues.
There are 565 federally recognized Indian Tribal Nations in the
U.S. There are many unrecognized sovereign Tribal Nations not counted
in this number who are seeking acknowledgement of federal/tribal
relations. The manner in which the United States has been
``negotiating'' its acceptance of these Tribal Nations has been a
process that is cumbersome, expensive, demeaning, excessively lengthy,
and filled with contradictions. The process takes so long that this
alone creates an injustice not in keeping with the Declaration. The
Declaration acknowledges that whether federally recognized or not, the
U.S. and all world nations have responsibilities, standards for action,
and ethical duties to respect Indigenous Peoples rights and existence.
The U.S. recognition process assumes that recognition is a one-way
arrangement when actually it is an acknowledgment of a two-way
relationship. Both parties have rights, responsibilities and duties in
the maintenance of this relationship. The Declaration outlines
parameters for this relationship that were previously not commonly
utilized. Implicit within the Declaration is the expectation that all
Indigenous Peoples can expect and demand that their inherent rights are
respected in their relations with Nation States.
Climate Change
The traditional knowledge held by the indigenous peoples of the
world, and within the United States, is a vast reservoir of teachings
and lore that contains within it much that is needed as we collectively
face an uncertain future, filled with a rapidly changing climate,
rising sea levels, and cataclysmic natural disasters. This uncertainty
is having, and will continue to have, significant effects within
individuals, families, communities, nations and across the entire
world.
Indigenous Peoples from around the world have been preparing for
dealing with these changes. In 2008, in Palenque, Mexico, the Convening
of Indigenous Peoples for the Healing of Mother Earth was held with
nearly 150 representatives from all across North America. Using our
traditional knowledge and teachings a document was drafted outlining
the imbalance that Indigenous People feel in the Earth today and
issuing a warning of the dire consequences humankind is facing because
of this imbalance (copy attached).
In 2009, at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the Native Peoples Native
Homelands Climate Change Workshop II was held. The result was the
Mystic Lake Declaration the intent of which was to inform the
discussions at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit. In this Declaration
Native Peoples stated:
''We hereby declare, affirm, and assert our inalienable rights
as well as responsibilities as members of sovereign Native
Nations. In doing so, we expect to be active participants with
full representation in United States and international legally
binding treaty agreements regarding climate, energy,
biodiversity, food sovereignty, water and sustainable
development policies affecting our peoples and our respective
Homelands on Turtle Island (North America) and Pacific Islands.
We are of the Earth. The Earth is the source of life to be
protected, not merely a resource to be exploited. Our
ancestors' remains lie within her. Water is her lifeblood. We
are dependent upon her for our shelter and our sustenance. Our
lifeways are the original ``green economies.'' We have our
place and our responsibilities within Creation's sacred order.
We feel the sustaining joy as things occur in harmony. We feel
the pain of disharmony when we witness the dishonor of the
natural order of Creation and the degradation of Mother Earth
and her companion Moon.'' (see attached copy)
The North American tribal nations who reside within the territory
of the United States are among the first in the U.S. to directly feel
the impacts of the changing climate just as around the world,
indigenous peoples are today and will continue to be the earliest and
most severely impacted. In the arctic whole seaside native villages are
threatened as erosion from rising waters and melting permafrost combine
in a relentless process that is causing them to be destroyed. The
Indian Tribal Nations along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico have
suffered loss of land, resources, heritage sites, and have suffered
severe economic hardship due to storm erosion and rising ocean levels.
Across the whole United States tribal nations' physical, social,
emotional and spiritual environments are under attack by outside
pressures which now include the changing climate which is adjusting the
habitat around us. In the past when the climate changed we were free to
move with the changes, but today we are for the most part fixed in
place. This will cause our cultures to have to adapt in ways that we
have never before had to face.
Tribal Nations need to have access to adequate resources to work
with each other and with the U.S. and state governments to help
mitigate the negative impacts being caused by this changing climate.
There are two ways that this can be accomplished. One is to remove
restrictions on Tribal Nations that make it difficult for us to help
ourselves. Better access to capital and economic development
opportunities is needed. The ability to exercise our sovereign rights
to regulate and develop our own lands without excessive U.S. government
oversight and regulation is long overdue.
The second way to help Tribal Nations is to adequately fund
existing programs that are used by tribes to prepare for the climate
challenges that we are facing. Equity in funding opportunities to
create and coordinate climate planning amongst our tribal nations and
with other governments around us is essential.
In some areas of the country several steps have already been taken.
In Michigan for example, I was appointed to represent tribal interests
on the Michigan Climate Action Council. The resulting Climate Action
Plan that the Council presented to Michigan's governor contained
several tribally specific recommendations including the negotiation of
a Tribal State Climate Accord. This has been completed and adopted (see
attached copy).
Through the provisions of this accord, twice yearly staff level
meetings among state and tribal officials are held to discuss common
issues in dealing with the changing climate. In at least one other
state, tribal interests were recognized in the adoption of a Climate
Action Plan.
Conclusion
To guide the implementation of the Declaration's provisions a
comprehensive review of existing United States laws and relationships
with Tribal Nations needs to be begun. This needs to be done carefully
and thoughtfully including all parties which are affected. Land uses,
regulatory systems, territorial jurisdiction, agricultural development,
and disaster preparedness and relief are just a few of the areas for
review. A special joint commission of the U.S. and Tribal Nations
should be created and charged with this review creating a record that
will inform the process of implementation.
Indigenous Peoples traditional teachings guide us in our
relationship with our Mother the Earth. We know that we must respect
the forces of nature, we must seek balance in our lives and communities
and nations, we must consider the consequences of our actions through
the coming seven generations. We have gifts, knowledge, traditions and
a way of life that has been handed down from the preceding generations.
These gifts not only benefit our own peoples, they also enrich and
provide guidance for the preservation of all humankind. We seek the
strength and wisdom to do our part to continue this sacred
responsibility.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of this testimony.
Attachments
______
Statement from the First Roundtable for the World Parliament of
Indigenous Peoples, 2011 (Booshakthi Kendra, \1\ Tumkur, India)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Booshakthi Kendra is the first ever Dalit Ashram in India
initiated by Jyothi and Raj in Tumkur, India. It means Mother Earth
Centre. It has the avowed purpose of being the springboard of learning,
indigenous spirituality, indigenous philosophy and through these
learning also generate liberative action for indigenous and other
excluded peoples of the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, 39 Indigenous delegates from 10 countries who attended the
First round Table of the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples from 07
to 10 January 2011 at the first ever Dalit Ashram, Booshakthi Kendra
(1), Tumkur in India, make the following Statements.
Preamble
Today the world is in need of Indigenous Peoples to ensure its
survival into the future. The Indigenous Peoples of the world have
sustained life with vibrancy, despite thousands of years of assault on
their dignity and life-ways by dominant and colonial powers. The
inclusive worldviews of the Indigenous Peoples have inherent capacity
of providing the critical values and ethics, understandings, processes
and protocols of respect and reciprocity, which unfold in ways that
include relationship with all of life, ensuring that everyone is valued
for their own unique gifts and contributions, which is the essence of
real leadership and governance.
The unrelenting assault on the cultures, histories and dignity of
the Indigenous Peoples and the living Universe must be understood and
responded to creatively by Indigenous Peoples themselves. The First
Round Table of the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples asserts that
while we recognize our cultural differences, we simultaneously and
synergistically gather together our common cultural ethics and
ancestral understandings toward the fulfilment of our self-assertion,
self-actualization, self-determination, sovereignty and ultimately, our
transformation. These at once ancient and contemporary strengths will
enable us to move within the formation of nation-states within which we
find ourselves, transforming them in ways that embody Indigenous ethics
of respect, relationship and reciprocity for Indigenous communities,
along with all other peoples, particularly marginalised and/or excluded
communities. The historic First Round Table in Tumkur, India has been
held with the purpose of forming a World Parliament of Indigenous
Peoples, which will provide an alternative model of leadership,
protocols and understandings, envisioning and expanding into a future
in which all the world's children have the possibility of living
healthy, happy and fulfilled lives, secure in their identity, strong in
their culture, proud of who they are, and able to carry themselves with
honour, respect and dignity into our collective future.
Statements
1. Humanity has the opportunity to benefit and grow from the
collective spiritual strengths that arise in the global spirit of
Indigenous Peoples and have been honed in their struggles.
2. The mindless exploitation of the cosmos in its totality poses a
serious problem to the Indigenous Peoples, as we consider Earth as our
Mother and we have lived in harmony with nature for millennia. Any
threat to the Earth and other planets is a simultaneous and inseparable
threat to the existence of Indigenous Peoples. Our suffering has been
inextricably intertwined with the sufferings of the cosmos. The World
Parliament of Indigenous Peoples, when it becomes a reality in world
history will become a veritable mouthpiece of the peoples of the world.
3. The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples signals a commitment to Indigenous Peoples that has
not been much demonstrated to this point.
4. Further, this adoption shows that the time has come for
Indigenous Peoples to unite in collective action aimed at creating
benefits for Indigenous communities and the world at large.
5. The formation of indigenous parliaments and indigenous political
entities will facilitate this unity, as well as facilitate
collaboration, discussion, decisionmaking, monitoring roles and support
for Indigenous communities and individuals.
6. We see merit in developing closer ties among the political
entities of Indigenous Peoples. We are confident that our knowledge,
experience, and worldviews can be valuable resources in addressing
common challenges for human beings, animals and plants and in assuring
our survival. We see these possibilities as both opportunity and
responsibility.
7. In anticipation and preparation for the United Nations World
Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014, we invite indigenous
parliaments, governments, and other indigenous political entities to
join the efforts in recognizing our full and just participation in the
global political arena.
8. The role of the World Parliament will also be to raise awareness
in the dominant world about the true nature and value of indigeneity.
The world will then realize that Indigenous Peoples have the answer to
most problems that beset the world that is groping in darkness today.
The following delegates took part in the historic First Round Table
of the World Parliament of Indigenous Peoples in Tumkur, India.--
1. Ms. Ang Dawa Sherpa--Nepal
2. Ms. Shanti Jirel--Nepal
3. Mr. Walter Hahn--Germany
4. Ms. Heidi Oline Salmi--Sapmi, Norway
5. Mr. Jarle Jonassen--Sapmi, Norway
6. Ms. Maria Therese Aslaksen--Sapmi, Norway
7. Mr. Rune Fjellheim--Sapmi, Norway
8. Ms. Kirsten Anne Guttorm--Sapmi, Norway
9. Ms. Silja Somby--Sapmi, Norway
10. Ms. Donna Ngaronoa Gardiner--New Zealand
11. Mr. Tiopira Porutu Keith McDowell--New Zealand
12. Mr. Charles Royal--New Zealand
13. Ms. Trish Johnston--New Zealand
14. Ms. Monica Royal--New Zealand
15. Mr. Kerry Laiana Wong--Hawaii
16. Ms. Eomailani Kukahiko--Hawaii
17. Ms. Margaret Jane Maaka--Hawaii
18. Ms. Darlene Hoskins McKenzie--Australia
19. Ms. Debrah Ann Hocking--Australia
20. Mr. Lenzerini Federico--Italy
21. Mr. D Thangaraj IAS--India
22. Ms. Rose Mary--Nagaland, India
23. Mr. Anil Gaikwad--India
24. Dr. Ruth Manorama--India
25. Dr. Nara Singh--Manipur, India
26. Mr. Jon Ross--Alaska
27. Ms. Leanndra Ross--Alaska
28. Ms. Jessica Ross--Alaska
29. Ms. Ruby Shannon Vail--USA
30. Mr. John Vail--USA
31. Ms. Amanda Holmes--N. America
32. Ms. June Lorenzo--N. America
33. Mr. Frank David Ettawageshik--N. America
34. Ms. Rosalie Little Thunder--N. America
35. Mr. Tupac Enrique--N. America
36. Mr. V B Rawat--India
37. Ms. Jyothi--India
38. Mr. M C Raj--India
39. Ms. Arul Kani--India
______
Message of the Living Spirit of the Convening of Indigenous Peoples for
the Healing of Mother Earth (2008--Cultural Territory of the Maya)
Dear Friends,
It is a great honor to share the ``Message of the Living Spirit of
the Convening of Indigenous Peoples for the Healing of Mother Earth,''
the outcome of the Convening that took place in the Cultural Territory
of the Maya in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico on March 10-13, 2008. At the
direction of the participants at this gathering, this message is a Call
To Action to Indigenous peoples, and to all peoples of the world.
The Convening for the Protection of Mother Earth was planned by and
for Indigenous peoples from North America to bring together Indigenous
leaders, including spiritual and traditional healers, elders, wisdom
keepers, and practitioners, to address the need for immediate
intervention and action, based upon our original teachings, in order to
ensure a healthy future for coming generations. We recognize that our
current and future actions must not be based upon the same worldview
that has brought such global destruction to Mother Earth. We must
reclaim and revitalize the wisdom passed on to us from our Ancestors
about how to be responsible to each other and to the Natural World.
