U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–821 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–75 

CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY SERIES: MODERNIZING 

THE INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS ACT TO 

HONOR NATIVE IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 7, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana, 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER ROMERO, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Field hearing held on July 7, 2017 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Heinrich ............................................................................... 9 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Begay-Foss, Joyce, Director, Living Traditions Education Center, Museum 

of Indian Arts and Culture .................................................................................. 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator (Retired) from Colorado ............ 2 

Martinez, Damon, Former U.S. Attorney, District of New Mexico, U.S. Department of Justice .............................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Maybee, Dallin, Chief Operating Officer, Southwestern Association for Indian 

Arts (SWAIA) ........................................................................................................ 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Pratt, Harvey, Cheyenne-Arapaho Master Artist ................................................. 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Shappert, Gretchen C.F., Assistant Director, Indian, Violent and Cyber 

Crime, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice ......... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Stanton, Meredith, Director, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Woody, William, Chief, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

APPENDIX

Baker, Hon. Bill John, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, prepared statement 74 

Honanie, Hon. Herman G., Chairman, Hopi Tribe, prepared statement ............ 70 

Josey, Eloise, Executive Director, Alabama Indian Affairs Commission, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 69 

M’Closkey, Ph.D., Kathy Adjunct Associate Professor/Freelance Curator, Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology, University of Windsor, prepared statement ....................................................................................... 59 

Molloy, John, President, ATADA, prepared statement ........................................ 57 

Montgomery, David S., Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Member, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 73 

Montibon, Roy, CEO, Montibon Provenance International, Inc., prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 65 

Ouellet, Kathi, President, Indian Arts and Crafts Association, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 72 

Riley, Kurt, Governor, Pueblo of Acoma, prepared statement ............................. 60 

ShortCloud, Aiden, Tribal Artist, United Cherokee Aniyunwiya Nation 

(UCAN), prepared statement .............................................................................. 67 

Wright, Hon. James, Chief, Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe and Nancy 

Carnley, Vice Chief, joint prepared statement .................................................. 66 

Additional letters and statements submitted for the record ................................ 74–82 

(1) 

CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY SERIES: 

MODERNIZING THE INDIAN ARTS AND 

CRAFTS ACT TO HONOR NATIVE IDENTITY 

AND EXPRESSION 

FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Santa Fe, NM. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 A.M. in the 

Santa Fe Indian School gymnasium, Hon. Tom Udall, Vice 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Well, first of all, welcome to everybody today. It’s 

wonderful to have you here, and it’s wonderful to be at this location. I’ll talk about that a little bit further on, but I want to have 

welcoming remarks by Roy Herrera, superintendent of the Santa 

Fe Indian School, who is our great and generous host today. Thank 

you very much, Roy, for being here and being our host. 

Mr. HERRERA. Thank you, Senators and guests, for being here at 

the Santa Fe Indian School. My name is Roy Herrera. I’m the superintendent of the Santa Fe Indian School. On behalf of our board 

of directors, board of trustees, our students, our staff, I would like 

to welcome you to this campus, beautiful campus here in Santa Fe. 

Also, I want to thank you for being here today, and anything 

that we can do here at Santa Fe Indian School to increase your 

stay—better stay, we’d appreciate it. 

Thank you, Senators. 

Senator HEINRICH. You’re welcome. 

Senator UDALL. Roy, thank you. Thank you so much for that welcome. And I would next like to recognize Marvin Trujillo. Marvin 

is a Marine Corps officer and Native veteran, and Marvin’s going 

to recognize us in a prayer. Is that correct? Are you doing the 

Pledge of Allegiance? 

Marvin’s doing the Pledge of Allegiance. We’ll all rise and take 

our hats off. 

[Pledge of Allegiance recited.] 

Thank you, Marvin. Marvin, thank you for that, and thank you 

for your service to our country. We really appreciate that. 

2 

And now we’re going to stand again and recognize Santa Fe Indian School student Jude Chavarria from the Santa Clara Pueblo 

to offer the opening prayer. 

[Opening prayer recited.] 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Jude, so much, for that prayer. We 

really appreciate you giving that this morning. 

And good morning. I call this hearing to order. Let me first, before we start with our panelists and our opening statements, I’d 

like to acknowledge the former chairman of the Committee, this 

Committee, this Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell. He just happens to be in town, Senator 

Campbell. He was here, traveled down, and he saw it in the paper 

that we were holding this hearing. He has a lot of experience on 

this issue, extensive knowledge as an author of the Act. But he’s 

also a Native American jeweler himself. Look at that wonderful 

bolo tie he’s wearing. I’m sure he’s the one that created that. 

So Senator Campbell, I would ask you to come to the podium 

here. I wanted to have you give brief remarks before we did the 

opening and just talk to us about your experience and what you 

learned. 

So thank you for being here. As he’s making it over to the podium, I just want to say, when I started serving in the House, Senator Campbell was a Republican; I was a Democrat. But we always 

had lunch once a month, and we tried to do everything we could 

to work through these issues, Western issues, which he cared very 

much about. 

So Senator Campbell, please. The microphone is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, 

U.S. SENATOR (RETIRED) FROM COLORADO 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And by the way, 

thank you for complimenting me on my bolo. I didn’t make it. 

It is from a good friend who unfortunately passed away from a 

motorcycle accident by the name of Singer, Tommy Singer. He was 

a Navajo, a well-known Navajo silversmith. He made this some 

years ago, and I cherish it because he was a good friend. But thank 

you for the compliment. And as you mention, I’m kinda here by accident, so I don’t have any prepared statement. 

But, by the way, I’m Northern Cheyenne on my dad’s side. Since 

the 1970s, my wife and I have lived on the Southern Ute reservation in Southwest Colorado right near Mesa Verde in some other 

historic and mystical places that you should come and visit. 

But I’ve been involved in jewelry ever since I was a boy, starting 

in 1945, if you can imagine that. That will tell you how old I am. 

In those days, we made everything from coins. We’d go down and 

put them on a railroad track. We were always on the wrong side 

of the track when we were kids and poor. 

We never made any money from them. We used to trade them 

for food. In those days, everybody was poor. Everybody. So it’s not 

like I was the only one that kinda came up the hard way. 

But I was pretty active in helping revise the 1990 Act, and I’d 

like to maybe venture a little bit about the things I think were 

good about it and maybe things that still need to be addressed. 

3 

Bill Richardson and I who was the last-elected Governor of New 

Mexico, as you know, but we were on the Committee of Interior 

and Insular Affairs when Senator Udall, Mo Udall, was the chairman. His dad, by the way, about that time was Secretary of Interior. So our families kinda go way back. 

Bill and I recognized some of the things that were happening 

with the plagiarism of American Indian art, particularly in jewelry. 

So the first bill that we tried to get introduced was a bill that 

would require all, quote/unquote, Indian jewelry made in China 

and Japan, and all over the place, it was made here to be stamped 

in the metal, point of origin stamped in the metal. 

As it is now, I think Federal regulations require a little paper 

stamp or something. Of course, that goes away the minute it gets 

off the boat. We couldn’t get the muscle to pass that bill. And one 

of the reasons was, everybody was cheating. The big chains, the department store chains, the jewelry store chains, Natural Jewelers 

Association all came out against us on that bill, and we just 

couldn’t get any traction on it. So we let it die. But it reinforced 

in my mind the need to do something. 

Well, in 1990 when the bill was reintroduced, that was the first 

reintroduction, I think, since it was passed in the 1930s. It was 

clear that it needed to be addressed, because a lot of Indian people 

were being basically ripped off, by the things were being made in 

foreign countries. 

And so we did introduce that bill. I might mention a couple of 

complications we had in testimony, which you may get to. No. 1 is 

defining who is Indian and who is not. It’s easy to say, Well, if 

you’re on a federally recognized roll, you must be Indian. But there 

are many Native Americans who are not. 

I remember there was two Hopi cousins who testified in our 

hearing, which was here in Santa Fe in those years, John Kyle and 

I did it, Senator Kyle and I, and they were blood cousins. One was 

on the roll and one was not. Because the Hopi, like the Seneca and 

several other tribes, the blood line has 

to come through the mother’s side, not the father’s side. And that 

creates a lot of ambiguity about who is—you know, how many are 

Indian or not. 

And the other way for people to get enrolled is through lineal 

descendancy. And so the Cherokee and several other tribes—it 

doesn’t make any difference how thin the blood gets. If you’re one 

one-thousandth Native blood and the other 999 something else, 

under this Act, you qualify as Indian to make jewelry, if you’re on 

that roll. 

But that still left a lot of people off altogether. There are over 

50 tribes right now trying to be reintroduced that were terminated 

in the 1950s. Some tribes, who are very big, like the Lumbee of the 

Carolinas, I think there’s over 50,000 members. They are not a federally recognized tribe, but they are a State-recognized tribe. Creates another nuance about who is and who cannot make it. 

But the most outlandish story I heard was of a Japanese citizen 

who arrived—I won’t mention the tribe—but arrived at a Northern 

Plains Tribe with an interpreter about a year and a half ago, and 

he went to the Tribal headquarters. And through the interpreter, 

he told the people in the tribal office, ‘‘I’m a member of this tribe.’’ 

4 

And of course, they said, ‘‘What?’’ 

They didn’t know what he was talking about. Well, he was. His 

father was in the military, stationed in Japan. He married a Japanese lady. They had a son. He put the son on the roll, and then 

they got a divorce. He came back to this country; she stayed in 

Japan. 

And so the youngster was born and raised in Japan, only speaks 

Japanese, went to Japanese schools. Had to have an interpreter 

when he visited the American reservation. But under existing law, 

he could be sitting in downtown Tokyo making authentic Indianmade rings. 

So kind of makes you scratch your head when somebody who is 

50 percent can’t get on a roll, but somebody who has never been 

in this country can be making authentic Indian jewelry. 

There are many other cases like that. I just mention those as a 

couple of really extreme ones that we had to deal with. 

