U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–606 PDF 2011

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

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

Page

IV

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

Me ́tis 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

(1)

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 

2

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 

3

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 

4

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 

5

1See http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-opens-tribal-nations-conference. 2See 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.

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. 

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

6

3For further explanation of these issues, see http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/

153223.pdf. 4To 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/TriballNationslConferencelFinall0.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

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. 

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. 

7

5 See http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/sacredsites.shtml. 6See http://indian.senate.gov/hearings/upload/Donald-Laverdure-testimony-S-636-S-703.pdf. 7http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc010971.pdf.

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. 

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. 

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. 

8

8See http://www.letsmove.gov/indiancountry. 9See http://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/tribalsummit.htm.

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. 

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

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 NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
9

10See http://www.tribaljusticeandsafety.gov/inv-ltr-framing-paper.pdf.

tive 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

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 

10

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 

11

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 enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
12

tire 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? 

13

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 conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
14

stitutional 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 selfdetermination, 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 

15

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:]

16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. COULTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIAN LAW

RESOURCE CENTER


609a1.eps
17


609a2.eps
18


609a3.eps
19


609a4.eps
20


609a5.eps
21


609a6.eps
22


609a7.eps
23


609a8.eps
24


609a9.eps
25

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. 


609a10.eps
26

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. 

27

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 

28

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 

29

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 discovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
30

ered 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 selfgovernance 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. 

31

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. 

32

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 

33

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? 

34

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 

35

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

36

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. 

37

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 

38

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. 

39

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 

40

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. 

41

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. 

42

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 toVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
43

ward 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 

44

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. 

45

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 

46

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 propVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
47

erty 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, CanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
48

ada 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 conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
49

sequences 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. 

50

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 

51

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. 

52

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

53


609b1.eps
54


609b2.eps
55

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. 

STATEMENT FROM THE FIRST ROUNDTABLE FOR THE WORLD PARLIAMENT OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, 2011 (BOOSHAKTHI KENDRA, 1 TUMKUR, INDIA) 

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 

56

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. 

57

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 β 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. 

58

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, 

59

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 

60

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;

61

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 

62

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 1.5°c. 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, biofuels, 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 

63

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 susVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
64

tainable 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. 


609b3.eps
65

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 


609b4.eps
66

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 DecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
67

laration 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:]

68

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DUANE H. YAZZIE, CHAIRPERSON, NAVAJO NATION HUMAN

RIGHTS COMMISSION


609c1.eps
69


609c2.eps
70


609c3.eps
71


609c4.eps
72


609c5.eps
73


609c6.eps
74


609c7.eps
75


609c8.eps
76


609c9.eps
77


609c10.eps
78


609c11.eps
79


609c12.eps
80


609c13.eps
81

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 selfreliance of tribes. 


609c14.eps
82

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-determinaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
83

tion 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


609d1.eps
84


609d2.eps
85


609d3.eps
86

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? 


609d4.eps
87

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 

88

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. 

89

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 selfdetermination 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 selfdetermination. 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 

90

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 

91

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.] 

(93)

APPENDIX

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND


609d5.eps
94


609d6.eps
95


609d7.eps
96


609d8.eps
97


609d9.eps
98

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE

HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME CAMPAIGN


609e1.eps
99


609e2.eps
100


609e3.eps
101


609e4.eps
102


609e5.eps
103

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, AmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK

609e6.eps
104

nesty 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. 

105

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 

106

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 recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
107

ommendations 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

108


609e7.eps
109


609e8.eps
110

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL


609f1.eps
111


609f2.eps
112


609f3.eps
113


609f4.eps
114


609f5.eps
115


609f6.eps
116


609f7.eps
117

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 


609f8.eps
118

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. 

119

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ME ́TIS NATIONAL COUNCIL AND THE

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF INDIGENOUS RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT


609g1.eps
120


609g2.eps
121


609g3.eps
122


609g4.eps
123


609g5.eps
124


609g6.eps
125


609g7.eps
126

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM AMERICAN SAMOA


609h1.eps
127


609h2.eps
128


609h3.eps
129


609h4.eps
130


609h5.eps
131


609h6.eps
132


609h7.eps
133

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D’SHANE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

COUNCIL OF URBAN INDIAN HEALTH


609i1.eps
134


609i2.eps
135


609i3.eps
136


609i4.eps
137


609i5.eps
138

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. 


609i6.eps
139

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. 

140

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 selfsufficiency, 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. 

141

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


609j15.eps
142


609j1.eps
143


609j2.eps
144


609j3.eps
145


609j4.eps
146


609j5.eps
147


609j6.eps
148


609j7.eps
149


609j8.eps
150


609j9.eps
151


609j10.eps
152


609j11.eps
153


609j12.eps
154


609j13.eps
155


609j14.eps
156

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. 

157

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 

158

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.lll(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 

159

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


609k1.eps
160


609k2.eps
161


609k3.eps
162


609k4.eps
163


609k5.eps
164


609k6.eps
165

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 


609k7.eps
166

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 AmeriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Dec 20, 2011 Jkt 067606 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\67606.TXT JACK
167

cans, 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. 


609l1.eps
168


609l2.eps
169


609l3.eps
170

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. 


609l4.eps
171

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. 

172

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VIVIAN AINOA, PRESIDENT, PAPA OLA LOKAHI


609m1.eps
173


609m2.eps
174


609m3.eps 609m4.eps
175

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STACY DEACON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, ALASKA

NEWSPAPERS INC.


609n1.eps
176


609n2.eps
177


609n3.eps
178


609n4.eps
179

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. 


609n5.eps
180

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICAH MCCARTY, CHAIRMAN, MAKAH TRIBAL COUNCIL


609o1.eps
181


609o2.eps
182

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY, ONONDAGA NATION


609p1.eps
183


609p2.eps
184


609p3.eps
185


609p4.eps
186


609p5.eps
187


609p6.eps
188


609p7.eps
189


609p8.eps
190


609p9.eps
191


609p10.eps
192

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAVIS SANDERS (REDTAIL HAWK THUNDERBIRD), COFOUNDER 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. 


609p11.eps
193

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 

194


609q1.eps
195


609q2.eps
196

Æ


609q3.eps