This Message was created through ceremony and prayer, but it is up
to each of us to find ways to give this Message life and meaning as we
all take steps to protect the Natural World. It is intended to be a
living document that serves as a source of inspiration to Indigenous
peoples, governments, and civil society, to take our responsibilities
to protect Mother Earth seriously, and to provide some guidance for
moving forward.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the participation and deliberations
of the Indigenous peoples, representing Indigenous nations and
communities from throughout North America, and gratefully thank the
following organizations for their generous contributions and support
including: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada, The
Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, The Mexican
National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, and the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Please visit the Convening for the Protection of Mother Earth
website for further information at: www.indigenousconvening.com.
Introduction
Having been welcomed to convene in ceremony at the sacred site of
Palenque (Cerco de Estacas) to heed the call of Mother Earth and honor
the sacred elements of water, air, earth and fire in unity as
Indigenous Peoples of Lak % Lum upon the traditional territory of the
Maya People on the 10-13 of March 2008, we commit in unity to the
Message of the Living Spirit.
We the Indigenous Nations, Peoples, tribes, pueblos, communities,
villages, situated within the geopolitical boundaries claimed by the
nation-states of Mexico, Canada, and the United States hereby make this
declaration and urgent message to the world on the basis of our
spirituality and the natural biological Laws of Life on Mother Earth,
the Sacred Life-Giver. It is our inherent birthright and responsibility
as the original free and independent Peoples of Turtle Island to care
for Mother Earth in keeping with our Original Instructions from
Creation.
These natural laws are inclusive of Honor, Respect, Love,
Compassion, Peace, and Friendship. It is in keeping with these natural
laws and Indigenous values that the traditional knowledge and wisdom
bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and carried today by our Elders,
teaches us how to live in balance with the Four Sacred Elements of
Life: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. We are the guardians of these
elements of Life.
Fire is meant to ignite and unite the spirit of humanity. Water is
the life blood of all living things. Air is the sacred breath of life.
Earth is the Mother that nurtures us all. Beyond the tangible aspect of
our relationships with all the sacred elements, there is intangible
interaction. The role of the sacred elements is central in our customs,
traditions, stories, songs, and dances.
The Indigenous prophecies foretell the urgent environmental crisis
we face today. The Indigenous Peoples have the responsibility to
provide our traditional knowledge to the world. The ancestral ways of
Indigenous peoples have the power to heal our Mother Earth. We demand
that the nation-state and state governments stop the destruction and
violations against the four elements of Life.
Western legal and religious histories, philosophies and laws have
totally disrupted our ways of life. Our traditional spiritual ways and
knowledge systems honor the interconnections and interrelationships of
the Web of Life, and sustain, not destroy Mother Earth.
Vision
As caretakers of Mother Earth, speaking with one spirit, one mind,
one heart and as one family, utilizing the original teachings given to
human beings by the Creator, we will restore balance and harmony to
Mother Earth and all her children.
Guided by the wisdom and vision of our ancestors in the spirit
world, elders, spiritual leaders and traditional and Indigenous
community leaders, we understand the Natural Law given to us by the
Creator guides our traditional way of life in harmony with all creation
upon the land and waters of Mother Earth.
The Pain of Mother Earth
As the peoples of the land, we are the first to hear, see, feel,
taste and spiritually sense the pain of Mother Earth. She is dying and
we hear her cry. Her heart is wounded and her pain is our pain, her
illness is our illness, our survival is dependent upon her survival.
As Indigenous peoples, we have a spiritual and familial
relationship to the sacred elements of water, air, earth and fire, and
understand their holistic and inseparable relationship with each other.
Through the western claim of asserting ownership over these sacred
elements their spiritual interdependence is being destroyed.
Water
Minan ja' Minan kuxtal--Without Water, There Is no life
The water represents the life-blood and the sustenance of all life.
The purity and natural flow of water is necessary for maintaining the
interdependent balance between all forms of life. Our sacred birthright
includes the rivers, streams, natural springs, hot waters, lakes,
underground aquifers, seas, bays, inlets, oceans, ice, snow, rain and
all forms of and bodies of water.
Deforestation and the removal of flora and fauna have resulted in
the destruction of water sources. Organic and inorganic waste, refuse,
and industrial wastewater are dumped directly into rivers and water
sources that people need for drinking. As a result of toxins and
pollutants, and industrial wastes many sources of water are unfit to
drink and lead to serious and deadly health problems for humans and
other forms of life. Indigenous peoples are often in the situation of
having to choose between thirst and the possibility of serious illness
or death from drinking polluted and contaminated water.
Dams and hydroelectric projects pose a massive problem for the
integrity of ecosystems and the ability of Indigenous Peoples to
maintain their traditional ways of life, hunting, fishing, trapping,
and harvesting. As a result of diversion and depletion of pristine
water sources, many Indigenous Peoples do not have access to water.
Regulatory frameworks also infringe upon Indigenous peoples' rights to,
use of, and access to water. The privatization and commodification of
water is a critical issue. No one owns water.
Air
The air is the Messenger that announces the rains, it is a voice of
our ancestors, and it is the central element for the preservation of
cultures. The main causes of air pollution are industrialization,
militarization, electricity generation, energy generation from
nonrenewable sources, means of transport and inadequate management of
toxic wastes. This situation threatens the health of our ecosystems,
putting life at risk. Air pollution caused by automobile exhaust, has
great impacts on the respiratory health of all peoples, particularly in
urban areas. The pollution carried by the wind from coal-fire plants
emit toxins negatively impact peoples at great distances. The burning
of oil, gas, and coal (``fossil fuels'') causing the global warming is
the primary source of human-induced climate change.
Earth
Our sacred lands are under siege. The Western world improperly
asserts that they have a right to extract the natural resources from
our lands and territories without regard for our rights. This
extraction has left in its wake a legacy of contamination, waste and
loss of life. Indigenous peoples are facing the negative impacts of
pollution, mining, deforestation, logging, oil prospecting, dumping of
toxic waste, genetic engineering, fertilizers and pesticides, and soil
erosion, all of which contribute to a severe loss of biodiversity. All
of these threaten food security, subsistence lifestyles, human health
and our ability to sustain our peoples. Our peoples are suffering from
high rates of cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious
diseases previously unknown to our peoples. In the name of conservation
of biodiversity, Indigenous Peoples have been displaced from our
territories designated as protected areas. There is a direct
correlation between the health of the land and the holistic health and
well-being of the people. This has particular and significant impact on
Indigenous Women--the rape and desecration of Mother Earth is reflected
in what has happened to Indigenous Women.
Fire
The fire that sparks life is being disrespected by technology of
the industrialized world that allows it to take life such as the fire
in the coal-fired powered plants, the toxic waste incinerators, the
fossil-fuel combustion engine and other polluting technologies that add
to greenhouse gases, a primary cause of climate change. The abuse of
the sacred element of fire conflicts with Indigenous knowledge and
practices. Human beings are using fire in an exploitive, manipulative,
destructive and deadly manner. The culturally inappropriate use of fire
is manifested in the atomic bomb, military weaponry and warfare,
nuclear power and radioactive waste, the extractive energy industries
of coal, oil and gas, and the burning of forests and grasslands that
result in the extinction of flora and fauna within our ancestral
territories.
The Healing of Mother Earth
Based on our inherent sovereignty and consistent with our inherent
birthright to self-determination in international law, including the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we
affirm our responsibility to protect water, air, earth and fire.
Because of our relationship with our lands, waters and natural
surroundings since time immemorial, we carry the knowledge, ideas and
solutions that the world needs today. We know how to live with Mother
Earth because we are her children. We commit to sharing certain
teachings of our peoples to all humanity so that they can find their
original, sacred relationship to Mother Earth, Father Sky, and all
Creation. It is our responsibility given to us by the Creator to speak
for the plants, for the animals, and all life to bring their message to
all of peoples and nations of the world.
Traditional knowledge can aid in providing accurate ecological
baselines embedded in and carried in Indigenous languages, including in
traditional names of places, stories and oral narratives that reveal
the original roles of natural habitats as given to us by the Creator.
These baselines are critical for societal adaptation to environmental
change, land use change and climate change, as well as indigenous
cultural survival in the face of these detrimental changes in the world
we live in today.
Call to Action to Indigenous Peoples
Based on our inherent sovereignty and consistent with our right of
self-determination in international law, we affirm our inherent
birthright to water, air, earth and fire. We call upon our Indigenous
brothers and sisters to fulfill our responsibilities bequeathed by our
ancestors to secure a healthy environment for present and future
generations. We know how to live with Mother Earth because we are her
children. We are a powerful spiritual people. It is this spiritual
connection to Mother Earth, Father Sky, and all Creation that the rest
of the World must respect. Our extended family includes our Mother
Earth, Father Sky, and our brothers and sisters, the animal and plant
life, therefore, it is the responsibility given to us by the Creator to
speak for the plants, for the animals, for the rest of Creation, for
the future of all the children, for the future of Mother Earth and
Father Sky. We commit to continue our traditional practices for the
environment based on standards consistent with the Natural Laws of the
Creator for the benefit of future generations.
We call upon all Indigenous Peoples to:
Honor and defend all the sacred elements by conducting their
traditional ceremonies and prayers revitalizing and perpetuating
traditional values and knowledge systems and applying them to today's
realities. We the Indigenous Peoples at this Convening, offer to share
the following gifts of knowledge through our own skills that have been
developed and through proven best practices/successful indigenous
practices or knowledge that have been successful:
Develop recycling capabilities for plastic, paper, glass and
metals in our own communities, ending the use of plastic;
Exercise traditional ways of growing crops; and
Plant more trees to clean the air and water, a holistic
reforestation with endemic plants.
Educate Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous people
beginning with our children and including individuals,
communities, governments, institutions and the media about the
role of these sacred elements in our world and our livelihoods.
Create and develop an Indigenous education circle without
borders, based on traditional knowledge using appropriate tools
of science to protect our sacred elements. This network can
include traditional practices, research experience, development
of curriculum for our children, and a library of knowledge that
can be shared with all of our Peoples.
Collaborate and organize events, gatherings and conferences
for the protection of the sacred elements.
Acknowledge the ancestral time in uniting ``All Nations, All
Faiths, One Prayer'' on June 21st to pray for united healing.
Assert and exercise our inherent, prior and collective
rights to manage, maintain and protect our lands and
territories.
Express our full support for the existing Indigenous
organizations and associations which are currently advocating
for the protection, stewardship and sustainability of water as
a resource and as a part of Indigenous identity, spirituality,
culture and nationhood.
There are numerous documents, resources, tools, instruments,
treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements that
have been created by or in partnership with Indigenous Peoples.
We encourage more Indigenous Peoples to create such tools in
accordance with their respective customs, protocols and laws,
to articulate, implement or enforce our inherent rights and in
exercising self determination. We also urge Indigenous Peoples
to share such tools, skills, knowledge and resources with each
other.
Exercise the right of free, prior and informed consent to
any actions that may affect their lands and territories.
Call to Action to the Global Community
Acknowledging the dignity of all life, peoples and nations, we call
upon the global community to unite with Indigenous Peoples to learn the
teachings and wisdom as bestowed to us by the Creator in order to heal
Mother Earth. The realization of this Call to Action will only occur
with the full, active and collaborative partnership of all peoples and
nations. We call upon Leaders of all Nations of the World at all levels
of decisionmaking, to accept responsibility for the welfare of future
generations. Living by the traditional principles and values of Honor,
Respect, Love, Compassion, Peace and Friendship, we call upon the
Global Community:
International
Fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples.
Protect Indigenous peoples from the negative impacts of
trade agreements.
Recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples consistent with
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples and other international law, in the implementation of
international treaties, conventions and agreements relevant to
the environment, trade, and human rights including:
--Convention on Biological Diversity, including Articles
8(j) and 10.
--United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCC) and the Kyoto Protocol
--International Labour Organization Convention (ILO) 107 and
169
--Organization of American States
--OAS Proposed Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples
--Universal Declaration of Human Rights
--International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination
--International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
--International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
--Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples
--General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December
1962, ``Permanent sovereignty over natural resource''
--Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
National
Commit to the full implementation at the domestic level of
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.
That all levels of nation-state and state governments live
up to their commitments to Indigenous Peoples by recognizing
our inherent rights, cultural rights and rights held pursuant
to treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
Implement a system of legislation, regulation, fines or
taxation for excessive use or abuse of any of the four sacred
elements.
Enter into a collaborative, and active partnership with
Indigenous Peoples to protect, sustain and maintain sacred
sites of Indigenous Peoples.
Governments should guarantee the restructuring and repair of
the damage done to the cultural patrimony and territory of
Indigenous Peoples.
Non-Governmental and Civil Society
Civil society and non-governmental organizations to involve
and support Indigenous Peoples in the protection of our lands,
territories and rights. This includes advocacy concerning any
activity impacting the four sacred elements.
Encourage civil society, and non-governmental organizations
to respect and honor the roles and responsibilities of
Indigenous Peoples in carrying out their mandates and roles;
Private Sector and State Corporations
Indigenous laws governing the four sacred elements must be
respected by the private sector, in addition to relevant
international, and national laws that are consistent with the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
in carrying out their business or projects.