But one of the other weaknesses, and I might mention the 

strengths of the bill that we passed in 1990, before that bill was 

passed, there was no legal, civil way you could go after somebody 

that was cheating and trying to say he was a Navajo if he wasn’t. 

We put a section in that bill, as I remember, it authorized the tribe 

to sue up to something like $200,000 for misinterpreting your identity as being one of their tribal members when you are not. 

And I think that section has been used a couple times, not 

against individuals, but against some of these big chains that are 

importing tons of so-called Indian jewelry. I think that’s been enforced a couple times, and that’s good. But the weakness of that 

section is—I’ll give you an example. 

If you drive from Flagstaff up to the Grand Canyon, you’ll see 

many little booths on the side of the road. Little elderly ladies trying to sell a little necklace or something to get a loaf of bread for 

Sunday. Around Four Corners monument, it’s the same. What if 

you go there, and you find out that lady—maybe she’s very honest, 

‘‘Oh, I got this from a trader.’’ 

So she doesn’t know where it came from, except a trader. But if 

you have a good eye, you know by looking at it if it’s authentic, if 

it’s plastic beads, if it’s machine-stamped, so on like that. What are 

you going to do about it? What if she is cheating? What if she even 

knows she’s cheating? Think of the expense, the prosecutorial investigative expense of the Federal agencies to enforce that section 

of the law. 

Nobody in their right mind is going to do that—at least not to 

my knowledge. They are not going to spend hundreds of thousands 

of dollars and all the stuff it takes to put some little old lady in 

jail, or fine her, because she’s trying to make five bucks for a couple of loaves of bread. It just doesn’t make sense. There’s got to be 

some kind of an intermediate action that can be done that you can 

deal with that kind of a problem. 

Yet one of the other weaknesses I saw of that bill that we passed 

was, some things that are made, more than one person works on 

them. So if a person—say you have five people, and they worked 

on a bracelet. And one guy designs it, the next guy frames it up, 

the next guy solders it, the next guy puts some stones in it. What 

if one of the five is Indian and the other four are not? How do you 

5 

define that piece of jewelry? Is it Indian-made or is it not? I don’t 

know, but it’s something that I saw as a weakness. 

I still judge. In fact, here in Santa Fe a couple years ago, my 

daughter and I, we judged contemporary jewelry. There’s some 

very, very nice jewelry being turned out by some of our young people now. I’m an old timer; I learned how to do it all by hand. That’s 

not the way things are done anymore. I mean, youngsters are very 

creative. 

And so there was a very fine belt that we judged first place. I 

didn’t know how it was made, but it was a very, very nice-looking 

belt. Well, I found out that belt was done, as many young artists 

do now, it was designed on a CAD/CAM. 

So, okay, a Native person designed it on a CAD/CAM. The CAD/ 

CAM was then—I don’t remember if the word is ‘‘slated,’’ 

‘‘networked,’’ or ‘‘integrated’’—worked with a milling machine. And 

the milling machine cut out the pieces of jewelry. So you have to 

ask, ‘‘Well, okay, a Native person pushed a button. Does that make 

it Indian-made?’’ 

Another person might say, ‘‘Well, yeah, wait a minute. He really 

didn’t touch the thing. It was all made kind of automated.’’ And I 

don’t know the answer to that. Maybe you can figure that one out 

and deal with it in new legislation. 

But these things keep arising. When I judged Santa Fe a couple 

years ago, I hadn’t judged for a number of years before that. Now 

they have divisions for film, for clothing, design, all kinds of stuff 

that wasn’t even in our realm of thinking in the old way of doing, 

Indian, quote/unquote, art. And I support that. It’s given new avenues of expression for many of our Native youngsters, and I think 

that’s great. 

But it also makes it more important for a committee like this to 

ask, ‘‘How do you define who is what?’’ 

And so with that, let me just check a couple of my own notes of 

anything that I did forget. Probably not. Those are the main things 

I kinda wanted to bring to the Committee to testify. 

And with that, if you have any questions of me of what we did 

in the old days, I’d be glad to answer. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Campbell, could you just say a word 

about prosecution? I know you picked the example of a lady trying 

to sell a bracelet. But if you have a big, like, some of these cases 

we’ve seen, international operations, you know, manufacturing, 

huge amounts of this stuff, representing it to be authentic Native 

American, bringing it over here from Philippines or China, wherever. 

Senator CAMPBELL. And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, some of it’s 

being sold right on the square here in Santa Fe. You know, being 

around it my whole life, I’ve got a pretty good eye about what is 

authentic and what is not. The Native people, when they make it 

themselves handmade, there’s a weight and a heft and a design to 

it that you can almost qualify, once you’ve been around it most of 

your life as I have. 

But once the money started coming in for Indian art, which is 

basically to say Indian jewelry in the late 1970s, we did see people 

from Japan, from China, from some of the Gulf countries, moving 

in literally, a number of them went out to the reservations themVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
6 

selves, to the pueblos, to Zuni and other tribes, and tried to tie up 

contracts with the craftsmen where they couldn’t sell to anybody 

except them. 

And that was not enough to have it done there. So then they actually started having it made overseas and importing it over into 

this country under the guise of being Indian-made. That is still 

going on. And the Mayor Becerra, I believe his name is, in Santa 

Fe, he’s really taken the lead in trying to bring that to the forefront 

in the market here in Santa Fe. 

But I think maybe one of the key things in this whole scene is, 

if you are an unsuspecting buyer, the best thing you can do is 

make sure you’re dealing with somebody who can authenticate, and 

they can tell you exactly who made it and give you the address, if 

you want to go talk to them themself. 

And if they can’t do that, then you gotta say, ‘‘Well, I don’t know 

where the heck that came from.’’ Most of the people that I think 

that belong to, say, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Indian Arts 

and Crafts Association, they subscribe to a ethics—code of ethics, 

and I think they’re pretty darn good in trying to represent exactly 

what it is. 

But as I said, when you’re going through four or five hands and 

four or five people working on it, I don’t know. I still get pieces 

back, or I’ll get parts of things, and somebody will come to me and 

say, ‘‘Ben, I’ve got this stone. I know it’s really valuable because 

my grandmother owned it.’’ 

And I’ve just been around turquoise my whole darn life. And I 

look at it, and it looks like it’s a piece of Coca-Cola bottle. And I 

don’t want to hurt her feelings, so I don’t even work on it. But I 

don’t even want to tell her how bad the thing is, because I don’t 

want to hurt her feelings, because a lot of people are just that unaware about what authentic is, just what is real Indian turquoise. 

By the way, for the uninitiated, one of easiest ways you can do 

it is with a hat pin or a needle. If you’re unsure of the stone, and 

you heat that needle, like, red-hot and touch the stone, if nothing 

happens, that’s real. But if a little bit of smoke comes up or a little 

smell like plastic, it ain’t real. That’s the layman’s test how you can 

test to see if the turquoise is the real thing. 

And if there’s anything I can answer, Mr. Chairman, I will. But 

I commend you and Senator Heinrich on doing this hearing. It’s 

well needed. 

Senator UDALL. Well, thank you so much. We know you’re busy 

on your trip down here and for taking a few minutes and sharing 

your thoughts and ideas with us. We hope you will think a little 

bit more about this and maybe submit written statements, as I’m 

going to tell everybody in the audience they have the ability to do, 

too. 

So let’s thank Senator Campbell. 

Okay. We’re going to start with our opening statements here, 

and then we’ll go to the witnesses. 

First of all, let me just welcome everybody to Indian Country and 

to thank everyone who made it out to Santa Fe. Some people, I 

think, traveled all the way from Washington, and so we really appreciate your being here. I very much look forward to today’s discussion, exploring how to modernize the Indian Arts and Crafts 

7 

Act. It’s long overdue, and I’m looking forward to a very productive 

day here. 

Today’s hearing is an official Senate committee hearing, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and this is a field hearing what 

we’re doing. The format today is the same as the format we use for 

hearings in Washington, D.C. The Committee will hear testimony 

from two panels of witnesses and Committee members will ask the 

witnesses questions. 

I want to thank all the witnesses who have traveled here today 

to help us understand these issues, these very, very important 

issues to Indian Country, and figure out how we can do better to 

protect the cultural integrity of Native American arts and crafts. 

So today’s Congressional hearing is not a town hall. I want to emphasize that. It’s not a town hall, for example, where folks speak 

out from the audience and ask questions. We’re here to take testimony, official testimony, with a court reporter, from our witnesses. 

However, we want to hear from everyone on this critical issue before us. So you’re invited and are most welcome to submit your 

comments and ideas. And to do that, you can e-mail them to 

testimony@Indian.Senate.gov. 

That’s testimony@Indian.Senate.gov, and my staff members are 

here with badges on, and so you can get that from them as you 

leave, too. 

And Senator Heinrich’s staff members are also here. We will 

leave the official record open for two weeks until July 21st, and I 

really encourage everyone to submit comments based on what 

you’ve heard here. And also, please feel free to talk to my staff, 

Senator Heinrich’s staff, after this hearing with any questions. 

They’re seated behind me. Many of these folks behind me are official Senate Indian Affairs staffers that have come out from Washington, and they’re wearing staff ID badges. So you’ll be able to 

identify them. 

And then let me—first of all, I already thanked Roy Herrera, but 

I want to thank the Santa Fe Indian School again for hosting us, 

and Superintendent, for your very thoughtful opening remarks. 

Santa Fe Indian School is in good hands with Superintendent Herrera. 

And I want to thank Jude for that beautiful opening prayer. 

You’re one of the future leaders of Indian Country, and I’m glad 

you’re here to witness the legislative process in action. We sometimes call that in the Senate, and Senator Campbell calls it sausage-making. 

But the Santa Fe Indian School was established in 1890 to educate Native American youth from tribes throughout the Southwest. 

It was established during the boarding-school era, a shameful period when the Federal government removed Native children from 

their communities and attempted to assimilate them into Anglo society; among other things, prohibiting children from speaking their 

Native languages and practicing their beliefs. 

