[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2026-S2027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ROUNDS:
  S. 2796. A bill to repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to begin 
to address the list of historic wrongs against Native American citizens 
brought by the early U.S. Government.
  The idea that these laws were ever considered is disturbing, but the 
fact that these laws remain on our books is, at best, an oversight. 
Currently, Native Americans who are U.S. citizens just like you and me 
are still legally subject to a series of obsolete, historically wrong 
statutes. These statutes are a sad reminder of the hostile aggression 
and overt racism that the Federal Government exhibited toward Native 
Americans as the government attempted to assimilate them into what was 
considered modern society.
  In 2016, laws still exist that would allow for the forced removal of 
their children, who can be sent to boarding schools, and they can be 
denied rations if they refuse. They can still be subject to forced 
labor on their reservations as a condition of their receipt of 
supplies. Moreover, they can be denied funding if found drunk on a 
reservation.
  These statutes actually remain on the books of the land and, in many 
cases, are more than a century old and continue the stigma of 
subjugation and paternalism from that time period. It is without 
question that they should be stricken.
  We cannot adequately repair history, but we can move forward. Because 
of this, today I am introducing the RESPECT Act or the Repealing 
Existing Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes 
Act.
  I wish to list some of the 12 existing laws that the RESPECT Act will 
repeal. In Chapter 25 of the United States Code, section 302, entitled 
``Education of Indians, Indian Reform School; rules and regulations; 
consent of parents to placing youth in reform school,'' the 
Commissioner of Indian affairs was directed to place Indian youth in 
Indian reform schools without the consent of their parents.
  The issue of off-reservation Indian boarding schools, in particular, 
is a rightfully sensitive one for our Native Americans. Between 1879 
and into the 20th century, at least 830,000 Indian children were taken 
to boarding schools to allegedly ``civilize them.'' Many parents were 
threatened with surrendering their children or their food rations. This 
law, in fact, is also still on the books.
  A requirement exists in section 283, entitled ``Regulations for 
withholding rations for nonattendance at schools,'' that the Secretary 
of the Interior could ``prevent the issuing of rations or the 
furnishing of subsistence to the head of any Indian family for or on 
account of any Indian child or children between the ages of eight and 
twenty-one years who shall not have attended school in the preceding 
year in accordance with such regulations.''
  Yet there still exist other outdated laws relating to wartime status 
between Indians and the United States, such as those found in section 
72 of the Code, entitled ``Abrogation of treaties.'' Here the President 
was authorized to declare all treaties with such tribes ``abrogated if 
in his opinion any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United 
States.''
  In section 127, entitled ``Moneys or annuities of hostile Indians,'' 
moneys or annuities stipulated by any treaty with an Indian tribe could 
be stopped if the tribe ``has engaged in hostilities against the United 
States, or against its citizens peacefully or lawfully sojourning or 
traveling within its jurisdiction at the time of such hostilities.''
  Likewise, in section 128, entitled ``Appropriations not paid to 
Indians at war with United States,'' none of the appropriations made 
for the Indian Service could ``be paid to any band of Indians or any 
portion of any band

[[Page S2027]]

while at war with the United States or with the white citizens of any 
of the States or Territories.''
  Moreover, in section 138, entitled ``Goods withheld from chiefs 
violating treaty stipulations,'' delivery of goods or merchandise could 
be denied to the chiefs of any tribe by authority of any treaty ``if 
such chiefs'' had ``violated the stipulations contained in such 
treaty.''
  Finally, in section 129, entitled ``Moneys due Indians holding 
captives other than Indians withheld,'' the Secretary of the Interior 
was ``authorized to withhold, from any tribe of Indians who may hold 
any captives other than Indians, any moneys due them from the United 
States until said captives shall be surrendered to the lawful 
authorities of the United States.''
  In section 130, entitled ``Withholding of moneys or goods on account 
of intoxicating liquors,'' racist identifications tying drunkenness by 
Indians to receipt of funds still exist, stipulating that no 
``annuities, or moneys, or goods'' could ``be paid or distributed to 
Indians while they'' were--and, once again, I will quote--``under the 
influence of any description of intoxicating liquor, nor while there 
are good and sufficient reasons leading the officers or agents, whose 
duty it may be to make such payments or distribution, to believe that 
there is any species of intoxicating liquor within convenient reach.''
  Mandatory work on reservations still exists in section 137, entitled 
``Supplies distributed to able-bodied males on condition.'' Once again, 
I will quote from the text: ``For the purpose of inducing Indians to 
labor and become self-supporting, it is provided that, in distributing 
the supplies and annuities to the Indians for whom the same are 
appropriated, the agent distributing the same could require all able-
bodied male Indians between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to 
perform service upon the reservation, for the benefit of themselves or 
of the tribe'' in return for supplies.
  Let me summarize what I said in the beginning. In the year 2016 in 
the United States, Native Americans--citizens like you and me--are 
still legally subject to outrageous, racist, and outdated laws that 
were wrong at their inception. There is no place in our legal code for 
such laws.

  In my home State of South Dakota, which is home to 9 tribes and 
roughly 75,000 enrolled members, we strive to work together to 
constantly improve relationships and to mend our history through 
reconciliation and mutual respect. It is not always easy, but with our 
futures tied together, with our children in mind, reconciliation is 
something we are committed to.
  History also proves that since the onset of the government's 
relationship with the tribes, it has been complicated and challenging 
over the years, sometimes downright dark and disrespectful, and to this 
day often has led to mistreatment by the Federal Government.
  As Governor of South Dakota, I proclaimed 2010 the Year of Unity in 
South Dakota. This was done in recognition of the need to continue 
building upon the legacy and work of those who came before us. The year 
2010 also marked the 20th anniversary of the Year of Reconciliation in 
South Dakota, which was an effort by the late Governor George Mickelson 
as a way to bring all races together. The Year of Unity and the Year of 
Reconciliation were efforts to build upon a common purpose, acknowledge 
our differences, and yet find ways to work together. I suspect we could 
use a lot more of that in Washington, DC.
  While legislative bodies before us have taken steps to rectify our 
previous failures relative to Native Americans, sadly, these laws 
remain, and out of a sense of justice, I believe we should repeal them. 
Imagine a scenario where descendants of those from Norway, Britain, 
Italy, or any other country for that matter, were treated with the same 
patronizing air of superiority. Only Native Americans face this 
discrimination, and it is long overdue to repeal these noxious laws.
  I would take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill and to put an end to this blatant discrimination 
against Native Americans. We can't change our history, but we can start 
to change the paternalistic mentality of the Federal Government toward 
the Native people.

                          ____________________