Ensure the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous
Peoples prior to commencing any undertaking which impacts the
four sacred elements, including assessments or exploration, and
involving the participation of governments if necessary.
Declaration
We, the Convening of Indigenous Peoples for the Healing of Mother
Earth, support the spirit and intent of this message and send it out to
all Indigenous peoples and to the World as a living document.
______
The Mystic Lake Declaration (from the Native Peoples Native Homelands
Climate Change Workshop II: Indigenous Perspectives and Solutions--
Prior Lake, Minnesota--November 21, 2009
As community members, youth and elders, spiritual and traditional
leaders, Native organizations and supporters of our Indigenous Nations,
we have gathered on November 18-21, 2009 at Mystic Lake in the
traditional homelands of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate. This
Second Native Peoples Native Homelands Climate Workshop builds upon the
Albuquerque Declaration and work done at the 1998 Native Peoples Native
Homelands Climate Change Workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We
choose to work together to fulfill our sacred duties, listening to the
teachings of our elders and the voices of our youth, to act wisely to
carry out our responsibilities to enhance the health and respect the
sacredness of Mother Earth, and to demand Climate Justice now. We
acknowledge that to deal effectively with global climate change and
global warming issues all sovereigns must work together to adapt and
take action on real solutions that will ensure our collective
existence.
We hereby declare, affirm, and assert our inalienable rights as
well as responsibilities as members of sovereign Native Nations. In
doing so, we expect to be active participants with full representation
in United States and international legally binding treaty agreements
regarding climate, energy, biodiversity, food sovereignty, water and
sustainable development policies affecting our peoples and our
respective Homelands on Turtle Island (North America) and Pacific
Islands.
We are of the Earth. The Earth is the source of life to be
protected, not merely a resource to be exploited. Our ancestors'
remains lie within her. Water is her lifeblood. We are dependent upon
her for our shelter and our sustenance. Our lifeways are the original
``green economies.'' We have our place and our responsibilities within
Creation's sacred order. We feel the sustaining joy as things occur in
harmony. We feel the pain of disharmony when we witness the dishonor of
the natural order of Creation and the degradation of Mother Earth and
her companion Moon.
We need to stop the disturbance of the sacred sites on Mother Earth
so that she may heal and restore the balance in Creation. We ask the
world community to join with the Indigenous Peoples to pray on summer
solstice for the healing of all the sacred sites on Mother Earth.
The well-being of the natural environment predicts the physical,
mental, emotional and spiritual longevity of our Peoples and the Circle
of Life. Mother Earth's health and that of our Indigenous Peoples are
intrinsically intertwined. Unless our homelands are in a state of good
health our Peoples will not be truly healthy. This inseparable
relationship must be respected for the sake of our future generations.
In this Declaration, we invite humanity to join with us to improve our
collective human behavior so that we may develop a more sustainable
world--a world where the inextricable relationship of biological, and
environmental diversity, and cultural diversity is affirmed and
protected. We have the power and responsibility to change. We can
preserve, protect, and fulfill our sacred duties to live with respect
in this wonderful Creation. However, we can also forget our
responsibilities, disrespect Creation, cause disharmony and imperil our
future and the future of others.
At Mystic Lake, we reviewed the reports of indigenous science,
traditional knowledge and cultural scholarship in cooperation with non-
native scientists and scholars. We shared our fears, concerns and
insights. If current trends continue, native trees will no longer find
habitable locations in our forests, fish will no longer find their
streams livable, and humanity will find their homelands flooded or
drought-stricken due to the changing weather. Our Native Nations have
already disproportionately suffered the negative compounding effects of
global warming and a changing climate.
The United States and other industrialized countries have an
addiction to the high consumption of energy. Mother Earth and her
natural resources cannot sustain the consumption and production needs
of this modern industrialized society and its dominant economic
paradigm, which places value on the rapid economic growth, the quest
for corporate and individual accumulation of wealth, and a race to
exploit natural resources. The non-regenerative production system
creates too much waste and toxic pollutions. We recognize the need for
the United States and other industrialized countries to focus on new
economies, governed by the absolute limits and boundaries of ecological
sustainability, the carrying capacities of the Mother Earth, a more
equitable sharing of global and local resources, encouragement and
support of self sustaining communities, and respect and support for the
rights of Mother Earth and her companion Moon.
In recognizing the root causes of climate change, participants call
upon the industrialized countries and the world to work towards
decreasing dependency on fossil fuels. We call for a moratorium on all
new exploration for oil, gas, coal and uranium as a first step towards
the full phase-out of fossil fuels, without nuclear power, with a just
transition to sustainable jobs, energy and environment. We take this
position and make this recommendation based on our concern over the
disproportionate social, cultural, spiritual, environmental and climate
impacts on Indigenous Peoples, who are the first and the worst affected
by the disruption of intact habitats, and the least responsible for
such impacts.
Indigenous peoples must call for the most stringent and binding
emission reduction targets. Carbon emissions for developed countries
must be reduced by no less than 40 percent, preferably 49 percent below
1990 levels by 2020 and 95 percent by 2050. We call for national and
global actions to stabilize CO2 concentrations below 350
parts per million (ppm) and limiting temperature increases to below
1.5c.
We challenge climate mitigation solutions to abandon false
solutions to climate change that negatively impact Indigenous Peoples'
rights, lands, air, oceans, forests, territories and waters. These
include nuclear energy, large-scale dams, geo-engineering techniques,
clean coal technologies, carbon capture and sequestration, bio-fuels,
tree plantations, and international market-based mechanisms such as
carbon trading and offsets, the Clean Development Mechanisms and
Flexible Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol and forest offsets. The
only real offsets are those renewable energy developments that actually
displace fossil fuel-generated energy. We recommend the United States
sign on to the Kyoto Protocol and to the United Nations Declaration of
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We are concerned with how international carbon markets set up a
framework for dealing with greenhouse gases that secure the property
rights of heavy Northern fossil fuel users over the world's carbon-
absorbing capacity while creating new opportunities for corporate
profit through trade. The system starts by translating existing
pollution into a tradable commodity, the rights to which are allocated
in accordance with a limit set by States or intergovernmental agencies.
In establishing property rights over the world's carbon dump, the
largest number of rights is granted (mostly for free) to those who have
been most responsible for pollution in the first place. At UN COP15,
the conservation of forests is being brought into a property right
issue concerning trees and carbon. With some indigenous communities it
is difficult and sometimes impossible to reconcile with traditional
spiritual beliefs the participation in climate mitigation that
commodifies the sacredness of air (carbon), trees and life. Climate
change mitigation and sustainable forest management must be based on
different mindsets with full respect for nature, and not solely on
market-based mechanisms.
We recognize the link between climate change and food security that
affects Indigenous traditional food systems. We declare our Native
Nations and our communities, waters, air, forests, oceans, sea ice,
traditional lands and territories to be ``Food Sovereignty Areas,''
defined and directed by Indigenous Peoples according to our customary
laws, free from extractive industries, unsustainable energy
development, deforestation, and free from using food crops and
agricultural lands for large scale bio-fuels.
We encourage our communities to exchange information related to the
sustainable and regenerative use of land, water, sea ice, traditional
agriculture, forest management, ancestral seeds, food plants, animals
and medicines that are essential in developing climate change
adaptation and mitigation strategies, and will restore our food
sovereignty, food independence, and strengthen our Indigenous families
and Native Nations.
We reject the assertion of intellectual property rights over the
genetic resources and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples which
results in the alienation and commodification of those things that are
sacred and essential to our lives and cultures. We reject industrial
modes of food production that promote the use of chemical substances,
genetically engineered seeds and organisms. Therefore, we affirm our
right to possess, control, protect and pass on the indigenous seeds,
medicinal plants, traditional knowledge originating from our lands and
territories for the benefit of our future generations.
We can make changes in our lives and actions as individuals and as
Nations that will lessen our contribution to the problems. In order for
reality to shift, in order for solutions to major problems to be found
and realized, we must transition away from the patterns of an
industrialized mindset, thought and behavior that created those
problems. It is time to exercise desperately needed Indigenous
ingenuity--Indigenuity--inspired by our ancient intergenerational
knowledge and wisdom given to us by our natural relatives.
We recognize and support the position of the International
Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), operating as the
Indigenous Caucus within the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), that is requesting language within the
overarching principles of the outcomes of the Copenhagen UNFCCC 15th
Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) and beyond Copenhagen,
that would ensure respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous
peoples, including their rights to lands, territories, forests and
resources to ensure their full and effective participation including
free, prior and informed consent. It is crucial that the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is entered
into all appropriate negotiating texts for it is recognized as the
minimum international standard for the protection of rights, survival,
protection and well-being of Indigenous Peoples, particularly with
regard to health, subsistence, sustainable housing and infrastructure,
and clean energy development.
As Native Nations and Indigenous Peoples living within the occupied
territories of the United States, we acknowledge with concern, the
refusal of the United States to support negotiating text that would
recognize applicable universal human rights instruments and agreements,
including the UNDRIP, and further safeguard principles that would
ensure their full and effective participation including free, prior and
informed consent. We will do everything humanly possible by exercising
our sovereign government-to-government relationship with the U.S. to
seek justice on this issue.
Our Indian languages are encoded with accumulated ecological
knowledge and wisdom that extends back through oral history to the
beginning of time. Our ancestors created land and water relationship
systems premised upon the understanding that all life forms are
relatives--not resources. We understand that we as human beings have a
sacred and ceremonial responsibility to care for and maintain, through
our original instructions, the health and well-being of all life within
our traditional territories and Native Homelands.
We will encourage our leadership and assume our role in supporting
a just transition into a green economy, freeing ourselves from
dependence on a carbon-based fossil fuel economy. This transition will
be based upon development of an indigenous agricultural economy
comprised of traditional food systems, sustainable buildings and
infrastructure, clean energy and energy efficiency, and natural
resource management systems based upon indigenous science and
traditional knowledge. We are committed to development of economic
systems that enable life-enhancement as a core component. We thus
dedicate ourselves to the restoration of true wealth for all Peoples.
In keeping with our traditional knowledge, this wealth is based not on
monetary riches but rather on healthy relationships, relationships with
each other, and relationships with all of the other natural elements
and beings of creation.
In order to provide leadership in the development of green
economies of life-enhancement, we must end the chronic underfunding of
our Native educational institutions and ensure adequate funding sources
are maintained. We recognize the important role of our Native K-12
schools and tribal colleges and universities that serve as education
and training centers that can influence and nurture a much needed
Indigenuity towards understanding climate change, nurturing clean
renewable energy technologies, seeking solutions and building
sustainable communities.
The world needs to understand that the Earth is a living female
organism--our Mother and our Grandmother. We are kin. As such, she
needs to be loved and protected. We need to give back what we take from
her in respectful mutuality. We need to walk gently. These Original
Instructions are the natural spiritual laws, which are supreme. Science
can urgently work with traditional knowledge keepers to restore the
health and well-being of our Mother and Grandmother Earth.
As we conclude this meeting we, the participating spiritual and
traditional leaders, members and supporters of our Indigenous Nations,
declare our intention to continue to fulfill our sacred
responsibilities, to redouble our efforts to enable sustainable life-
enhancing economies, to walk gently on our Mother Earth, and to demand
that we be a part of the decisionmaking and negotiations that impact
our inherent and treaty-defined rights. Achievement of this vision for
the future, guided by our traditional knowledge and teachings, will
benefit all Peoples on the Earth.
Approved by Acclamation and Individual Sign-ons.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement.
And now I would like to call on Senator Udall to make the
next introduction of a panelist.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka. Let me
welcome here Duane Yazzie, from the Navajo Nation. Mr. Yazzie
has served the Navajo Nation at all levels of government, from
a local chapter level to the Navajo Nation, and I think ha a
wealth of experience, particularly in this area. He has chaired
the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission and I think has a lot
to say about this UN Delegation.
I hope I will be able to be here at the questioning phase,
but if I am not, I hope that you talk about climate change and
the impacts we are going to see on indigenous people around the
world, and impacts you will see there at the Navajo Nation.
Welcome. It is good to have you here. Please proceed with
your testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Akaka.
The Chairman. I thank you, Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF DUANE H. YAZZIE, CHAIRPERSON, NAVAJO NATION HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Yazzie. [Greeting in native tongue.] Thank you, my good
leaders.
Senator Udall, I now hold the greater position than all
that you see on my resume, that of a grandpa and a farmer.
On behalf of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission and
the Navajo Nation, we thank you for the opportunity to speak
about how the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples will improve current U.S. legislation that
concerns Native Americans. The Declaration sets the standard to
guarantee Native Americans the rights to sacred sites. The
Declaration fills the gaps where U.S. domestic policy and law
has failed to protect sacred sites.