Sitting here today on the grounds of this tribally controlled 

school located on pueblo land, it’s clear to see—and I’m proud to 

say—that our nation has made great strides from its disastrous 

policies of the past. Santa Fe Indian School and other Native 

American—other Native schools exercise educational sovereignty 

8 

by promoting Native languages and affirming cultural identity by 

supporting Native students’ cultural and traditional beliefs. 

But we still need to do much more to protect cultural sovereignty 

and do that for now and for the future. That’s why I chose Santa 

Fe Indian School as the location for this hearing, to highlight the 

gains we’ve made and the work that still needs to be done. 

As the Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I 

intend to hold a series of hearings right here in New Mexico that 

focus on supporting cultural identity to make sure future generations of Native Americans have what elders have; pride in Native 

American culture and a way to practice time-honored traditions of 

craftsmanship while maintaining a livelihood. 

We’ve got a serious problem on our hands as we heard from Senator Campbell. Imitation Indian arts and crafts flooding the market 

in places like Gallup and Albuquerque, Phoenix, and right here in 

Santa Fe. 

A network of swindlers are making millions of dollars off the 

backs of Native Americans. This situation is wholly unacceptable. 

The mass production of imitation Native American jewelry and 

other crafts destabilizes the Indian art market, forcing Native 

American artisans to drop prices to keep up with wholesale prices 

of so-called Native American jewelry that is actually fake. Artificially low prices then force Native Americans to quit their crafts, 

crafts that often have been passed down over many generations. 

Arts and crafts are a major economic driver for Indian Country. 

Fake art drives down prices, forces Native Americans to quit their 

crafts and devalues Native American art. We want this to stop. We 

want to see Native Americans reap the well-earned benefits of their 

art. 

Santa Fe is at the epicenter of the problem. Our city is driven 

by tourism, and many tourists come here to experience Native 

American culture and to buy Native American arts and crafts. But 

many unknowingly buy imitation products, fueling the black market, yet we have hardly talked about this problem. 

So this hearing is important for a number of reasons. Most importantly, to ensure that the cultural integrity of authentic Indian 

arts and crafts, and by looking for ways to improve enforcement of 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. We need to do more to address this 

problem. 

I’m encouraged by the recent efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. For example, in the last couple of years, the U.S. Attorneys’ Office charged three New Mexicans with violating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act by importing 

and fraudulently selling foreign-made jewelry as Native Americanmade. That was an international scheme that you’ve heard a little 

bit about already. 

And in February of this year, the U.S. Attorneys’ Office indicted 

several more people, including one person from the earlier case, 

with violating the Act for the same types of crimes. 

Appropriation of Native American art is not a new issue. This 

has been happening for decades. As Attorney General in 1996, I 

sued these scammers for violating the State’s Unfair Businesses 

Practice Act. 

9 

So during today’s hearing, we will explore how to improve enforcement efforts. Another goal of this hearing is to build consumer 

awareness of the problem so the consumers can make informed decisions in buying Native American arts and crafts. The fact is, consumers want to purchase goods that are authentic. 

So again, thank you to all the witnesses for being here today, 

and now I’d like to turn to my good friend and colleague, Senator 

Heinrich, for his opening remarks. Senator Heinrich has been a 

very strong advocate for Native Americans. He has several pieces 

of legislation that he’s already passed in his Congressional career, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with him on the very important issues that will be outlined today. 

Senator Heinrich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. And I want 

to start as well by thanking as well the Santa Fe Indian School for 

hosting us today. And I really want to thank Senator Udall for 

shining a light on this issue. We are very lucky to have him as the 

vice chair of this Committee. And this new look at what we can do 

to update this law is incredibly important. 

I want to welcome and thank Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell 

who worked on this bill back in the day. It’s really important that 

we hear from people who have your level of expertise. So I very 

much appreciate you being here today. And I want to thank the 

Senate Indian Affairs Committee staff for all of their hard work in 

putting this together. 

Welcome to our panelists. We have an incredible panel of folks 

to offer testimony here today. And I want to take just a moment 

and thank the Santa Fe Police Department and the BIA law enforcement officers who are with us here today. 

In New Mexico, we all recognize the incredible beauty and worth 

of American Indian art. From the art left long ago on canyon walls 

in places like Chaco Canyon, and the Gila cliff dwellings, to traditional and modern art masterpieces created by Native American 

artists to this day. 

Here in Santa Fe, some of our nation’s leading Native artists are 

trained in the Santa Fe Indian School and at the Institute of American Arts. And more than a thousand Native artists gather here 

every August to display and sell their art at the annual Santa Fe 

Indian Market. The sale of Native American art and craftwork is 

a tremendous economic driver for tribal communities in our state 

and throughout Indian Country and the West. 

New Mexicans understand the value of supporting true tribal 

artists and recognize the dangers posed by counterfeit items or 

items claiming to be Native-produced. For centuries, the United 

States used cultural appropriation as a tool of colonization. Today 

when non-Indians sell jewelry or pottery as Indian art, they are denying the right of tribal communities to define and control what 

tribal art is. This cultural appropriation removes Native art in traditions from their rightful context and denies the right of tribal 

communities to maintain sovereignty over their history and their 

culture. 

10 

When tribal communities are denied ownership of their own cultures, they lose the ability to maintain their language, their beliefs; 

literally, their way of life. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 

is essentially a truth-in-advertising law that prohibits misrepresentation or falsely displaying arts or crafts as Indian-produced. 

We’re here today to learn more about whether the law is working 

and what steps we need to take to make sure that all products 

marketed are marketed truthfully so that Native artists can thrive 

in an ethical marketplace. 

I would also like to quickly touch on another important issue in 

New Mexico, which I’ve been proud to work with Senator Udall and 

the tribes across New Mexico with. Many tribes in New Mexico 

have experienced people literally stealing and trafficking objects 

that are not art but are essential religious and cultural patrimony. 

When someone steals and sells a tribe’s cultural patrimony, they 

are stealing that tribe’s traditions and identity. 

Last month I was proud to reintroduce the bipartisan Safeguard 

Tribal Objects and Patrimony or STOP Act, a bill to prohibit export 

of sacred Native American items. And that increases penalties for 

stealing and illegally trafficking tribal cultural patrimony. 

I announced the bill’s reintroduction during a meeting with the 

students from the Santa Fe Indian School Leadership Institute 

Summer Policy Academy in my office in Washington. And I was incredibly moved by the unique perspectives and personal stories 

that those students offered. They talked a lot about the responsibility that they felt to preserve their cultural heritage and fulfill 

their sacred trust as generations before them have. 

That’s what’s at the heart of today’s hearing for me. And with 

that, I want to thank all of you again, and I look forward to hearing from our two panels. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Heinrich so much, and 

thank you for your good, hard work on the STOP Act, which is for 

the protection of cultural patrimony. 

We will now hear from our first panel. Mr. William Woody, Chief 

of Law Enforcement at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a bureau 

of the Department of Interior. Miss Meredith Stanton, Director of 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, an agency of the U.S. Department of Interior, and Miss Gretchen Shappert, Assistant Director, 

Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys at the U.S. Department of 

Justice. 

I want to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony 

will be made a part of the official hearing record. Please keep your 

statements to five minutes so that we may have time for questions. 

And I look forward to hearing your testimony, beginning with Miss 

Stanton. 

Thank you very much and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MEREDITH STANTON, DIRECTOR, INDIAN 

ARTS AND CRAFTS BOARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Ms. STANTON. Thank you. Good morning, Vice Chairman Udall 

and Senator Heinrich. I would like to also start the testimony here 

today by thanking Chairman Hoeven for holding this hearing. 

11 

I am Meredith Stanton, Director of the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Board. I’ve worked for the Board for almost 40 years and have been 

an enrolled member of the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today about the Board. 

I work to promote and protect authentic Indian art, artists, and the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

The Board was established by Congress in 1935 and operates 

with an annual budget of approximately 1.4 million, a staff of nine 

employees, and one detailee stationed here in New Mexico. The 

Board is the only Federal agency that is exclusively concerned with 

the economic benefits of Indian cultural development. Sales of Indian art exceed a billion dollars each year. 

With the very broad economic development and cultural preservation mission, we operate three museums; one in South Dakota, 

one in Montana, and one in Oklahoma to promote emerging Indian 

artists. Marketing seminars and publications are important components of our services. 

For example, our new brochure promotes authentic Navajo weaving to help offset the weavers’ stiff competition from counterfeit 

Navajo rugs. The arts are at the very heart of our ancestral and 

contemporary Indian society and culture. The New Mexico, and 

throughout the Southwest, Indian art production and sales are 

critically important to the economic stability and viability of Indian 

artists, communities, and tribes. 

In response to the growing sales of counterfeit Indian products, 

Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. A top priority of the Board, the Act is a truth-in-marketing law to combat 

the sale of counterfeit Indian art and to protect the Indian artists’ 

economic livelihood. The Act prohibits the marketing of art as Indian-made if it is not made by an Indian as defined by the Act. 

Each day Indian economic livelihoods are eroded by the fierce 

competition of lower-priced, imported counterfeit Indian products. 

High-priced knockoffs of one-of-a-kind master Indian jewelry also 

contribute to the erosion of consumer confidence in the Indian art 

market nationwide. 

To help remedy the problem, the Board promotes authentic Indian art and art protections through participation in events, including the Santa Fe Indian Market, and consumer education, such as 

our collaborations with the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office 

in a brochure promoting authentic New Mexico Indian art. The 

Board distributes this brochure at the Sunport, visitors’ centers, 

and Indian art businesses and markets throughout the state. 

The Act designated the FBI to investigate Act cases. However, 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2010, which then 

Senator Heinrich was a cosponsor, allows now all Federal law enforcement officers to conduct Act investigations. This led to the 

2012 agreement between the Board and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Since then, the scope and depth of Act investigations have increased exponentially. While complaints and violations have often 

occurred primarily in the Southwest and particularly here in New 

Mexico, the scope of the problem is nationwide. 