We Navajos and many other Native peoples consider the
Navajo Mountain, Dook'o'oosliid, the San Francisco Peaks,
located in Arizona, near Flagstaff, as a sacred entity. Since
2004, the Navajo Nation has litigated for the protection of the
Peaks pursuant to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act,
the National Historic Preservation Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act. Although we revere the Peaks as a sacred, single living
entity, these Federal acts have failed to protect the Peaks
from desecration and economic exploitation.
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari to the
Ninth Circuit en banc decision upholding the Coconino National
Forest Permit authorizing the Arizona Snowbowl Ski Resort to
use reclaimed water to produce artificial snow for economic and
recreational purposes. On May 24, 2011, the Snowbowl began
construction to install a water pipeline for manufacturing
artificial snow. The Navajo Nation continues to oppose the
Snowbowl efforts, because the use of wastewater poses great
concern to us.
The use of wastewater will contaminate the soil and the
medicinal vegetation needed to perform ceremonies and prayers.
The use of wastewater will prevent a Navajo traditional
medicine person from effectively treating his or her patient.
The implementation of the Declaration will hold the U.S.
accountable to its responsibility toward Native Americans. The
Declaration recognizes Native Americans' possession of distinct
rights to sacred sites since time immemorial, whereas the
United States recognizes a few rights post-colonization.
The Declaration Articles 11 and 12 acknowledge the
indigenous peoples' rights to protect and access past, present
and future cultural and Religious sites. Also, the Declaration
recognizes the right to practice tradition, custom and
ceremonies. The Peaks constitute one of the four main sacred
sites to Navajos. Four sacred mountains surround the Navajo
Nation, and the cultural integrity rests on the four sacred
mountains remaining pure. If one of the mountains is
contaminated, it negatively impacts the quality of Navajo life.
Furthermore, the Declaration Article 24 and 25 recognizes
the right to traditional medicines and medicinal vegetation,
and the right to maintain and strengthen the distinctive
spiritual relationship with the land. Navajos gather
traditional medicine on the peaks. However, the same vegetation
may not exist in the future, due to the contamination.
The Commission and the Navajo Nation advocate for the
implementation of the Declaration and have identified three
methods in which the U.S. can implement the Declaration. One,
ratify the Declaration. Two, integrate the Declaration into
existing law and policy. And three, legislatively address
Indian law jurisprudence.
Ratifying the Declaration will mandate the U.S. to change
its laws and policies toward Native Americans. Integrating the
Declaration into existing law will focus substantively on the
value of sacred sites, instead of placing an undue burden on
procedure. Also, the Declaration will emphasize international
policy instead of relying on domestic policy alone.
Legislatively addressing Indian law jurisprudence will
repair the disposition of Native American rights to sacred
sites. While implementing the Declaration creates a challenge,
the United States must balance its own interests with the
rights of Native Americans. The United States must respect and
abide by international law regarding indigenous human rights,
specifically those that address sacred sites.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yazzie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Duane H. Yazzie, Chairperson, Navajo Nation Human
Rights Commission
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Yazzie.
And now we will receive the statement of Melanie Knight,
Secretary of State from Oklahoma.
STATEMENT OF MELANIE KNIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE, CHEROKEE
NATION
Ms. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Udall. Thank
you both for convening this hearing and giving the Cherokee
Nation the opportunity to present testimony regarding the
effects of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.
I am Melanie Knight, Secretary of State for the Cherokee
Nation. I am here to testify on behalf of over 300,000 citizens
of the Cherokee Nation.
The Cherokee Nation applauds President Obama's recent
decision to endorse the Declaration. However, it is important
to remember that actions, rather than words, are what will heal
the centuries of the Government's failed Indian policies. A
central theme of the UN Declaration is the right of indigenous
peoples to make the decisions that will shape our cultures,
traditions, governments and future generations.
The domestic policy of the United States should support the
ability of tribal nations to make the decisions that are best
suited for our own specific needs. The history of the Cherokee
Nation indicates that tribal governments, when allowed to
freely govern, are better suited to meet the needs of our
citizens than the bureaucracy of Federal agencies. I ask that
this Committee support the President's endorsement of the UN
Declaration, and ensure that the human rights of indigenous
peoples living in the United States are respected, protected
and fulfilled.
I would like to offer the Committee some positive examples
of the Cherokee Nation exercising its rights of self-
determination. Self-reliance and economic development is
imperative to our development. As prescribed in Article 21 of
the Declaration, indigenous peoples have the right to the
improvement of their economic and social conditions. We ask
that the Federal Government uphold this provision by continuing
to sustain policy that is conducive to economic self-reliance
of tribes.
Cherokee Nation has created an economy through diversified
businesses and those include safety and security, hospitality,
IT, manufacturing and aerospace. The policies that allow
business to flourish in Indian Country must be protected and
advanced by the Federal Government.
The Nation uses revenue earned from our businesses to
supplement Federal Government funding for Cherokee programs and
services. During the last decade, more than 5,000 jobs have
been created. This allows our citizens to stay in Cherokee
communities instead of seeking employment outside the Cherokee
Nation, thereby solidifying community ties and creating
economic self-reliance for our citizens.
The revitalization of culture and language is the primary
purpose of several articles of the Declaration, most prominent
being in Article 13. The Cherokee Nation invests considerable
resources and effort into the revitalization of our history,
language and culture. We ask this Committee to ensure and
protect our rights through facilitating the inclusion of Native
language, history and culture throughout all programs and
activities that affect Indian Country. For instance, policy
changes are required to enable both public and private schools
to further language preservation efforts.
An example of how language preservation can flourish is
seen in our language immersion school in Oklahoma. Students
learn math, science and writing and other core subjects, much
like their counterparts in public schools. But the language of
instruction is done entirely in the Cherokee language.
Because the immersion school is currently limited to one
school, access to resources is needed to allow language
preservation efforts in the public school system for the more
than 20,000 Cherokee citizen students who don't attend our one
school.
The health of our people continues to be a priority for the
Cherokee Nation. The Declaration, as described in Article 24,
supports self-determination in providing the resources and
support to create positive change in the care of our citizens
by stating, ``Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain our
health practices and access to all social and health
services.'' We ask the Committee to support our efforts to
increase the quality of health care for our people by removing
barriers to access to care and increasing health care
appropriations to support the wellness of our citizens.
Currently, we have a network of eight outpatient clinics
and a hospital that provides Native people with primary and
specialty medical and dental services, as well as other public
heath programs. We need to remove bureaucratic policy barriers
that inhibit our ability to truly self-govern and efficiently
provide health care for our citizens.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Cherokee Nation, I
respectfully request that all levels of government become
informed of the obligations in the Declaration and continue
taking steps toward ensuring human rights. We do think the
global community will look to the United States to model the
way we work to improve the quality of life for Native people
here. I have seen first-hand what Cherokees can do when we are
free to determine our own destiny. We must continue to work
together to improve and advance self-determination in Indian
Country, so that we can build stronger nations for future
generations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Knight follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melanie Knight, Secretary of State, Cherokee
Nation
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement.
President Fawn Sharp, how can the United States enhance
trade relations and conduct commerce by Indian nations?
Ms. Sharp. I believe that if the United States looks to
Article 21, Article 36 and Article 37 and allows and embraces
the notion that Indian tribes can enter into trade and commerce
outside of the United States with other countries throughout
the world, that would be a significant step. The Quinault
Nation looked at carbon sequestration a number of years ago. We
had an opinion that even though the United States was not a
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, we could enter into a trade
agreement with nations outside of the United States.
At that time, carbon was being traded on the domestic
market at about $5 a metric ton. The international market was
$25 a metric ton. So we believed that with our own resources at
home, if we had the opportunity to trade freely, within the
United States and outside of the U.S. economy in this new and
emerging marketplace, that seeks to reduce the carbon footprint
throughout the world, it would be a huge, huge step for Indian
Country.
The Chairman. I asked you two parts, one of course was how
can the United States enhance trade relations. Is it working
fine at this point in time?
Ms. Sharp. No, it is not. It is not working at this point
in time. We do have a number of barriers. Take for example our
timber industry. The U.S., through ESA laws, has significant
burdens placed on our timber industry. Because our timber
industry relies on the stumpage values back to the tribe, the
ability of not only our tribal businesses but individual
Indian-owned business to enter into the forestry and trade
business, when there are heightened restrictions on the marbled
murrelet and spotted owl within our territories, but they don't
exist outside of Quinault in adjacent lands, we have found that
those species are now taking refuge on our lands, to our
detriment.
So the consequence is we are burdening, we are taking the
burden for all those other companies to do as they choose. So
it is not working, and we think that if you look to those
provisions of the Declaration that I mentioned, as well as some
domestic laws like the ESA and the unfair and discriminatory
burdens it places on us, there is a lot of room for
improvement.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your responses.
Mr. Ettawageshik, in your testimony you state that the
current Federal recognition process does not meet the
principles set forth in the Declaration. How might the Federal
recognition process be improved to meet those principles?
Mr. Ettawageshik. Thanks for the question. As I think of
this, I think about this process. As you know, I am the Co-
Chair of the Federal Acknowledgment Task Force for the National
Congress of American Indians. I have been working on these
issues for quite a long time. There have been, I myself was the
former chairman of a tribe that went through the process and
ended up with legislative, with being recognized through
legislative efforts as opposed to the administrative process.
I have been on both side of this as a leader. I have seen a
lot of other people that have done this. I know that the
biggest problem that we have seems to be that the process
assumes at the beginning that we are not a sovereign nation,
and that the process seems to be one that will, one of granting
sovereignty, which I don't believe you can do. It needs to be
one where you are looking at the kinds of questions and the
things that the tribes are required to meet, a sovereign entity
would be doing those things. Yet the United States has not been
acknowledging that sovereignty.
So therefore, it inhibits the practice of the jurisdiction
over the peoples that are involved within the tribal citizenry.
The other problem that we have is that since the process
has been, to just look at it from the outside and take a look
at it, right now this process is one that, it seems to be a
process whose job it is to deny. And if somebody makes it
through, it is just by luck or by just all the cards just fall
together just the right way. Pardon the pun on that one.
What happens is, it is sort of a miracle that anybody makes
it. And then as soon as somebody does, it is like the system
changes and adjusts and says, oops, we made a mistake, somebody
got through, now we have to tighten it up a little more. So
they keep changing the line. It is like somebody drawing a line
in the sand and saying, cross that line. Oops, well, you did
that one, now cross this line. This is what the people who are
in this process believe.
So what we look at through the Declaration is the
Declaration talks about the inherent rights of the indigenous
peoples and the expectation that they will be treated fairly.
When you are in a process where an entire generation, sometimes
two generations of elders die at the tribe while their petition
for recognition is pending, that is not fair.
So what has to happen is a more timely process needs to be
done. It needs to be reviewed. And frankly, I think that we
have now a very good tool to use, the provisions of the
Declaration, to be analyzed in the process in light of many of
these provisions. I can't cite the specific sections, but as I
have read the Declaration and been involved in it over the
years, there are many different places in there that intersect
the recognition process.
So I would say that this now gives us a tool for that
review of the process in a way that we haven't done before. I
think we do need to accomplish that.
The Chairman. Thank you for your response.
Mr. Yazzie, do you have specific recommendations on how
Federal laws can be amended or improved to better comport with
the ideals expressed in the Declaration, particularly, for
instance, around protecting the practices around spirituality,
religion and traditional healing, this area? Do you have
specific recommendations to improve the Federal law on this?
Mr. Yazzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have only one
recommendation, which is to have the Federal Government hear
what it is that we say. Oftentimes, too many times throughout
our relationship, the Federal Government has decided that it
knows best what is proper for us. When all throughout time, we
have always known what is best for us. We continue to know what
is best for us.
In terms of the protection of sacred sites and any facet of
our lives that relate to the implementation of the Declaration,
the Federal Government has to understand what it is that we are
trying to say. And I believe that that will be the first step
in making those changes to Federal policy.
I could not elaborate on the specific steps that need to be
made. But we certainly have people who can articulate those
specific measures. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this
opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Yazzie.
Ms. Knight, how can the Declaration ensure that this era of
self-determination continues into the future for all indigenous
people?
Ms. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been giving
some thought in terms of, the United States has made a good
step with the advent of the 1975 Indian Education and Self-
Determination Act. But very often, nations are still treated as
vendors, as grantees, as contractors, and not necessarily as
nations. Units of local government, even, and not necessarily
as nations.
So advancement of a true nation to nation policy would be
one area that I would recommend. There are still barriers to
true self-determination. While we have the Act, it is not
completely, fully realized. There are a lot of barriers. It
also doesn't extend across the Federal Government. So one area
to look at is, are there other applications of the Self-
Determination Act that can be made in other agencies of the
Federal Government. There have been studies and proposals done
to that end.
Finally, in regard to land and the rights to determine what
goes on on that land, over a decade ago, the Cherokee Nation,
along with other of the Five Civilized Tribes, advanced land
reform policy to change some of the detrimental effects of the
1906 Act that governs our lands in Oklahoma, that allows for
adverse possession and allows for other means that lands can go
out of the hands of Indians. And so policies like that, and I
am sure there are pieces of legislation that affect other
tribes across the Country in a similar way, that are
detrimental to Native peoples holding onto their lands and how
they are able to conduct activities on those lands should be
examined. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your response.
I want to tell all of the witnesses and those present that
for me, this has been a great hearing. At least we have brought
the issue to bear here. And the kind of responses that this
Committee has received will help us determine where we go next.
As Ms. Sharp did mention that there are next steps that we need
to take. We certainly want to do that.
So what we are doing now is to get ideas from you and put
this together and see where we go from there. Mr. Yazzie, you
had a comment.
Mr. Yazzie. Mr. Chairman, as five-fingered brothers and
sisters, and with a humble heart, I stand before you with an
appeal to you and this honorable Committee. On behalf of my
fellow commissioners, my elders, our children, our generations
to come, this great Committee has been the champion of Native
America for many years. We ask that this Committee, that your
colleagues in this great institution stand with us at this time
in defense of our earth mother.
The equilibrium of the earth is precariously out of
balance. The increasing incidence of so-called natural
catastrophe and climate change are no accident. They are
undeniable messages from the earth mother that she grows weary
of the unrelenting abuse. It may be soon when the earth gives
us that ultimate disaster, by giving a great convulsive shudder
when she grows no longer tolerant.
As Native peoples, as indigenous peoples and keepers of the
knowledge of the original intent, we are gravely concerned. We
have something to say, we have something to offer. The key that
we have may not avert the ultimate and inevitable fate of the
earth. But what we have, we believe we can help heal the hurt
and to provide hope for a future.
Mr. Chairman, western science is not enough. We must be at
the table. It is our earth, too. And honorable sir, it is our
life too. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. That was a great
statement.
Since we are at the close of this hearing, let me provide
the opportunity for any other of the panel to speak at this
time before we adjourn, if you wish to.
Mr. Ettawageshik?
Mr. Ettawageshik. These are great words that were just
spoken. I want to endorse those thoughts and say that we have
people standing all over this continent for achieving harmony,
for trying to restore that harmony. We have people, while we
are speaking, walking for the water right now, walking from the
four directions, from Hudson Bay down to Lake Superior, from
Maine west, from Washington State east, from the Gulf of Mexico
north, carrying water and a eagle staff in each of those four
directions, all getting ready to meet, and saying prayers for
all the water that they come along on the way.
They are doing this, these are grandmothers that are doing
this. These grandmothers are walking. They walk nearly four
miles an hour. I have to tell you, it is hard to keep up with
these ladies. But they are on a mission to help all of us. It
is not, the water that is there is not water that is any one of
ours. That water is sacred, and it is all of ours. That water
is that sacred water of which we heard testimony from my
brother here, who spoke about the need for the medicines and
the water that they have.
This is something that is very important. And something as
simple as walking carrying a bucket is something that each of
us can do in our way, in our own hearts and our own lives. This
is the things that we need to do. This is part of that
traditional knowledge of which we were speaking when we talk
about what the Declaration brings to light. We need to be at
that table, as has been said. We are willing to be there, and
we have gifts that we are willing to share. We thank you so
much for this opportunity to share here and to share on the
record for these things that will be, that can help to be the
very savior of all of us here on this earth, to help these
things. It is a perilous time. And I want to just once again
stand with my brother here who spoke and the words that he
spoke rang true in my heart and in my being. I feel very
privileged to have been here to hear him speak.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your statement. Yes,
Ms. Sharp?
Ms. Sharp. Thank you.
The last thing I would like to leave this Committee with
is, again, a recognition of the time and place that we now
stand. We have had many, many eras, many Presidents contend
with the Indian issue. We have seen many laws, many policies,
many regulations, many appropriation of dollars. It has not
worked to the degree that we need to restore our communities,
our children, our futures.
This opportunity to embrace the Declaration in totality is
the beginning and the only path that we have if we are to see
this Nation stand behind Indian people and allow us to seize
our futures and to chart our own course successfully. Until we
embrace and fully implement those basic principles, it is going
to continue for centuries more into the future.
On behalf of the Quinault Nation, again, we thank you so
much for this opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. Ms. Knight?
Ms. Knight. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate my thanks
for this Committee beginning the dialogue on how to implement
the UN Declaration, and that we in Indian Country stand ready
to work with you to determine how to implement this policy,
whether it involves legislation or policy. Again, our thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I want to thank our
witnesses, and all of our witnesses today for participating in
today's hearing. I look forward to working with my colleagues
on this Committee as we take your input to work to implement
the policy goals expressed in the UN Declaration, so the United
States may serve as a leader, as a leader and a model for other
nations.
So in a way we need to all work together to achieve this,
and to do it where the rights of indigenous peoples are
concerned. This is why we are here at this hearing.
Again, I am repeating, the record is open for written
testimony for two weeks. I will encourage all of you to submit
testimony to the record.
Again, mahalo nui loa, thank you very much. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Joint Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
and the Native American Rights Fund
______
Joint Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Human Rights at Home Campaign
______
Prepared Statement of Amnesty International USA's Native American and
Alaska Native Advisory Council
The Honorable Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Amnesty International USA's Native American and Alaska
Native Advisory Council, we would like to express our deep appreciation
and thanks for inviting Amnesty International USA to submit written
testimony for the hearing held on June 9th, 2011 for ``Setting the
Standard: Domestic Policy Implications of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).'' As you may know, Amnesty
International is a world-wide grassroots human rights movement with
over 3 million members worldwide, and on behalf of nearly half a
million members here in the U.S., thank you for the opportunity to
submit written testimony for the Congressional record.
We applaud the Administration's long-awaited endorsement of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples this past December 2010
and the leadership role that President Obama and the Administration
have taken in addressing the issues that Indigenous populations face
here in the United States. The U.S. endorsement of the Declaration is a
long-awaited step in the right direction and demonstrates leadership
and commitment to upholding and ensuring the universal human rights of
all peoples. On behalf of Amnesty International, we continue to urge
the U.S. government's full and unqualified adoption of the human rights
principles articulated in the UNDRIP. Additionally, we call on Congress
and the Administration to work in full partnership and consultation
with Indigenous peoples, tribal governments and nations to best address
the human rights abuses that Native American and Alaska Native peoples
face in the U.S.
There have been many important issues raised around which
Indigenous issues must be addressed in order to uphold the U.S.'s
obligations to the UNDRIP. We believe what merits immediate and
continued attention from the Committee, Congress, and the U.S.
government, is the ongoing effort to end the horrific rates of sexual
violence perpetrated against Native American and Alaska Native women
with impunity.
The U.S. Federal Government has a legal responsibility under the
federal trust responsibility to ensure protection of the rights and
wellbeing of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. This federal
trust responsibility is set out in treaties between tribal nations and
the federal government, further solidified in federal law, federal
court decisions and policy. It includes the protection of the
sovereignty of each tribal government. The U.S. government has
specifically recognized that this responsibility extends to assisting
tribal governments in safeguarding the lives of Indian women. However,
the capacity of tribal governments to uphold the rights of their
citizens is constrained by legal limitations on their jurisdiction
imposed by federal law and, in many cases, by the fact that the funds
for the services they deliver are controlled by federal agencies.
As this Committee knows well, the rates of sexual violence
perpetrated against Native American and Alaska Native women in the U.S.
are at epidemic proportions--more than one of three Indigenous women
will be raped in their lifetimes and the rates of sexual violence
perpetrated against Indigenous women in the U.S. are 2.5 times higher
than those of women in the U.S. in general. In order to achieve
justice, survivors of sexual violence frequently have to navigate a
maze of federal, state and tribal law. The U.S. Federal Government has
created a complex interrelation between these three jurisdictions that
undermines equality before the law and often allows perpetrators to
evade justice. In some cases this has created areas of effective
lawlessness which encourages violence. Continued and concerted action
by the U.S. Congress is necessary to eliminate any possibility that the
complex jurisdictional rules and legislation in practice may deny
survivors of sexual violence access to justice.
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has demonstrated its
leadership on this issue by passing legislation such as Pub. L. 111-
211, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, and by working with the
Administration to make additional policy changes such as ensuring the
addition of federal agents and U.S. Assistant Attorney Generals to
Indian Country, which will begin to help improve public safety and
ensure justice services to survivors of sexual violence in Indian
Country. Yet much more remains to be done.
Amnesty International strongly urges Congress and the
Administration to continue to prioritize ending sexual violence against
Native American and Alaska Native women in the U.S. The U.S. government
has a legal responsibility to ensure the well-being and safety of all
its citizens. The legacy of abuse, disempowerment and erosion of tribal
government authority, and the chronic under-resourcing of law
enforcement agencies and services which should protect Indigenous women
from sexual violence must be reversed.
As a starting point for upholding and demonstrating the United
States' unqualified support and commitment to the UNDRIP, we urge this
Committee to evaluate and ensure the full and timely implementation of
Pub. L. 111-211, including by ensuring full funding, resources, and
agency capacity as necessary and required for full implementation of
the law. PL 111-211 will begin to address the long-standing public
safety and justice services disparities in Indian Country, by beginning
to restore to tribal governments the authority and resources to protect
their citizens.
Yet, despite the strides made by Congress and the Administration to
restore tribal authority, true tribal empowerment and sovereignty will
not be possible without the reversal of the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling
on Oliphant vs. Suquamish, which stripped tribal governments of the
authority to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators for crimes committed on
tribal lands, and particularly undermines and denies due process and
equal protection for many Indigenous survivors of sexual violence. We
therefore urge the US Congress to recognize the concurrent jurisdiction
of tribal authorities over all crimes committed on tribal land,
regardless of the Indigenous identity of the accused, including by
legislatively overriding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oliphant
v. Suquamish.
While we recognize the difficulties posed by the current budget
climate, we further call on Congress to fully support the President's
FY12 budget request as relevant to the full and necessary funding for
agencies and programs affecting Indigenous persons in the U.S. This
includes but is not limited to increased funding for the Indian Health
Service in order to ensure the timely and appropriate collection of
forensic evidence, the specific designation of increased appropriations
for tribal law enforcement training programs, and specific funding
allocations within the Office of Violence Against Women in the
Department of Justice to ensure specific analysis, research and data
collection on violence against Indigenous women and the development of
a national clearinghouse to provide information and technical
assistance on violence against Indigenous women.
Chairman Akaka and the Committee, we are grateful for the
opportunity to submit written testimony and for your continued
leadership and partnership with the Indigenous people of the U.S. Both
Congress and the Obama Administration have demonstrated a renewed
commitment to addressing the urgent and pressing concerns of Indigenous
peoples. Endorsement of the UNDRIP further demonstrates commitment and
the opportunity for the U.S to overcome a long history of injustice.
Thank you for the Committee's time and consideration.
*Amnesty International's MAZE OF INJUSTICE--The failure to
protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA has
been retained in Committee files and can be found at http://
www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/MazeOfInjustic.pdf.
______
Prepared Statement of Alan R. Parker, Secretary, United League of
Indigenous Nations
Chairman Akaka and Members of the Indian Affairs Committee, United
States Senate, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide
testimony to you regarding Implementation of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am testifying in my capacity as
``Secretary'' to the United League of Indigenous Nations.
History of the United League of Indigenous Nations
The United League was formed by Treaty Agreement between U.S.
Tribal Nations, 1st Nations of Canada, Maori Tribal Nations of New
Zealand and the Ngerrindjeri Aborigine Peoples of Southwest Australia.
The United League Treaty was negotiated in August 2007 on the lands of
the Lummi Indian Nation that are located in NW Washington State. The
meeting at Lummi was sponsored by the National Congress of American
Indians who had created a Special Committee on Indigenous Nation
Relations at their 2005 Annual Conference. I was appointed by the NCAI
Executive Board to serve as Co-Chair of the Special Committee along
with Juana Majel, a legislative representative of the Pauma Band of the
Loisano Indian Nation of Southern California. Juana Majel currently
serves as the 1st Vice President of the National Congress of American
Indians. A series of meetings took place between U.S. Tribal delegates
who served as members of the NCAI Special Committee and representatives
of other Indigenous Nations of the Pacific Rim. As a result of this
work, the Special Committee developed a ``draft Treaty Agreement''
designed to establish political and economic alliances among the
Indigenous Nations of the Pacific Rim. A key step in the process
defining the focus of our work resulted from our deliberations which
took place in December of 2005 when we met in Whakatane, NZ at the
invitation of the Mataatua league of Maori Tribal Nations. When this
group was convened at the Lummi Nation in August 2007, final terms of
the Treaty were negotiated and signed by representatives of eleven
nations who had been authorized by their respective governing bodies to
sign the Treaty and commit their nation to its terms. Since this
meeting in August 2007, 84 Indigenous Nations have signed the Treaty
and more are expected to join in the near future.