Since 1996, the Board has received over 1700 complaints of alleged Act violations, of which 1300 have been addressed to date. 

12 

We have been—we’ve had 22 Federal prosecutions in New Mexico, 

Alaska, Utah, Michigan, South Dakota, and Missouri. 

The Board has also worked with the Office of the State Attorney 

General here in New Mexico on six cases involving the misrepresentation of Indian art. Our sweeping Service Act investigation to 

date involves a large-scale conspiracy to import and fraudulently 

sell Filipino-made jewelry as Indian-made. 

Chief Woody will discuss that further in his testimony. 

The Act has its challenges, and a tremendous amount of work remains to dismantle these counterfeit Indian art networks, certainly 

in New Mexico and nationwide. These counterfeits hinder the passing down from one generation to the next of important Indian traditions, skills, and heritage—true American treasures. 

The Department is committed to protecting Indian artists from 

counterfeits and looks forward to working with our Congressional 

colleagues to ensure the goals of the Act are met. 

Thank you, Senators Udall and Heinrich, for your interest in 

supporting and protecting these true American treasures. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stanton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEREDITH STANTON, DIRECTOR, INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS

BOARD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Introduction 

Good Morning Vice Chairman Udall and Senator Heinrich. I am Meridith Stanton, Director of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, within the Department of the Interior, which I have served for almost 40 years. I am also an enrolled member of 

the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you 

today about the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, our work to promote and protect authentic American and Indian artists, artisans, and their creative work, and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–644), as amended. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board (Board) was created by Congress in 1935 to 

promote American Indian and Alaska Native economic development through the expansion of the Indian arts and crafts market. The Board is the only Federal agency 

that is consistently and exclusively concerned with economic benefits of Native 

American cultural development. We have a current staff of nine full-time employees 

and one detailee who is stationed in New Mexico. The Board’s policies are determined by the Board of Commissioners, who are appointed by the Secretary of the 

Interior and serve without compensation. The Board has a very broad economic development and cultural preservation mission, and operates three Indian museums 

in South Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma. The museum programs include special 

exhibitions to promote emerging Indian artists, Indian Youth Art Competitions and 

art classes to encourage the development of future Indian master artists, and cultural programming to educate consumers about the inherent value of authentic Indian art. 

Business development, marketing, and Intellectual Property Rights Protection 

workshops, seminars, and publications for Indian artists, businesses, and consumers 

are also important components of the Board’s services. For example, the Board and 

New Mexico State Attorney General’s office collaborated on a brochure to promote 

New Mexico Indian art. This brochure is distributed at the Board’s consumer education booth at each annual Santa Fe Indian Market, at the Albuquerque airport 

visitor kiosk, New Mexico visitor centers, and Indian art businesses and markets 

throughout the State. The Board also recently prepared a brochure it will distribute 

nationwide to promote authentic Navajo weaving and to help offset the challenges 

weavers are facing due to competition from Navajo style and counterfeit Navajo 

weavings. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act 

In response to growing sales of counterfeit Indian products in the billion-dollar Indian art market, Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. The Act 

is a truth-in-advertising law that authorized the Board to refer complaints of counterfeit Indian Goods to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It provides criminal and civil penalties for marketing products as ‘‘Indian made’’ when such products 

13 

1 INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS: Size of Market and Extent of Misrepresentation Are Unknown GAO–11–432: Published: Apr 28, 2011. Publicly Released: Apr 28, 2011. http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-432 

are not made by Indians, as defined by the Act. Under the Act, work marketed as 

authentic Indian art and craftwork must be produced by an artist or artisan who 

is an enrolled member of a federally or officially State recognized Indian tribe, or 

an Indian Artisan certified by the tribe of their direct descent. 

Implementing and enforcing the Act is a top priority for the Board. Enforcement 

of the Act protects Native American artists and craftspeople, businesses, and Tribes, 

as well as consumers. It also protects the integrity of Native American cultural heritage and the economic self-reliance of Tribes and their members. The Act provides 

critical economic benefits for Native American cultural development by recognizing 

that forgery and fraudulent Indian arts and crafts diminish the livelihood of Native 

American artists and craftspeople by lowering both market prices and standards. 

Scope of the Problem 

In 2011, a Government Accountability Act report 1 found that ‘‘The sale of goods 

falsely represented as authentic Indian-produced arts and crafts has been a persistent and potentially growing problem in the United States.’’ It continued that 

‘‘Misrepresentation by sale of unauthentic products created by non-Indians, including imports from foreign countries, is a matter of great concern to Indian artists, 

who have to reduce their prices or lose sales because of competition from lower 

priced imitation products.’’ 

While complaints and violations have often occurred primarily in the Southwest, 

particularly in New Mexico, due to the Indian art industry’s concentration in this 

region, the scope of the problem is nationwide. Since 1996, the Board has received 

over 1,700 complaints of alleged Act violations, of which 1,295 have been closed and 

413 remain open investigations. Many of these were handled administratively, 

through letters informing businesses and individuals about the Act and Act compliance. Others were referred for investigation to federal, and at times State, law enforcement authorities, depending on the nature of the complaint and jurisdiction. To 

date, there have been 22 federal prosecutions in New Mexico, Alaska, Utah, South 

Dakota, and Missouri. The Board has also worked with the Office of the New Mexico 

Attorney General on five cases involving the misrepresentation of Indian art. 

Working with Our Partners 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2010 authorized all federal law 

enforcement officers, not just the FBI, to conduct investigations and revised the 

Act’s criminal penalties. Following passage of this legislation, in 2012 the Board entered into a memorandum of agreement and reimbursable support agreement with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for law enforcement agents to work Act 

cases. 

In the years leading up to the agreement with the Service, the Board collected 

evidence of fraudulent activity in the Southwest. That advance work was followed 

by an extensive investigation led by the Service, Operation Al Zuni, the most sweeping and successful investigation and enforcement of the Act to date. 

The Board works with many tribes, state and local agencies and federal partners 

to enforce the Act. These collaborations significantly strengthen the Board’s ability 

to successfully address counterfeit Indian art and craftwork. The Board has successfully worked cases and taken other actions to remedy violations of the law, such as 

those involving the fraudulent marketing of rugs as Navajo, jewelry as Hopi, jewelry 

as Apache, and art as Cherokee, as well as a settlement with Pendleton Woolen 

Mills regarding their use of Indian names to market non-Indian products. 

Conclusion 

For the highly talented, dedicated, and hard-working Indian artists and artisans, 

Indian art is more than an income producing activity. Traditional Indian art and 

craftwork, and evolving and cutting edge Indian art, respectively, are at the very 

heart of Indian ancestral and contemporary society and culture. 

There are challenges to achieving the goals of the Act and there remains a tremendous amount of work to dismantle these counterfeit Indian art networks certainly in New Mexico, and nationwide. The Board will continue to pursue robust Act 

enforcement in partnership with the Service. We are committed to protecting Indian 

artists from competition with counterfeit Indian art, which hinders the passing 

down from one generation to the next of important Indian traditions, heritage, and 

skills—true American treasures. The Department looks forward to working with our 

14 

Congressional colleagues to ensure the goals of the Act are met and to preserve the 

cultures, heritages and self-determination of tribes and Alaska Native communities. 

Thank you, Senators Udall and Heinrich, for your interest in supporting and protecting Indian artists and Indian economies through the creative arts. I am pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator UDALL. Miss Stanton, thank you so much for your testimony. 

And Chief Woody, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WOODY, CHIEF, OFFICE OF LAW 

ENFORCEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WOODY. Good afternoon, Vice Chairman Udall and Senator 

Heinrich. I want to start by thanking you and Chairman Hoeven 

for holding this hearing in support. 

I am William Woody. I’m Chief of Law Enforcement for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding our 

collaborative work with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board to enforce the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

The protection of tribal nations is of the utmost importance to 

the Department of Interior in safeguarding tribal arts and crafts 

integral to that mission and vital to the economic livelihoods and 

culture of tribal nations. The sale of Native American arts and 

crafts by individual producers, businesses, tribal-run operations, 

and other members of overall Native Americans, as Meredith 

states, is over a billion dollars a year. 

Criminal investigations, both nationally and internationally and 

to individuals and businesses making fraudulent Native American 

arts and crafts, and the sale or offer for sale of those counterfeit 

items in the United States are complex, requiring technical expertise, significant long-term investigative capability, and an international presence. 

Since 2012, the services maintained the memorandum of agreement with the Board to serve as the enforcement arm of the department to lead criminal investigations and allegations of violations of the Act. Given cases our agents have been working on and 

additional information we have received from the last several 

years, it is fair to say the scope of the problem is far larger than 

expected. Investigative activity thus far has been extensive and farreaching, taking place not only here in New Mexico, Arizona, and 

Texas, California and Colorado, Alaska, Nevada, Hawaii. 

I have a few slides I’d like to show you to illustrate the extent 

and complexity of the issue. But I think you need to understand 

one thing. Being able to prove many of these cases is very complex, 

and getting a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is—it isn’t 

based on just hunches or assumptions, too. 

So Operation Al Zuni involves fraudulent Native American jewelry sales under the Act. During the course of this operation, we 

uncovered two organized networks who had been a Native American jewelry business for years and who perpetuated an international scheme to illegally sell Filipino-made jewelry as authentic 

Native American-made in the U.S. 

15 

Agents were able to access these manufacturing facilities in the 

Philippines, document and track shipments of counterfeit jewelry 

as they made their way to the U.S., and then traced them to retail 

locations where they were being sold as authentic Native American-made. 

First slide. 

This surveillance photo shows a shipment of fraudulent jewelry 

from the Philippines. Prior to this photo being taken, there was a 

significant amount of work done to ID the source and track the 

shipment to where this UPS driver is delivering it. 

Slide two, please. 

This shipment was tracked by our agents to a UPS hub, detained, opened, and inspected, and allowed to continue to its destination. 

Third slide, please. This shows some of the jewelry from just one 

of those boxes. So it is counterfeit jewelry from one of the boxes. 

There are—if you look at these bags there’s 50 to 100 items, whether they be rings, necklaces, pendants, bracelets, mass produced. 

Slide four, please. 

This is a more detailed photo of the items in the shipment. The 

photo on the left shows an original Native American-made pendant 

that was sent to the Philippines to be reproduced. The image on 

the right is one of the replicas that was found in the intercepted 

shipment. They look nearly identical. If you’ll note the one on the 

right, look at the price tag up in the corner of that particular items. 

You’ve got a $90 price tag on that. 

I think that particular item is being made pennies on the dollar, 

if you will. So that’s really—I mean, if you picture—I guess the 

best term I would give it is, these factories that we see, it’s pretty 

much like a sweat shop. Which you look at is, there’s 40 to 50 people in the shop—and I’ll just use this as an example. 

They have this sitting in front of them, and they’re making this 

particular same item, just mass-produced. So if you opened one of 

those bags previously, what you end up seeing is all the same item. 

And the only way to get this, as I stated, these are very complex 

investigations. Following that all the way from the beginning, in 

this case, the Philippines, all the way to the sale, is complex and 

takes a long time. 

Slide five, please. 

This counterfeit ring was intercepted and marked prior to the delivery of the shipment to a retail location. 

Slide six. This is really the last step in the process. Our agents 

purchased this ring and other counterfeit jewelry being sold by a 

retailer, labeled as authentic Native American-made by a particular artist. 

Slide seven. 

Slide seven—while she’s working on that, we ultimately executed 

16 search warrants and seized over 200,000 pieces of jewelry, much 

of it as shown in the photo, which is not coming up. 

Counterfeit jewelry that was imported in this case by the business has an approximate declared value of $11 million. That was 

their declared direct value of the importers bringing it in. 

However, the prices that they would receive for these items when 

they were sold as authentic Native American, either wholesale or 

16 

retail, is substantially higher. To date, six of the subjects in this 

case have been indicted and are awaiting trial. In addition to 

charges of violating the Act, Federal prosecutors have also charged 

the defendants with violations, Federal fraudulent importation, 

money laundering, wire fraud, and mail fraud. 

The service is committed to continuing this important work in 

partnership with all Federal, state, tribal, and county offices, and 

the Board, and looks forward to working with you to raise awareness on this issue and improve implementation of the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Board. 

If you look at in this slide that just comes up, think about this, 

all of those boxes, everything you see in there, is just from one 

case. As I stated, just talking with the agents—and I had a chance 

to talk to them yesterday on some of the projects they’re working 

on—this is one. There’s many more. 

It is, as Mr. Ben Nighthorse Campbell talked about, the folks on 

the roadside, what you’ve got is, you’ve got some significant stuff 

still coming into this country that needs to be dealt with. 

And again, we are committed to this important work, and we 

look forward to working with all the agencies and senators. I want 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woody follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WOODY, CHIEF, OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Introduction 

Good afternoon Vice Chairman Udall and Senator Heinrich. I am William Woody, 

Chief of the Office of Law Enforcement for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 

you today on our work to enforce the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (Act) and address 

fraudulent Native American art and crafts in the United States. 

The Office of Law Enforcement’s primary responsibility is to focus on significant 

threats to wildlife resources—illegal trade, unlawful commercial exploitation, habitat destruction, and environmental hazards. The Office of Law Enforcement investigates wildlife crimes; regulates wildlife trade; helps Americans understand and 

comply with wildlife protection laws; and works in partnership with international, 

Federal, State, and tribal counterparts to conserve wildlife resources. 

The Service’s Office of Law Enforcement has a workforce comprised of special 

agents, conservation law enforcement officers, and wildlife inspectors stationed at 

ports of entry, regional locations, and field offices across the country, as well as 

attache ́s stationed at various embassies around the world. When fully staffed, we 

have 140 wildlife inspectors and 261 special agents. Our wildlife inspectors work at 

major ports of entry across the nation to facilitate legal trade in wildlife and wildlife 

products and check inbound and outbound shipments for illegal wildlife and wildlife 

products. Service inspectors also utilize seven canine detector dogs to facilitate cargo 

searches for illegal wildlife and wildlife products. Our special agents conduct complex investigations to detect and document international illegal wildlife trafficking, 

unlawful destruction and harm of endangered species and other trust species such 

as migratory birds, and crimes involving the unlawful exploitation of native and foreign species in interstate commerce. Our International Attache ́ program places special agents in U.S. embassies to investigate international wildlife trafficking, share 

and coordinate intelligence, expand training programs, provide technical assistance, 

and work collaboratively with partners in the regions they are stationed. Attache ́

locations include: Bangkok, Thailand; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Gaborone, Botswana; Lima, Peru; Beijing, China; and Libreville, Gabon. 

With this technical expertise, investigative capability, and international presence, 

the Service is uniquely suited within the Department of Interior to enforce the Act. 

The protection of tribal nations is of the utmost importance to the Department, and 

safeguarding tribal art and crafts is integral to that mission and vital to the livelihoods and culture of tribal nations. The Service is committed to fulfilling this role 

17 

on behalf of the Department and in partnership with the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Board (Board). 

Since 2012, the Service has maintained a Memoranda of Agreement with the 

Board to serve as the enforcement arm of the Department and lead criminal investigations into alleged violations of the Act. The Board provides funding to the Service to cover the salaries of assigned agents, their travel, supplies, equipment, and 

other needs. These agents are specifically assigned to work cases related to the Act 

and have led our investigations to date. 

Operation Al Zuni 

Operation Al Zuni is a multi-year investigation that centered around two organized networks who have been in the Native American jewelry business for years, 

and who perpetrated an international scheme to illegally sell Filipino-made jewelry 

as authentic Native-American-made. Through our investigations, we learned that 

members of both networks established and operated manufacturing facilities in the 

Philippines for the purpose of replicating and producing Native American-style jewelry and crafts. The items were then exported to business associates in the United 

States and sold in stores in Albuquerque, Gallup, Santa Fe, and Zuni, NM, and 

Calistoga, CA as genuine Native American items. The businesses imported Native 

American-style jewelry with an approximate declared value of $11 million. However, 

the networks were able to turn a large profit at the retail level on these items, as 

the value of this jewelry sold as authentic Native American-made items is substantially higher. 

Operation Al Zuni is the largest investigation to date into fraudulent Native 

American jewelry sales under the Act. Over a period of four years, special agents 

based in the Southwest built the case by collaborating with the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and our own attache ́

in Bangkok to visit the manufacturing facilities in the Philippines. Wildlife inspectors and special agents would document and mark the fraudulent jewelry, track the 

shipment to the final destination in the U.S., and follow it to its distribution and 

ultimate display in retail locations in New Mexico and California. Our agents were 

also able to purchase marked fraudulent items through undercover purchases. The 

Service partnered with numerous state, federal, and foreign agencies throughout the 

investigation, including on the day of the execution of the search warrants and arrest warrants, when we worked closely with the FBI, HSI, U.S. Marshals Service, 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, tribal 

law enforcement authorities, and the Philippine National Bureau of Investigations. 

The investigative activity has been extensive and far-reaching, taking place in 

New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, California, Colorado, Alaska, Nevada and the Philippines. Our work led to the execution of sixteen search warrants and three arrest 

warrants with the seizure of approximately $320,000 in funds, over 200,000 pieces 

of jewelry, and one vehicle. To date, six of the subjects have been indicted, pending 

trial. In addition to charges of violating the Act, federal prosecutors have also 

charged the defendants with violations of federal fraudulent importation, money 

laundering, wire fraud and mail fraud laws. Through the course of this investigation, other businesses and individuals have been identified but not yet charged. 

Those charged to date include Imad Aysheh, formerly of Gallup, NM, and Iyad 

Aysheh, of Lodi, CA. Imad is the owner and operator of Imad’s Jewelry, a jewelry 

manufacturing business in the Philippines. Iyad is CEO and agent for IJ Wholesale, 

Inc., a California corporation that imports jewelry into the United States. The 

Aysheh family built the international scheme, established the production facilities, 

sent authentic Native American items to the Philippines to be mass reproduced, and 

then imported the fraudulent pieces into the U.S. for illegal sale. 

Also charged were Nael Ali and Mohammad Abed Manasra, both of Albuquerque, 

NM; Nedal Aysheh, formerly of Gallup, NM; and Raed Aysheh, of American Canyon, 

CA. Ali is the owner of two jewelry stores, Gallery 8 and Galleria Azul, in Albuquerque’s Old Town that purport to specialize in the sale of Native American jewelry. 

Manasra is a wholesaler of Native American jewelry, and Raed and Nedal are partners managing Golden Bear & Legacy, LLC, a retail store in Calistoga, CA that specializes in Native American-style jewelry. These individuals distributed and sold the 

jewelry that was made in the Philippines and transported to the U.S. by the Aysheh 

family. 

As a result of the actions taken in this investigation, numerous business and networks identified throughout this case have either discontinued the production and 

importation of fraudulent Native American jewelry, or changed their business practices to include properly labeling items with the country of origin. 

18 

Scope of the Problem 

Despite the successful results of Operation Al Zuni, we believe we have just 

scratched the surface of the illegal activity occurring in the southwestern United 

States, and across the country. As evidenced by the 2011 Indian Arts and Crafts 

GAO report, there is much more that can be done to enforce the Act. In addition, 

our investigative work has shown that there is a significant presence of fraudulent 

Native American jewelry for sale in retail stores in the four-corners region of the 

Southwest. This influx of fraudulent jewelry drives legitimate Native American artists out of a flooded market and in some cases forces them to cooperate with the 

distributors in order to maintain a livelihood. Further, our investigation has only 

examined markets for fraudulent jewelry. We have not begun to take a comprehensive look into the markets for other Native American items in the Southwest, including pottery, paintings, blankets, etc., where there is likely similar fraudulent activity that is occurring. 