Historical Background to the UN Declaration
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that you will hear today from
witnesses who are more knowledgeable about the Historical Background to
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the steps that
led to its adoption by a vote of the General Assembly of the UN on
September 13, 2007. My purpose in providing this testimony on behalf of
the United League is to provide you with a perspective of Indigenous
Nations as distinguished from private individuals and organizations who
have been active in the multiyear effort to develop the language of the
Declaration. Many of these activist leaders did their work with the
support of their own Indigenous Communities, such as the Navajo Nations
and the Iroquois League, and they working through the various Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGO''s) who had been able to gain NGO
credentials from the UN. No doubt many of these Indigenous Leaders also
held office within the governing bodies of their communities. While you
are aware that the history of this work makes it clear that the
carefully crafted language of the Declaration purposely used the terms
``Indigenous Peoples'' to refer to the ``Collective'' as well as the
individual rights and concerns of the Indigenous Peoples in a Global
Context, I believe that the primary focus and purpose of the ``Working
Group on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples'' was to address the
``Collective interests and rights of Indigenous Peoples''.
Mr. Chairman, you and the members of this Committee are aware that
U.S. Policy has, from the beginnings of the founding of this Nation,
recognized the proper legal and political status of U.S. Tribal
Nations. The U.S. Constitution provides for the development of Treaty
Relationships between the United States and Tribal Nations. As we know,
a Nation State doesn't enter into treaties with individuals or Non-
Governmental Organizations but with other nations. The Commerce clause
of the U.S. Constitution also authorizes the Executive Branch of the
United States to regulate ``Commerce'' between the States and with the
U.S. Tribal Nations. Beginning with its Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia
decision of 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized and defined the
U.S. Tribal Nations as ``domestic dependent nations'' possessing
``inherent rights of sovereignty'' such as may be necessary to govern
their own lands and people. Consequently, I would like to turn now and
address the distinctive questions and issues raised by your hearing on
the topic of ``Implementing'' the UN Declaration.
In November of 2010, it was my privilege to participate in the work
of the Cultural Concerns and the Law and Governance Committees of the
Nations Congress of American Indians during the time that they were in
session at their 2010 Annual Meeting in Albuquerque, NM. I assisted in
the drafting of what is now known as Resolution #ABQ-1-064. (A copy of
the resolution is attached to my testimony) This NCAI Resolution is
entitled: ``Calling for the United States to Endorse the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples''. Prior to the
November meeting of the NCAI, I had the opportunity to serve as an
advisor to the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, a regional
organization of 54 Tribal Nations, at their 2010 annual meeting. During
this meeting in Spokane, Washington, I drafted the text of their
resolution on the UN Declaration which was subsequently adopted by the
NCAI Cultural Concerns Committee.
In the 7th ``Whereas clause'' of the NCAI resolution, it provides.
. .
WHEREAS, at the Department of State Consultation session in
July (2010) in Washington DC, the Lummi Nation was requested by
the Department of Interior, without objections from the
Department of State, to secure a coordinated national legal
position of Indian Country as to recommendations and
justification for securing U.S. Support for the Declaration and
developed the following recommendations with the concurrence of
the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians: (1) President Obama
should create a National Commission comprised of American
Indian and Alaska Native leaders, as well as representatives of
the Departments of State, Interior and Justice to develop a
plan for implementing the Declaration; (2) The Obama
Administration should recommend to the UN that they modify
their practice and policy of treating Indigenous Nation
delegates to UN functions as NGO representatives, and instead
should create a special category of Indigenous Nation
Governmental Representatives with the rights and privileges of
submitting their views and testimony directly to UN Agencies;
and (3) The Obama Administration should request that the laws
and standards known as Intellectual Property and administered
by the World Intellectual Property Organization of the UN
should be adjusted to accommodate the concerns of Indigenous
Peoples regarding their unique cultural resources; and. . .(the
resolutions continues)
The NCAI resolution, # ABQ-10-064, concludes by calling upon
President Obama to officially change the position of the United
States and accept and support the Declaration, not merely as an
``aspiration'' but as obligatory principles of International
Law. The Resolution then, in a later paragraph, calls for the
development of a Native American & Alaska Native Commission to
develop recommendations for implementation of the provisions of
the Declaration and address their relevance to the duties and
responsibilities of the different federal departments and
independent agencies of the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that your hearing is an important step in
the process of developing the future policies of this United States
government. By joining with President Obama who, during his meeting
with Tribal Leaders in Washington, DC on December 16, 2010, expressed
to the assembled Tribal Leaders that he had decided to change the
position of the U.S. to one of supporting the UN Declaration. I
recommend that your Committee inform President Obama that you have also
reviewed the recommendations of the National Congress of American
Indians and that you agree with their proposal that a Joint Commission
on Implementation be established as soon as reasonably possible. The
Declaration was not meant to be simply a piece of paper, it is meant to
serve as a ``Standard'' whereby the laws and policies of the United
States should be reviewed and examined. The task of conducting such an
examination should not take years and years; it should be done
carefully and expediently. It should be done in a manner that provides
opportunity for U.S. Tribal Nations and their people to work together
with the Administration and the U.S. Congress to address the
recommendations of the Joint Commission on Implementation. Thank you
again for the opportunity to submit this testimony and I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have,
Attachment
______
Prepared Statement of the International Indian Treaty Council
______
Prepared Statement of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council
Greetings from the traditional legal government of the Lakota Oyate
that has governed the Lakota people since before the time of Europeans
in our territory and the period of colonization. We govern with the
support of our people. Our authority comes from the Creator who
provided us with Original Instructions for living on the lands set
aside for the Lakota Oyate.
Through our work on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigneous
Peoples (``the Declaration''), this same authority is acknowledged
under 21st century international law based our right to self-
determination and with free, prior and informed consent as set forth in
Articles 1, 2, 3 and 19 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
peoples.
Further, as set forth in our submittal ``Resolution of the Black
Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Rejection of the United States'
Statement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples'' (``Rejection of U.S. Statement''), of
January 19, 2011, we reject and refuse to acknowledge any limits on our
rights which utilize Federal Indian Law, including these Congressional
Hearing by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Federal Indian Law,
its exercise, and its institutionalization are wholly discriminatory,
racist and exercised with the intention to do harm to the Lakota people
and our territory in violation of the Declaration and other
international standards, laws, and treaties, including the Fort Laramie
treaties of 1851 and 1868.
Indian Reorganization Act governments (``the IRA'') were illegally
installed on our territories utilizing force and deception and maintain
their ``authority'' only at the will of the United States government,
its money, weapons and citizenry that continue to permit human rights
violations. On the Pine Ridge Territory of the Lakota Oyate no less
than three ``elections'' were held and all of them defeated the IRA.
Nonetheless, the IRA was forcibly installed. This is a violation of
Articles 18 and 19 and makes any collaboration with or presentation by
IRA government to the United States government a violation of our
``right to participate in decisionmaking in matters which would affect
[our] rights, through representatives chosen by [us] in accordance with
[our] own procedures,as well as to maintain and develop [our] own
indigenous decisionmaking institutions.'' (Declaration Article 18)
IRA governemnts are, in fact, no different than any of the colonial
governments imposed upon peoples around the world during Euro-American
conquests of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. This
governments do not comply with the right of self-determination or the
right to free, prior and informed consent. Therefore, consultations,
hearings, discussions or any other form of meaningless input, on a
government-to-government basis, between the IRA governments of the
United States and the Congress of the United States, are by definition
violations of the contents of the Declaration. Further, the Lakota
Nation has internationally recognized treaties with the Untied States.
Congressional, government-to-government hearings, violate the nation-
to-nation status of our relationship with the United States under the
Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868.
The Declaration is the minimum standard acceptable to the Lakota
people who have worked at the United Nations on this issue since 1975.
The current attempts of the United States to appear to ``support'' the
Declaration are nothing more than the same pattern of ``ripe and rank .
. . dishonorable dealings'' (U.S. Court of Claims) employed by the
invented nation of the United States since its incorporation in the
18th century. The United States, frequently defeated in battle (at
least by the Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapahoe alliance of nations), had to
invent such fictions as ``plenary power'', ``dependent domestic
nations'', the Dawes Act, the Citizenship Act, the Removal Act, the
Indian Reorganization Act, and the Relocation Act, all to deny Indian
people our rights under any standard of fair play, justice and
international law. This latest deception, involving the Declaration, is
nothing more than an attempt to domesticate the provisions of the
Declaration within the meaning of U.S. domination, racism, colonialism
and environmental degradation in order to steal resources.
Additional evidence is seen in the fact that at the same time that
the United States engages in fraudulent Congressional Hearings,
corporations are on our territory preparing to further contaminate our
water and destroy our land with the poisons of uranium mining. If the
United States were truly interested in any provisions of the
Declaration this would not be occurring. Yet, it is not only happening
on this very day, it is the policy of the same Administration that has
stated its ``support'' for the Declaration. This is a violation of
Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Declaration. Is the United
States of American and its people capable of ever ending the lies and
deceit? What possible motive can we, as Lakota people, see but human,
environmental and cultural genocide?
Finally, we address our brothers and sisters who participate in
this process with the United States. We urge us all to remember our
history, to hear the voices of our ancestors who died during the
American Holocaust, and to take a stand on behalf of the generations to
come. Reject the lies and stand with your people.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of the Metis National Council and the
International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, U.S. Representative
from American Samoa
______
Prepared Statement of D'Shane Barnett, Executive Director, National
Council of Urban Indian Health
______
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey A. Crawford, Attorney General, Forest
County Potawatomi Community
The Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCPC) wishes to thank the
Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on the domestic
policy implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (hereafter the Declaration). We also thank Chairman
Akaka for his call to us and all those who care about these issues to
consider what specific legislation is needed so that the United States
can truly support the Declaration. We believe that although the
adoption of the Declaration was an important step forward, of equal
importance is what steps we take next.
As we noted in our comments to Ambassador Rice on July 15, 2010 and
October 29, 2010, the Declaration is fundamentally consistent with the
law and policy of the United States. See letters of July 15, 2010 and
October 29, 2010 from Douglas Endreson to Ambassador Susan E. Rice
(expressing the commenting Tribes' support for the U.S. endorsement of
the Declaration). The law and policy of the United States are
characterized by two fundamental tenets: the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and tribes and the policy of
self-determination. This framework underscores the importance of our
ability to make decisions for ourselves.
Sadly and all too often the United States has fallen short of its
duties and obligations to Indian tribes. But it is not our purpose here
to focus on the past. Instead, the Declaration sets the standard for
what our nations' relationship can and should be. The adoption
signifies a new step in the shared story of our nations. We look
forward to working together with the United States to realize the
future envisioned by the United States' legal framework and the
Declaration.
FCPC is a federally recognized tribe with a government-to-
government relationship with the United States. We are organized under
the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and exercise governmental
authority under a Constitution originally adopted in 1937. We have a
membership of more than 1,200 people to whom we provide services in
numerous areas that include natural resources, environmental
protection, education, health services, cultural resources, and
emergency management.
While working to support our people culturally, socially, and
economically, we often encounter barriers from other government
organizations. The Declaration offers a framework for identifying those
barriers and creating new pathways to enable tribal governments to
function more efficiently. We have identified a few such areas that are
of particular concern to us, but these examples are not exhaustive. We
look forward to working with Congress to improve our ability to serve
our people in all the domains of our Tribal government.
1. Environmental Policy: Resource Management
Our land base includes a Reservation of over 12,000 acres located
in northern Wisconsin and trust lands in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The
Nicolet National Forest, which encompasses 661,000 acres and includes
many water sources, including springs and lakes, largely surrounds our
Reservation. Further, the Headwaters National Wilderness Area is within
ten miles of the Reservation, while a State Wildlife management area
adjacent to the eastern portion of the Reservation contains spring
ponds, secluded lakes, and many historically and culturally significant
properties.
We are very committed to the conservation and development of our
common resources in order to promote the welfare of our members and our
descendants. We believe that the health and integrity of the land and
all its components cannot be separated from the health and continued
existence of the Potawatomi people. In order to ensure the continued
health of our land, our Natural Resources department is aggressively
involved in the stewardship of our natural resources. Among our other
efforts, we have taken on the regulation of our air and water
resources.
The current policy of the United States recognizes our rights to
control such domains as tribal governments. For instance, the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act make provisions for tribes to take over
monitoring duties, should they so choose. Further, President Obama
recently recommitted his Administration to the goal of involving tribes
in policy and regulatory decisions when he reinvigorated Executive
Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000. This Executive Order,
recognizing the unique government to government relationship between
the United States and tribes and the sovereign powers exercised by
tribes over their land and members, requires the Federal Government to
``encourage Indian tribes to develop their own policies;'' ``where
possible, defer to Indian tribes to establish standards;'' and ``in
determining whether to establish Federal standards, consult with tribal
officials as to the need for Federal standards and any alternatives
that would limit the scope of Federal standards or otherwise preserve
the prerogative sand authority of Indian tribes.'' Id. Sec. 3 (c)(1-3).
The Declaration ensures similar rights, recognizing that tribes ``have
the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and
resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other
traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have
otherwise acquired.'' Declaration, art. 26.