Furthermore, we believe this is not just a problem for the markets in the Southwest. Other locations across the country that have high volume sales for tourists 

and visitors are prime targets for illegal activity to sell fraudulent Native American 

art and crafts. We have seen evidence to that effect. The Service has built cases in 

Alaska and Hawaii, with very similar circumstances involving areas with high tourist sales, but involving different types of art. They help exemplify and illustrate the 

potential scope and geographic reach of this illegal activity. 

In southeast Alaska, the Service began an investigation in May 2014 based on 

complaints from tourists regarding the illegal misrepresentation of bone art carvings 

as genuine Alaska Native products. Our investigation found that the products were 

actually made by local non-native carvers and were being fraudulently labeled as 

genuine Alaska Native products. Charges were filed against four business owners 

and one employee for violations of the Act. These resulted in four convictions, thousands of dollars in fines and restitution, and twelve years of combined probation. 

In Hawaii, our investigations took a slightly different turn in that we found fraudulent Native American art and crafts being made with illegal wildlife products. As 

part of a joint undercover investigation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration from 2013 to 2015, the Service uncovered a smuggling ring in Honolulu run through Hawaiian Accessories, Inc. The company was found to be selling 

illegally acquired ivory, bone, and coral carvings and jewelry made from whale, walrus, black coral and other wildlife. The illegal wildlife products were sent to the 

Philippines to be carved and then smuggled back to Hawaii to be sold and fraudulently labeled as genuine Hawaiian-made products. As a result of our investigation, 

the president of Hawaiian Accessories, Inc. and several employees were sentenced 

for felony charges of conspiracy, smuggling wildlife into and out of the U.S., and violations of the Lacey Act. 

Another area of concern uncovered by our investigations is individual, high profile 

artists utilizing false tribal affiliations. These artists promote a fraudulent cultural 

standing within the Native art community and take lucrative art show slots away 

from legitimate Native artists. For example, in response to a complaint to the 

Board, the Service investigated an individual for utilizing a fraudulent tribal identification card to sell his Indian artwork at fairs and on-line. Our investigation, which 

included an undercover buy, confirmed that Terry Lee Whetstone, of Odessa, MO 

was using a fraudulent Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma enrollment card in conjunction with the sale of his products. The Cherokee Nation verified that Terry Lee 

Whetstone is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Whetstone pled guilty and was 

sentenced to three years of probation in 2015. 

Conclusion 

Investigations conducted by Service special agents, specifically Operation Al Zuni, 

have been very successful in enforcing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and finally 

bringing criminals who have illegally sold fraudulent Native American art for years 

to justice. However, the scope of the problem is far larger than expected. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has established a strong partnership with the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Board to enforce the Act, educate consumers about the issue of fraudulent art, and deter further illegal activity. The protection of tribal nations is of the 

utmost importance to the Department of the Interior, and safeguarding tribal art 

and crafts is integral to that mission and vital to the livelihoods and culture of tribal nations. The Service is committed to continuing this important work and looks 

forward to working with you to raise awareness of the issue and improve implementation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chief Woody. 

19 

Please, Miss Shappert, please go forward. 

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, INDIAN, VIOLENT AND CYBER CRIME, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE 

Ms. SHAPPERT. Thank you. My name is Gretchen Shappert. I’m 

the Assistant Director for the Indian, Violent and Cyber Crime 

Staff for the Department of Justice. I want to thank the Vice 

Chairman and Senator Heinrich for this opportunity and for documenting this very important field hearing. I also want to thank the 

Santa Fe Indian School for this opportunity. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act was enacted to protect Native 

American artists and artisans who rely on the creation and sale of 

traditional and contemporary art and craftwork to support their 

economic livelihood, preserve their unique heritage, and transfer 

their extraordinary culture and values to succeeding generations. 

Under the Act, it is illegal to sell art or craft products in a manner 

that falsely suggests those products were produced by American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

A 2011 Government Accountability Office Report concluded that 

the size of the Indian arts and crafts markets and the extent of 

misrepresentation are unknown, in part because no national database specifically tracks Indian arts and craft sales or misrepresentations. Furthermore, the GOA Report noted that U.S. Federal and 

state laws protecting intellectual property rights do not explicitly 

include Native American and Alaska Native traditional knowledge 

and cultural expressions—such as the processes for weaving baskets—and therefore provide little protection for them. 

Native American artisans have voiced concerns that the traditional knowledge of how to create Native arts and crafts—often 

passed down from generation to generation within the tribes—will 

not be carried forward by younger generations if they cannot make 

a living producing these goods. Hence, enforcement and education 

about the current Act is vital to ensuring the integrity of Native 

arts and crafts. 

Here in the District of New Mexico, my colleagues in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office have used the criminal provisions of the Act, together with other Federal statutes, to prosecute criminal misrepresentations of inauthentic items as genuine Indian arts and crafts. 

Two criminal prosecutions will demonstrate the significance of 

these cases. 

Andrew Gene Alvarez of Woffard Heights, California, was a 

prominent jeweler who alternately represented himself as Mescalero Apache, Colville, and Mayo Indian. He also used an alias, ‘‘Andrew Red Horse Alvarez.’’ He came to the attention of Federal law 

enforcement because he was misrepresenting jewelry that he was 

selling in an art show at the Santa Fe Convention Center and said 

it was made by an Indian. Mr. Alvarez was prosecuted under the 

Act here in New Mexico, entered a guilty plea and was sentenced 

to 30 months of probation to be followed by a year of supervised 

release. 

As part of his sentence, he was prohibited from representing that 

any of the jewelry he produced was of Indian origin. According to 

20 

Federal law enforcement officials in New Mexico, this prosecution 

was widely noted in the Native arts and crafts market, thereby 

serving as a potential deterrent to other potential fraudsters who 

might be tempted to engage in similar conduct. 

The second example of criminal prosecution here in New Mexico 

was a case of Rose Morris—she was on one of the slides we saw 

earlier—who was sentenced to a probationary sentence of five 

years—and excuse me—of a prosecution payment of $38,000, having claimed the rugs she was selling were made by Native Americans. In fact, she randomly purchased the rugs from miscellaneous 

sources with no connection to Native craftsmen. 

In other cases, Federal prosecutors have used a wide variety of 

Federal statutes—wire fraud and mail fraud in particular—to apprehend criminal offenders engaged in similar fraudulent conduct 

involving misrepresentation of supposedly Indian arts and crafts. 

Criminal prosecutions are not the only way that Federal prosecutors support enforcement of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Representatives of the New Mexico U.S. Attorneys’ Office have engaged 

in frequent outreach initiatives to tribal leaders and community 

members to inform them about the purpose and provisions of the 

Act. As part of their training and outreach, U.S. Attorney representatives encourage tribal leaders and citizens to report violations of the Act to Federal law enforcement for possible Federal 

prosecution. U.S. Attorneys’ Office leadership has routinely discussed the Act and its consequences at District-wide Tribal Consultations and during the more than 50 training seminars and programs conducted throughout the District by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office through the past two years. 

The scope of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act changed dramatically over the years. The Act has been amended several times since 

its initial enactment in 1935. Amendments in 1990, 2000, and 2010 

increased penalties, expanded enforcement from exclusive FBI jurisdiction to include all Federal law enforcement agencies and 

strengthened enforcement provisions. Application of the Act is not 

limited to retail sales of misrepresented goods. The Act can be used 

to address large-scale importations as we saw on the slides earlier. 

The 1990 Act also amended civil remedies and authorized civil 

suits by Indian tribes on behalf of themselves, individuals, as well 

as by Indian arts and crafts organizations. The 2010 amendments 

expanded civil enforcement by authorizing Indian arts and crafts 

organizations, as well as individual Indians, to file civil suits on 

their own. It also provided for civil lawsuits against manufacturers, 

wholesalers, and others involved in the distribution of the misrepresented product. Enabling Native Americans to pursue civil 

remedies independent from Federal law enforcement enhances the 

scope and deterrence of the Act. 

United States Custom and Border Protection also has a role in 

maintaining the authenticity of Indian-style arts and crafts. Since 

1990, CBP regulations require that imported Native American-style 

arts and crafts must generally be indelibly marked with a country 

of origin by cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping or some other 

comparable permanent identification. Investigations in these cases 

referred may require international assistance from foreign governVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
21 

ments and the commitment of significant law enforcement resources. 

Another means of protecting the integrity of Native-made arts 

and crafts is through trademarks used in commerce, which can be 

registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or a state by 

Indian artists, tribes, or arts and crafts organizations to identify 

authentic Indian products. 

Finally, at least a dozen states, including New Mexico, have enacted laws prohibiting the sale of falsely labeled Indian arts and 

crafts. Under the state law of New Mexico, as you know very well, 

Vice Chairman, cases are being prosecuted both as misdemeanors 

and felonies, depending on the value of the item, or they may be 

the basis for permanent injunctive relief and court-ordered restitution. 

Of course, one of the reasons for today’s hearing is to discuss possible ways to modernize and improve the effectiveness of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Act. The Department of Justice is always receptive 

to more effective legislative tools to help us protect the rights and 

public safety of Americans. We look forward to working with Congress to improve the Act. 

Violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act currently cannot be 

prosecuted, for example, through the Federal money-laundering 

statutes, because these violations do not meet the definition of 

specified unlawful activities under the money-laundering statutes. 

The Federal money-laundering statutes are powerful tools to address the proceeds derived from criminal activity. 

Finally, for felony prosecutions under the Act, the sale or price 

of the misrepresented goods or products must be, quote, ‘‘a total 

price of $1,000 or more.’’ Because of the nature of the Indian arts 

and crafts business, many fraudulent dealers sell large quantities 

of misidentified products where each individual item sells for significantly less than $1,000, although gross sales of the 

misidentified items exceed the $1,000 threshold. Allowing for an 

aggregation of individual transactions would enable Federal prosecutors to more effectively prosecute large-scale distributors who 

violate the Act. 

An example of this approach is Title 18, U.S. Section 641, the 

Theft of Public Money statute, which allows an aggregation of the 

value of property, money or things of value to reach the $1,000 

threshold for felony prosecution. 

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I wanted to thank the 

Committee for the opportunity to appear here today, and I’m happy 

to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN C.F. SHAPPERT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INDIAN, 

VIOLENT AND CYBER CRIME, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

My name is Gretchen Shappert, and I am the Assistant Director of the Indian, 

Violent and Cyber Crime Staff in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. On behalf 

of the Department of Justice and on behalf of my colleagues in the United States 

Attorney’s Office (USAO) here in the District of New Mexico, I want to thank the 

Committee, Chairman Hoeven, and Vice-Chairman Udall for convening this important oversight field hearing. I also wish to thank the Santa Fe Indian School for 

hosting us today. 

22 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act was enacted to protect Native American artists 

and artisans who rely on the creation and sale of traditional and contemporary art 

and craftwork to support their economic livelihood, preserve their unique heritage, 

and transfer their extraordinary culture and values to succeeding generations. 

Under the Act, it is illegal to sell art or craft products in a manner that falsely suggests that those products were produced by American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

A 2011 Government Accountably Office Report concluded that the size of the Indian arts and crafts markets and the extent of misrepresentation are unknown, in 

part because no national database specifically tracks Indian arts and crafts sales or 

misrepresentations. Furthermore, the GAO Report noted that U.S. federal and state 

laws protecting intellectual property do not explicitly include Native American and 

Alaska Native traditional knowledge and cultural expressions—such as processes for 

weaving baskets—and therefore provide little legal protection for them. Native 

American artisans have voiced concerns that the traditional knowledge of how to 

create Native arts and crafts—often passed down from generation to generation 

within the tribes—will not be carried forward by younger generations if they cannot 

make a living producing these goods. Hence, enforcement and education about the 

current Act is vital to ensuring the integrity of Native arts and crafts. 

Here in the District of New Mexico, my colleagues in the USAO have used the 

criminal provisions of the Act, together with other federal criminal statutes, to prosecute misrepresentations of inauthentic items as genuine Indian arts and crafts. 

Two criminal prosecutions will demonstrate the significance of these cases. Andrew 

Gene Alvarez of Wofford Heights, California, was a prominent jeweler who alternatively represented himself as Mescalero Apache, Colville, and Mayo Indian. He 

also used an alias, ‘‘Andrew ‘Red Horse’ Alvarez.’’ He came to the attention of federal law enforcement, because he was misrepresenting that the jewelry he was selling at an art show in the Santa Fe Convention Center was made by an Indian. Mr. 

Alvarez was prosecuted under the Act, entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 

30 months of probation to be followed by a year of supervised release. As part of 

his sentence, he was prohibited from representing that any of the jewelry he produced was of Indian origin. According to federal law enforcement officials in New 

Mexico, this prosecution was widely noted in the Native arts and crafts market, 

thereby serving as a potential deterrent to other potential fraudsters, who might be 

tempted to engage in similar conduct. 

A second example of a criminal prosecution here in the District of New Mexico 

was the case of Rose Morris, who was sentenced to a probationary sentence of five 

years, following her guilty plea to two counts of misrepresentation of Indian produced goods and products. Ms. Morris falsely claimed that the rugs she was selling 

were made by Native Americans, when in fact she randomly purchased the rugs 

from miscellaneous sources with no connection to Native craftsmen. In other cases, 

federal prosecutors have used a variety of federal statutes, such as wire fraud and 

mail fraud, to apprehend criminal offenders engaged in similar fraudulent conduct 

involving the misrepresentation of supposedly Indian arts and crafts. 

Criminal prosecutions are not the only way that federal prosecutors support enforcement of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Representatives of the New Mexico 

USAO have engaged in frequent outreach initiatives to tribal leaders and community members to inform them about the purpose and provisions of the Act. As part 

of their training and outreach, U.S. Attorney representatives encourage tribal leaders and citizens to report violations of the Act to federal law enforcement for possible prosecution. USAO leadership has routinely discussed the Act and its consequences at District-wide Tribal Consultations and during the more than 50 training seminars and programs conducted throughout the District by the USAO during 

the past two years. 

The scope of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act has changed dramatically over the 

years. The Act has been amended several times since its initial enactment in 1935. 

Amendments in 1990, 2000, and 2010 increased penalties, expanded enforcement 

from exclusive FBI jurisdiction to include any federal law enforcement agency, and 

strengthened enforcement provisions. Application of the Act is not limited to retail 

sales of misrepresented goods. The Act can be used to address large-scale importations by corporate distributors. The 1990 amendment also added civil remedies and 

authorized civil suits by an Indian tribe on behalf of itself, an individual Indian who 

is a member of the tribe, or an Indian arts and crafts organization. The 2010 

amendments expanded civil enforcement by authorizing Indian arts and crafts organizations, as well as individual Indians, to file civil suits on their own. It also provided for civil law suits against manufacturers, wholesalers, and others involved in 

the distribution of the misrepresented product. Enabling Native Americans to pursue civil remedies independent from federal law enforcement enhances the scope 

and deterrence effects of the Act. 

23 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also has a role in maintaining the authenticity of Indian-style arts and crafts. Since 1990, CBP regulations require that 

imported Native American-style arts and crafts must generally be indelibly marked 

with the country of origin by cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping or some other 

comparable permanent identification. Investigations in these cases may require 

international assistance from foreign governments and the commitment of significant law enforcement resources. 

Another means of protecting the integrity of Native-made arts and crafts is 

through trademarks used in commerce, which can be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or a state by Indian artists, tribes, or arts and crafts organizations to identify authentic Indian products. 

Finally, at least a dozen states—including New Mexico—have enacted laws prohibiting the sale of items falsely labelled as Indian arts and crafts. Under the state 

law of New Mexico, the sale or attempted sale of products falsely described as Indian labor or workmanship may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, depending upon the value of the items, or may be the basis for permanent injunctive relief 

and court-ordered restitution. 

Of course, one of the reasons for today’s hearing is to discuss possible ways to 

modernize and improve the effectiveness of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. The Department of Justice is always receptive to more effective legislative tools to help us 

protect the rights and public safety of Americans. We look forward to working with 

Congress to improve the Act. 

Second, violations of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act cannot currently be prosecuted through the federal money-laundering statutes, because these violations do 

not meet the statutory definition of specified unlawful activities under the moneylaundering statutes. The federal money-laundering statutes are powerful tools to address the proceeds derived from criminal activity. 

Finally, for felony prosecutions under the Act, the sale or price of the misrepresented good or product must be ‘‘a total price of $ 1,000 or more’’. Because of the 

nature of the Indian arts and crafts business, many fraudulent dealers sell large 

quantities of misidentified products where each individual items sells for significantly less than $ 1,000, although gross sales of the misidentified arts and crafts 

far exceed the $ 1,000 threshold. Allowing for an aggregation of individual transactions would enable federal prosecutors to more effectively prosecute large-scale 

distributors who violate the Act. An example of this approach is Title 18 USC a 641, 

the Theft of Public Money statute, which allows for an aggregation of the value of 

property, money or things of value to reach the $ 1,000 threshold for felony prosecutions. 

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I wanted to thank the Committee for the 

opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Miss Shappert, and thank 

all the witnesses for traveling out and for being here and for your 

excellent testimony. 

And we want to emphasize, from what you hear today, you can 

submit additions or addendums to your testimony as we move 

along. As several of you mentioned, as New Mexico’s Attorney General, I prosecuted cases under state law that related to illegal sale 

of counterfeit Native American jewelry. 

And at the time in the 1990s, it was estimated about 30 or 40 

percent of the jewelry on the market was counterfeit. So it was a 

big problem then. But now I understand that as much as 80 percent of those goods are likely counterfeit and therefore being sold 

in violation of Federal law. 

This doubling in a matter of decades is very alarming to me. So 

Chief Woody, can you provide an estimate on a percentage or even 

a range of the amount of counterfeit jewelry being sold in the local 

markets in New Mexico or in any other markets you’re familiar 

with. 

Mr. WOODY. I can tell you that Slide 1 showed you, that’s all 

fraudulent. That is a hard—you know, it’s very hard to get that figure. I don’t know how you would go about doing it, because you 

24 

have the legal market, you have the illegal market that gets mixed 

in, used as a cover, if you will, for all the illegal and really when 

we’re working one of these enterprises at a time, it’s focused on 

that, I don’t know how you would extrapolate that out. 

You know, I figure you throw out around 40, 50 percent back 

then, you know, I would speak to these cases. Yes, it’s much higher. I can’t tell you how much higher, because the retail market and 

retail stores are doing it. They could be as high as 80 percent, but 

that’s a hard statement for me to make, sir. 

Senator UDALL. And Miss Stanton, the primary purpose of the 

IACA is to protect Indian artists and businesses, tribal economics 

and culture. In fact, it was enacted in response to the growing influx of counterfeit Indian art and craftwork that was seriously 

eroding the market for authentic Indian products. How successful 

has the IACA been in fulfilling this purpose? 

Ms. STANTON. Well, again, as I mentioned in the earlier testimony, we have had Federal prosecutions. So I think that is positive. And certainly, now working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, that number will dramatically rise. But a lot of what we do is 

try to educate the public and to try to send messages to the industry as well to prevent the sale. 

That’s really what we’re focusing on in addition to law enforcement. So by better educating the consumer and sending messages 

to the overall industry, we think that we have made inroads with 

that. You saw on some of the slides that we have, we do consumer 

protection brochures. We instituted doing that in the New Mexico 

AG’s office. We did that with the other state attorney general’s offices. Also, we do a lot of work with the Federal Trade Commission, 

and we work with a lot of Indian organizations; whether it’s the 

American Indian, Alaska Native Tourism Association, Indian Arts 

and Crafts Association. 

So a lot of it is really focused on education and outreach. And, 

you know, we would love to do more. But we certainly feel that now 

that we’re partnering with Fish and Wildlife Service, we’re in a far 

better place. 