Although United States' policy and the Declaration both strongly
support a tribe's ability to manage its own resources, there are still
barriers to our ability to truly take control of our own land. For
instance, our Tribe recently went through the process of designating of
our Reservation as a Clean Air Act Class I area. We felt strongly that
this was necessary to protect our land and resources which form the
basis of not only the health of our territory but also the health of
our peoples. Although we were eventually able to succeed in designating
the areas as Class I, it took us 13 years from start to finish to
achieve the Class I status. Such a time delay demonstrates that we have
not yet achieved full control over our natural resources. In order to
truly live up to the standards of the Declaration, the United States
must work to remove the barriers that continue to stand in the way of
true self-determination.
2. Environmental Policy: International Cooperation
As evidenced by many international agreements and compacts, the
environment and its concerns do not respect international borders.
Although we have exercised our regulatory authority over the land and
resources within our borders, we cannot truly address the needs of our
people for healthy ecosystems and environments without working closely
with the international community at our borders.
Much of the current legal framework recognizes our place at the
table: as already mentioned, many environmental statutes make
provisions for tribal stewardship of our resources. The Declaration
supports these efforts by providing that indigenous peoples ``have the
right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the
productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States
shall establish and implement assistance programmes for indigenous
people for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.''
Declaration, art. 29.
In order to meet the calls of both United States statutes and the
Declaration, we must participate with our international neighbors in
addressing the conservation of our resources. In order to do so, the
United States must secure access for a tribal presence in any
discussion or negotiation on these issues and recognize tribal
governments' indispensable part in the process. This entails
recognizing our international ties and relations and allowing us free
movement across borders. It also means a strong effort on the part of
the United States to both always be cognizant of the needs of tribes
when they negotiate on these issues and perhaps more importantly,
ensuring a seat for tribes at any such negotiation.
We depend on our natural resources for the economic, cultural, and
spiritual health of our Tribe. We have much to offer in the pursuit of
our common goal of protecting the health of our land. But in order to
do so, in order to meet the needs of our people, and in order to be
able to fully exercise our rights under the governing statutes and the
Declaration, the United States must recognize our place at the table.
Only together can we achieve success.
3. Land Leasing Capabilities
As all nations know, communities cannot flourish without strong
economies. The economic health of our peoples is, thus, of paramount
importance to us and we are proud of the steps we have taken thus far
to build a strong economy. We are committed to ensuring its continued
vitality, but in order to do so we must be free to seize economic
opportunities.
The United States has recognized the importance of tribal economic
self-determination. Starting with the Indian Self-Determination and
Educational Assistance Act, the United States policy has been to
encourage economic development and self-sufficiency, including the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., and the
Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion and Tourism Act,
25 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.
The Declaration also recognizes the importance of economic
stability, providing indigenous peoples the right to ``maintain and
develop their . . .economic . . .systems or institutions, to be secure
in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and
to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic
activities.'' Declaration, art. 20. But as the Declaration also
recognizes, the ability to exercise such rights is not ensured simply
through recognition of the right. See arts. 38, 39. Instead there must
be assurance that barriers preventing the exercise of such rights will
be addressed by States. Thus, the Declaration provides that indigenous
peoples must ``have access to financial and technical assistance from
States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the
rights contained in this Declaration.'' Id. art. 39.
One such barrier to economic self-determination is addressed in a
bill that was recently introduced, the Helping Expedite and Advance
Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act) of 2011, which would
expand our ability to lease tribally-owned land, especially for the
development of economic opportunities. The bill would help accelerate
leasing opportunities with economic partners and will eliminate the
risk of losing opportunities due to the lengthy approval process
currently in place. By doing so, it will help fuel our economy. We are
strong supporters of the HEARTH Act and thank Vice Chairperson Barrasso
for his work on such an important issue. We urge all the members of the
Committee and Congress to work together to ensure this legislation
achieves its goals.
In order to build a strong economy, we must have the cooperation of
the United States. Tribes must have the right to freely negotiate with
economic partners and we cannot be constrained by requirements that
limit our ability to enter into contracts or require that we receive
approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs before proceeding forward.
As history has taught us, tribes do better when we make decisions
for ourselves. This is true across the myriad of functions and services
we perform for our people. Although we consider the United States a
valued partner in our efforts, we ultimately must chart our own course.
The Declaration provides a valuable reiteration of the fundamental
principles embodied in the law and policy of the United States. We look
forward to working with Congress to fully realize the promises of those
fundamental principles.
Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement Hon. Kevin C. Keckler, Chairman, Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
The Puyallup Tribe of Washington wishes to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to present testimony on the domestic policy
implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (hereafter the Declaration). We also thank Chairman
Akaka for his call to us and all those who care about these issues to
consider what specific legislation is needed so that the United States
can truly support the Declaration. We believe that although the
adoption of the Declaration was an important step forward, of equal
importance is what steps we take next.
As we noted in our comments to Ambassador Rice on July 15, 2010 and
October 29, 2010, the Declaration is fundamentally consistent with the
law and policy of the United States. See letters of July 15, 2010 and
October 29, 2010 from Douglas Endreson to Ambassador Susan E. Rice
(expressing the commenting Tribes' support for the U.S. endorsement of
the Declaration). The law and policy of the United States are
characterized by two fundamental tenets: the government to government
relationship between the United States and tribes and the policy of
self-determination. This framework underscores the importance of our
ability to make decisions for ourselves.
Sadly and all too often the United States has fallen short of its
duties and obligations to Indian tribes. But it is not our purpose here
to focus on the past. Instead, the Declaration sets the standard for
what our nations' relationship can and should be. The adoption
signifies a new step in the shared story of our nations. We look
forward to working together with the United States to realize the
future envisioned by the United States' legal framework and the
Declaration.
The Puyallup Tribe is a federally recognized Tribe located in
Pierce County, Washington along the shores of Commencement Bay, a large
inlet of Puget Sound. The history of relations between the United
States and our Tribe is spotted, but in recent decades we have made
great strides forward achieving recognition of our Treaty rights,
restoring our Tribal land base, and developing programs to better serve
our members.
The Reservation consists of approximately 28 square miles in Pierce
County, and includes the city of Fife and portions of the city of
Tacoma. Today, the Tribe has more than 4000 members. Further, in
addition to serving our members, we serve more than 25,000 Native
Americans from over 355 federally recognized tribes and Alaskan
villages, who, due to the Indian relocation program of the 1940s and
1950s, now call the area on and around the Puyallup Reservation home.
These services include law enforcement services, elder services, health
care services, and educational services.
While working to support our people culturally, socially, and
economically, we often encounter barriers from other government
organizations. The Declaration offers a framework for identifying those
barriers and creating new pathways to enable tribal governments to
function more efficiently. We have identified a few such areas that are
of particular concern to us, but these examples are not exhaustive. We
look forward to working with Congress to improve our ability to serve
our people in all the domains of our Tribal government.
a) Environmental Policy
As evidenced by many international agreements and compacts, the
environment and its concerns do not respect international borders.
Although we have exercised our regulatory authority over the land and
resources within our borders, we cannot truly address the needs of our
people for healthy ecosystems and environments without working closely
with the international community at our borders.
Much of the current legal framework recognizes our place at the
table: For instance, both the Clean Air Act and the National
Environmental Protection Act make provisions for tribal stewardship of
our resources. The Declaration supports these efforts by providing that
indigenous peoples ``have the right to the conservation and protection
of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or
territories and resources. States shall establish and implement
assistance programs for indigenous people for such conservation and
protection, without discrimination.'' Declaration, art. 29.
In order to meet the calls of both United States statutes and the
Declaration, we must participate with our international neighbors in
addressing the conservation of our resources. In order to do so, the
United States must secure access for a tribal presence in any
discussion or negotiation on these issues and recognize tribal
governments' indispensable part in the process. This entails
recognizing our international ties and relations and allowing us free
movement across borders. It also means a strong effort on the part of
the United States to both always be cognizant of the needs of tribes
when they negotiate on these issues and perhaps more importantly,
ensuring a seat for tribes at any such negotiation.
We depend on our natural resources for the economic, cultural, and
spiritual health of our Tribe. We have much to offer in the pursuit of
our common goal of protecting the health of our land. But in order to
do so, in order to meet the needs of our people, and in order to be
able to fully exercise our rights under the treaty governing statutes
and the Declaration, the United States must recognize our place at the
table. Only together can we achieve success.
b) Economic Opportunities
Our Tribe is proud to be in the process of developing a new
international container terminal facility that, when fully constructed,
will be the largest in the Pacific Northwest. Our ability to take on
such a project was facilitated by the historic Settlement Agreement
between our Tribe, the Port of Tacoma, the State of Washington, several
local county and city governments and the United States and was enacted
by Congress. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, Pub.L.
No. 101-41 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1773 et seq.). This agreement
included a provision recognizing the right of our Tribe to engage in
foreign trade consistent with Federal law. We anticipate developing
relationships with international trade partners in the Pacific Rim and
around the world and are very excited about the economic opportunities
this gives us.
Again, much of the current legal framework seeks to enable such
ventures. Starting with the Indian Self-Determination and Educational
Assistance Act, the United States policy has been to encourage economic
development and self-sufficiency, including the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., and the Native American
Business Development, Trade Promotion and Tourism Act, 25 U.S.C.
4301 et seq. More recently, Congress enacted a law expanding our
ability to lease tribally-owned land, especially for the development of
economic opportunities. Pub.L. 111-336. This law will help accelerate
leasing opportunities with national and global partners and will
eliminate the risk of losing opportunities due to the lengthy approval
process currently in place. By doing so, it will help fuel our economy.
The Declaration also recognizes the importance of economic
stability, providing indigenous peoples the right to ``maintain and
develop their . . . economic . . . systems or institutions, to be
secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and
development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other
economic activities.'' Declaration, art. 20. But as the Declaration
also recognizes, the ability to exercise such rights is not ensured
simply through recognition of the right. See arts. 38, 39. Instead
there must be assurance that barriers preventing the exercise of such
rights will be addressed by States. Thus, the Declaration provides that
indigenous peoples must ``have access to financial and technical
assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the
enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.'' Id. art. 39.
In order to pursue economic opportunities such as the container
facility, we must have the cooperation of the United States. Our
ability to enter into trade agreements depends on the continued
reduction of barriers like those created by the original land leasing
structure. Tribes must have the right to freely negotiate with economic
partners and we cannot be constrained by requirements that limit our
ability to enter into contracts or require that we receive approval
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs before proceeding forward. With
regard to accessing Capital to move forward with these ventures,
Congress should seek to expand tribal bonding authority and increase
investment into tribal infrastructure, including roads and
telecommunications.
c) Social and Behavioral Health: Addressing the Problem of
Gangs
Our Reservation has not remained immune from the gang problems
afflicting many urban areas in America today. We take seriously the
provision of public safety in all of our communities, and we have met
this current challenge through public safety programs, educational
outreach, and social and behavioral health programs. Our efforts,
especially in the public safety domain, however, are subject to the
jurisdictional realities of our Reservation. There are six overlapping
jurisdictions within our borders--Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup,
Edgewood, and Federal Way.
As is true with other public safety concerns, addressing the gang
problem will take a concerted effort from all the stakeholders and
community members. Gang members move freely between jurisdictions, and
thus, to be effective, all six jurisdictions must work together
productively. Faced with this reality, we are proud to be part of the
county multi-jurisdictional team working to ensure the safety of our
communities. Currently, we have six officers working on this team and
two officers who work on steering committees to address gang issues.
Such efforts are clearly supported by United States law, which
states that in the absence of federal statutes limiting it, tribal
criminal jurisdiction over our members within our Territory is
complete, inherent, and exclusive. See Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556
(1883). Although Congress has stepped in from time to time to limit
this jurisdiction, tribes today remain vital providers of law
enforcement in Indian Country. In fact, Congress recently highlighted
the importance of tribes in the public safety domain by passing the
Tribal Law and Order Act which, among other things, increased the
tribal court sentencing authorities where certain conditions are met
and allowed deputizations of tribal police officers to enforce federal
law on reservations. Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-211.
The Declaration by recognizing the importance of these rights, pushes
the United States to not only acknowledge the rights of tribes in
theory but to put those rights into practice. See Declaration, arts. 4,
7, 34.
Our voluntary cross-jurisdictional work with our neighbors is an
important step, one that recognizes the vital and equal role tribes
play in the provision of public safety. However, there is still more to
be done, especially at the federal level, to ensure the ability of
tribes to provide safe and secure communities. One step forward in this
effort would be to pursue the President's suggestion of streamlining
funding to tribes for Office of Justice Programs by initiating
meaningful consultation with tribes regarding the program development
and allocation methodology of the funding on the FY 2012 for CJS
Programs.
As history has taught us, tribes do better when we make decisions
for ourselves. This is true across the myriad of functions and services
we perform for our people. Although we consider the United States a
valued partner in our efforts, we ultimately must chart our own course.
The Declaration provides a valuable reiteration of the fundamental
principles embodied in the law and policy of the United States. We look
forward to working with Congress to fully realize the promises of those
fundamental principles.
d) Ensuring Our Rights to Our Land
Our tribe is organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act
(IRA). We adopted our Constitution in 1936 (Puyallup) 1937 (FCPC). As
noted earlier, we provide many governmental services to our peoples and
are recognized by the Federal Government as a tribe possessing inherent
sovereign powers. Our ability to act as such, however, is threatened by
the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Carcieri v. Salazar,
555 U.S.___(2009), which that the Secretary of the Interior did not
have the authority to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe
of Rhode Island because that Tribe was not ``under federal
jurisdiction'' in 1934.
The Carcieri decision is fundamentally at odds with the fundamental
principles of the government-to-government relationship and tribal
self-determination. It is also at odds with the long history of
Congressional and Executorial policy following the passage of the IRA.
The purpose of the IRA was to stop the policy of allotment which was
decimating tribal land holdings, rebuild the former tribal land base,
and ensure a future of self-determination for tribes. The trust
relationship between the United States government and tribal
governments is one of the main vehicles to fulfilling these goals. By
limiting the ability of the government to take lands into trust to only
certain tribes, the Court seriously threatened the ability of all
tribes to perform essential services for their people, from public
safety to education to health care.
The Carcieri decision is also fundamentally at odds with the
Declaration. The Declaration recognizes first, that indigenous peoples
have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have
traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. Dec. art.
26. The Declaration further recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples
to ``a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process . . .
to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous people pertaining
to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were
traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.'' Id. art. 27.
Finally, the Declaration recognizes that indigenous peoples have the
``right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this
is not possible, just, fair, and equitable compensation, for the lands,
territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or
otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken,
occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed
consent.'' Id. art. 28.
The lands that are being taken into trust by the Department of the
Interior are lands that were, prior to allotment, owned by indigenous
peoples. One of the purposes of the IRA was to stop the wholesale
decimation of Indian lands that occurred under allotment. And to
suddenly reverse a policy course which has been followed for 75 years
and dramatically reduce the rights of indigenous peoples to their
traditional lands is fundamentally not fair, it's not open, and it's
not transparent.
Congress has the power to reverse this mistake and we thank
Chairperson Akaka for introducing S. 676 and his work on this important
matter. We call on all the members of the Committee and Congress to
come together to support this important legislation, which will bring
our law back in line with the fundamental tenets of Federal Indian law
and in line with the Declaration.
Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
discussion.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert Odawi Porter, President, Seneca Nation of
Indians
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Department of State
On December 16, 2010, at the second White House Tribal Nations
Conference, President Barack Obama announced that the United States was
lending its support to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (the ``Declaration''). The President stated that ``[t]he
aspirations it affirms--including the respect for the institutions and
rich cultures of Native peoples--are one[s] we must always seek to
fulfill.'' The Administration also released a document, which was
referenced in the President's announcement, titled ``Announcement of
U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples--Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government
Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples''--about U.S.
support for the Declaration and the Administration's ongoing work in
Indian Country. The text of this statement can be found at: http://
www.state.gov/documents/organization/153223.pdf
Background on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The Declaration was drafted under the auspices of the United
Nations and involved representatives of member states, indigenous
peoples, and other stakeholders.
On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the Declaration by a vote of 143 in favor and four against. Eleven
countries abstained from the vote (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa,
and Ukraine) and 34 countries did not participate. The United States,
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand voted against adoption of the
Declaration.
In the last few years, all four countries that voted ``no'' have
changed their position. Samoa and Colombia have also lent their support
to the Declaration.
As explained in the Announcement document that accompanied
President Obama's remarks, the Declaration is ``not legally binding or
a statement of current international law'' but has ``both moral and
political force.'' It expresses both the aspirations of indigenous
peoples around the world and those of States in seeking to improve
their relations with indigenous peoples.
The U.S. Review of its Position on the Declaration
The decision to review the U.S. position on the Declaration came in
response to calls from many tribes, individual Native Americans, civil
society, and others in the United States, who believed that U.S.
support for the Declaration would make an important contribution to
U.S. policy and practice with respect to Native American issues. This
message was delivered by many people in many contexts but, perhaps most
importantly, tribal leaders expressed this view directly to President
Obama and other senior Administration officials at the White House
Tribal Nations Conference on November 5, 2009.
On April 20, 2010, at the United Nation's Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, Ambassador Susan Rice, the Permanent Representative
of the United States to the United Nations, announced that the United
States would undertake a review of its position on the Declaration and
that it would do so in consultation with Indian tribes and with the
input of interested nongovernmental organizations.
In reviewing the Declaration, all interested U.S. Government
agencies had an opportunity to review the text of the document and
provide their views on whether the United States should support it.
Each agency was asked to compare the instrument to U.S. laws,
regulations, policies and practices in its area to determine the degree
to which the provisions of the instrument were already reflected in
those laws, regulations, policies and practices or could be in the
future.
Because of the subject of the Declaration, in conducting their
reviews of the Declaration U.S. agencies consulted extensively with
tribal leaders. The agencies held three rounds of consultations, one in
Rapid City, South Dakota, and two in Washington, D.C. In addition, the
agencies conducted outreach to indigenous organizations, civil society,
and other interested individuals. Tribal leaders and others contributed
to the review through their attendance at the consultation and outreach
sessions, participation in those sessions by means of conference calls,
and written submissions. In total, over
3,000 written comments were received and reviewed.
The conclusion of the interagency review was that the United States
could support the Declaration so long as that support was accompanied
by appropriate understandings as set forth in the ``Announcement of
U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples--Initiatives to Promote the Government-to-Government
Relationship & Improve the Lives of Indigenous Peoples'' referenced by
President Obama in his statement of U.S. support for the Declaration.
U.S. Support for the Declaration
As described above, the UN Declaration was adopted by a vote of the
UN General Assembly in 2007. There will not be another vote on the
Declaration. Therefore, countries that have changed their position on
the Declaration since 2007 have done so via public announcements of
their new positions. President Obama's announcement on December 16,
2010, and the accompanying Announcement document cited above, are the
official U.S. statement of support for the Declaration. No further
steps are required to indicate that the U.S. supports the Declaration.
U.S. support for the Declaration goes hand-in-hand with the U.S.
commitment to address the many challenges faced by Native Americans
throughout the United States. That commitment is reflected in the many
policies and programs that are being implemented by U.S. agencies in
response to concerns raised by Native Americans, including concerns
about poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, health care
gaps, violent crime, and discrimination.
Conclusion
The Department of State appreciates this opportunity to submit
written testimony to the Committee on the important issue of U.S.
Support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
______
______
Prepared Statement of Velda Shelby, Citizen of the Ktunaxa Nation
Please accept my personal testimony as part of the United States
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on the United Nation's
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. My name is Velda
Shelby and I reside on the Flathead Reservation in Montana. I am a
citizen of the Ktunaxa Nation enrolled with the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. The Ktunaxa Nation also known as the Kootenai Tribe
consists of about 7,500 citizens who possess a distinct unique culture,
an isolate language and family ties. Our nation is indigenous to the
Rocky Mountain corridor of North America. The key issue I seek
resolution to is border crossing jurisdiction for aboriginal peoples
whose lands were severed by the U.S. Canadian International Border.
To achieve resolution, we must first restore the Ktunaxa Nation.
Prior to the founding of the United States of America and the country
of Canada, the Ktunaxa were a unified nation. With the establishment of
the U.S. Canadian border in 1818, our independent sovereign nation was
severed resulting in countless human rights violations amassed over the
past two centuries. Essentially, as citizens of these foreign
countries, our sovereign and aboriginal rights are not recognized and
we are treated as immigrants and have become second class citizens in
our own homelands!
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appeal to your wise counsel to assist
the Ktunaxa Nation in addressing this grave injustice. My people only
recently began to speak English, my grandmother, the late Adeline
Mathias uttered her first English word in 1918 and her parents had no
use for English. Just as we were not properly represented in the 1855
Territory of Washington treaty negotiations, the Ktunaxa were not
accorded civil or human rights in the taking of their homelands. With
the political and geographic division of our peoples, we are severely
disenfranchised and exploited in every way by all levels of government
imposed on us.
Our nation has been decimated by foreign intervention and
generations of Ktunaxa have suffered the consequences. My understanding
of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Populations before you is that it
calls for recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. This
includes the right to redress when lands, territories, or resources of
Native nations have been taken without their informed consent. Mr.
Chairman, based on all accounts, my ancestors were simply denied the
opportunity to gave their informed consent. Furthermore, it was
impossible to render their consent due to the aforementioned language
barrier.
A few weeks ago, you posed a question to the Tribal leaders who
provided expert testimony at the Senate Committee hearing. I would like
to respond to your inquiry of a proposed course of action to resolve my
particular issue. I would like to develop a bilateral international
agreement with the United State of America and Canada to set forth the
principles of human rights through a uniform policy that recognizes and
upholds the geopolitical jurisdiction of the Ktunaxa Nation. This
international policy will lay out the procedures required to make our
Nation whole again. Specifically, our nation state will be defined
territorially so we are no longer considered immigrants in our own
aboriginal lands. Then as the constructs of sovereignty dictate, our
citizen's rights will be further validated through self-rule or self-
governance whereby we will form a representative government to fully
restore the Ktunaxa Nation. We must reclaim our independence to fully
realize and exercise our aboriginal rights and civil liberties.
The Ktunaxa Nation comprised of all seven bands (Klitqat Wumlat,
Yakannuki, Akinqumlasnuqli't, Aquam, Ksanka, Aqankmi, and Akisq'nuk)
will then charter a course for our future with full recognition and the
cooperation of both the United States of America and Canada. As a
nation, we will embark on true self determination to serve as the true
ambassadors of our homeland and continue our stewardship of the land
while representing Ktunaxa interests. This will be a new beginning for
my people who have suffered for the past 200 years as a fragmented
Nation. Just as the African nations, the Arab Spring and the Maoris
have exercised their sovereignty to free themselves from subjugation
and foreign rule, we Ktunaxa would like the opportunity to formally
organize ourselves back into the great Nation we once were prior to
contact.
Chairman Akaka, I hope your powerful committee will accept this
response as logical resolution to our immediate problems as indigenous
peoples of North America. History proves that we cannot afford to
delude ourselves with the false hope that foreign governments represent
our interests. I personally believe that the answer to every single
problem we encounter lies within ourselves as Kootenai people. Until
the great Ktunaxa Nation is restored to exercise sovereignty to the
fullest extent, we have no protections of indigenous rights as the
first nation of these lands. Therefore, I urge the U.S. Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs to revisit the fundamental rights of
indigenous nations as you apply the proposed human rights protections.
Perhaps, we can form a subcommittee to advise on the restoration of
severed nations as a starting point to adopting the UN Declaration
before you. I believe the Ktunaxa stands prepared to manage their own
affairs and we are ready and able to come to the table to resolve the
jurisdictional issues associated with the US Canadian international
border.
Mr. Chairman, let us take this Declaration of Human Rights for
Indigenous Peoples and empower our indigenous nations to restore our
inherent and sovereign rights. Now, my question back to you Chairman
Akaka, will you stand with us?
Thank you for allowing this opportunity to express my concerns and
to propose a solution for the Ktunaxa Nation of North America. Taxas.
______
Prepared Statement of Vivian Ainoa, President, Papa Ola Lokahi
______
Prepared Statement of Stacy Deacon, Administrative Assistant, Alaska
Newspapers Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis L. McDaniels, Elder Chief, Madesi
Band of the Pit River Tribe
I would like to say, on the Rights of indigenous people, ``We have
a Right! ''
I can't take my problems to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Pit
River Council. So, I have no Right.
I don't know where to start with all of the violations. BIA, the
Pit River Council, I don't like pointing fingers at any one. I would
like to see an audit on the Pit River Council and use a world's leading
investigative firm, like Kroll Associates, to look at its past business
dealings under the duo. That would be a start. That way you could see
what is wrong and fix it.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Micah McCarty, Chairman, Makah Tribal Council
______
Prepared Statement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Onondaga Nation
______
Prepared Statement of Tavis Sanders (RedTail Hawk ThunderBird), Co-
founder of InDEED
The black population in the United States share a unique yet
omitted history which spans thousands of years in North America. This
unique history at present date has been lost even to the indigenous
people to whom it relates.
The story of the brown skinned people in the United States did not
begin with the African slave trade as many believe; rather it began in
ancient times with a people, who eventually over time, became known as
The Mound Builders. These dark to light skinned indigenous people of
North America built various styles of mounds made of dirt for burial,
ceremonial and religious purposes. The last of the Mound Building eras,
which was called the Mississippian Era, has been attributed to ending
during the time of colonial settlement--around 1700.
Many of these indigenous peoples, because of slavery, laws being
created, and polices being implemented, were stripped of their identity
and culture and reclassified as Black. In recent times we, the
indigenous people of the United States, have once again begun to rise
up and invest in the promotion of our history and culture.
However, we face the daunting task of not only hurdles of the legal
and political processes, we also endure an on going and basic disregard
of our very existence. To quote the words of President Obama on May
19th, 2011, ``How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself
unwilling to recognize your right to exist?"
We hope that the United States Senate Committee will give the
recommendation to acknowledge, respect and hold these fundamental
principals for all the Indigenous communities, here in the United
States and around the world.
Thank you
______