Senator UDALL. Could you please elaborate a little bit, Miss 

Stanton, on the impacts of counterfeit Indian art on tribal communities, on their economy, on their social activity, and on their culture? 

Ms. STANTON. Of course each community is different. Each tribe 

is different. But I think overall, especially in the Southwest, it’s 

had really devastating effects economically, as I said, passing down 

the traditions. And certainly, Senator Campbell was very articulate 

in talking about how many people depend on this for a living; that 

it’s so difficult to compete with the materials coming in from overseas. That is, it’s what he says, depending on the dollar. 

So it’s frustrating. It’s economically destabilizing, and a great 

deal needs to continue to be done and expanded on this effort. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that. 

Chief Woody, you’ve dedicated your career with the service to enforcement of Federal laws that protect endangered and threatened 

species, migratory birds, marine mammals, and global wildlife and 

plant resources. How did this service come to the investigative auVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
25 

thority, have the investigative authority over the alleged violations 

of the IACA? 

Mr. WOODY. Amendments to the Act. It allowed for any Federal 

law enforcement officer to investigate violations of the Act. And 

being a good friend of Miss Stanton’s, her walking in the door with 

a cup of coffee helped an awful lot. 

Senator UDALL. We appreciate that. 

Under the MOIA how many law enforcement officers are currently assigned to investigate IACA violations? Is that enough to 

meet the overall demand? 

Mr. WOODY. Officers that are working on it do the best they can 

with what they have. There is a dedicated—there are several dedicated officers who work on Indian arts and crafts issues. Also, we 

have—when we’re doing the projects at certain points, we get help 

from HSI, FBI, every Federal agency that’s tied into export-import 

into the country; State Department, strong support from DOJ, 

states, counties, county officials, local Native American tribes. 

We get a lot of support on this work. 

Senator UDALL. Could you talk a little bit more about the 2012 

memorandum of agreement between the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the IACB? 

Mr. WOODY. Sure. Really what that is, the IABC essentially pays 

for the agents and the work they do. The agents work for Fish and 

Wildlife Service, they work for me, and we do the work. It’s really, 

essentially—it’s cost recovery for us, is what that MOA is. 

Senator UDALL. Miss Stanton, it sounds like the MOA has helped 

address outstanding enforcement of the IACA somewhat, but are 

there more boots on the ground needed to adequately address the 

problem of trading on the Indian-made goods covered by the law? 

Ms. STANTON. I would say that if additional agents were made 

available, they would have plenty to do. 

Senator UDALL. And it looks like, Chief Woody, you agree with 

that. 

Mr. WOODY. Yes, I do. 

Senator UDALL. Miss Shappert, do you also? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. I will defer to my law enforcement colleagues as 

to the resources they needed. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

Senator Heinrich, the floor is yours for questions. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall. 

Chief, when you find a case like this when large amounts of jewelry are coming into the country fraudulently labeled, are you able 

to seize those shipments under the current statute? 

Mr. WOODY. They are seized for evidence, yes. 

Senator UDALL. Can you seize them on forfeiture? 

Mr. WOODY. On forfeiture, no. 

Senator HEINRICH. Would it be helpful to have an amendment to 

the statute that addressed that particularly? 

Mr. WOODY. We would be more than happy to sit down with you 

and look at that very closely. You know, one thing we don’t want— 

when you’re dealing with—look at it this way. You don’t want a 

criminal enterprise to look at penalties in the Act, just consider it 

a cost of doing business. 

26 

Senator HEINRICH. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOODY. In other words, you know, they look at the fine, and they say—you know, we’re talking $11 million in this particular 

case. $250,000 is really a pittance on them. You know, is that a 

cost of doing business for the criminal enterprise? Yeah, I’d say. 

You want to look at enhancements to the Act, and you want that 

Act to act as a deterrent, if you will, just knowing what’s in it. 

Senator HEINRICH. Miss Shappert mentioned potential changes 

to the Federal money-laundering definition to allow to meet the 

definition. The aggregation of value to meet the thousand-dollar 

threshold. Are there similar changes that you can think of, Chief, 

that would, that you bumped up against in the—in trying to prosecute these cases or investigate these cases? 

Mr. WOODY. As Gretchen stated, that is one of the ones we’ve 

talked about a bit amongst the officers, the agents, and us. But 

having policy discussions, we need—again, I’m more than happy— 

or someone is more than happy to sit down with you on technical 

issues. 

Senator HEINRICH. You concur that those two changes would be 

helpful? 

Mr. WOODY. Yes. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. 

In the Al Zuni case, did we have cooperation from Philippine law 

enforcement? 

Mr. WOODY. Yes, we did. We had good cooperation from the Philippine government. 

Senator HEINRICH. Is that possible, apart, because of Fish and 

Wildlife’s role in also working with foreign countries, in Southeast 

Asia and other places in wildlife trafficking issues? 

Mr. WOODY. Yeah. In the last several years, we’ve been able to 

put agents out throughout the world. We have fellow agents that 

are attache ́s stationed in a number of countries; the Asian countries, Africa, working on a number of issues. They’re working 

strongly—a lot of work we do in the Philippines, we’ve built longterm, good relationships there. 

And yes, that helped immensely. 

Senator HEINRICH. Miss Stanton, you went through some of the 

educational efforts that you are currently pursuing to give people 

the knowledge to know the difference. Are you pursuing a similar 

strategy online as what you’ve done with print, kiosks, and other 

places in the state of New Mexico? 

Ms. STANTON. Well, in particular, we worked closely with the 

legal departments of a number of online marketing platforms. That 

would be Amazon, Etsy, eBay, and Artfire, in particular. And we 

had a lot of complaints about online marketing, I will tell you that, 

and we really value the complaints we get from the public, and we 

try to do our own monitoring as well. But it is extensive, the problems with Internet marketing. 

What we typically do is, once we see potential violations, we will 

reach out to the vendor, and that’s the first real collaboration with 

that platform, and they will provide the contact information, and 

then we will do our due diligence in trying to determine the extent 

of the violation and communicating with that vendor on how to 

comply. 

27 

If they don’t comply, we have them dropped. So that’s one of the 

really good vehicles that we have to monitor online marketing. 

Senator HEINRICH. How often—what has the relationship been 

like with some of those large online vendor platforms? 

Ms. STANTON. EBay in particular was really our first agreement. 

And they’ve been excellent. And there are some challenges every 

step of the way, but Etsy now has come around, and we’ve been 

working with them, and Amazon, who’s massive, and Artfire. So 

whenever we have the opportunity, we reach out and try to get collaborations with their legal departments. 

Senator HEINRICH. For any of you, really, do you have a sense 

for how oftentimes a retail store or a vendor knows that what 

they’re marketing is actually fraudulently labeled? 

Ms. STANTON. Well, I certainly think in the operation of the Al 

Zuni case, everybody was understanding what was going on. It’s— 

you know, greed does a lot of things to people. 

Senator HEINRICH. Miss Shappert, I wanted to ask you, the 2011 

GAO report cites that there isn’t a national database to track these 

kinds of Indian arts and crafts sales. Is that true, and should there 

be a database to track this kind of thing? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. To be honest, Senator, I think it points to a problem. I don’t know if there could be a database, because of the individuality of the art. So I think it underscores the challenges associated with these kind of investigations, and that’s one of the reasons, because the art is so individualized between different tribes. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. I want to thank you all for your testimony. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Senator Heinrich. 

Miss Stanton, the expansion of retail sales online has changed 

the face of commerce and allowed consumers incredible access to 

products around the world and around the globe. But I imagine 

this access presents the challenges with respect to online sales of 

Native arts and crafts and IACA enforcement. 

Does the Board’s mission to promote Indian economic development through expansion of Native art and craft market include ecommerce? A simple Google search reveals online retailers, such as 

Etsy and eBay, selling goods as vintage or authentic Native American jewelry. Does the IACA provide the tools necessary to enforce 

violations with e-commerce? 

Ms. STANTON. Well, a violation is a violation. And so whether it’s 

occurring on eBay or Etsy or Downtown Santa Fe or—you know, 

we treat it all equally. And as I mentioned, we work with the legal 

departments of these online platforms. And we feel well served. 

But there’s still so much to do. It just really is a tremendous problem. 

Senator UDALL. Does the IACB certify reputable online retailers? 

Ms. STANTON. We have a source directory of American Indian 

and Alaska Native-owned and operated arts and crafts businesses. 

To be listed in that directory, you have to be a member of a federally recognized tribe and provide your tribal documentation. And 

that’s a free opportunity for Indian artists to promote their work, 

and we publish that online. 

Senator UDALL. Do you think the IACB should certify reputable 

online retailers? 

28 

Ms. STANTON. We could certainly look into that. We have not 

done so thus far, but we’d be happy to do that. 

Senator UDALL. Do you believe that these fraudulent online 

sales, are they a significant problem? 

Ms. STANTON. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. What is the extent of that problem, as far 

as your knowledge of it? 

Ms. STANTON. I couldn’t give you a percentage. But I can tell you 

from the complaints we receive every day, that authentic Indian 

artists and authentic Indian art businesses are not happy at all, 

because of the competition. 

Senator UDALL. For the record, would you be able to give us 

some numbers on the numbers of complaints that you have gotten? 

Ms. STANTON. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. That would be very helpful. 

Chief, do you have any comment in this area? 

Mr. WOODY. We do a lot of work on the Internet, whether wildlife 

work or some of this other. As Meredith stated, it is immense. I 

think there are some pretty good tools out there that you may be 

aware of. We’re working online, and we’ve got some backup. Customs and Border Patrol and DHS has been absolutely a good partner working with us on these cases. 

They have a location called Commercial Targeting Analysis Center. We’ll have agents work online, and you can move it over to the 

Commercial Targeting Analysis Center. And you can focus on some 

really specific things off of that. There’s a lot of good things going 

on behind the scenes. 

I welcome you out, when you’re back in D.C. at any time, we’d 

be more than happy to show you some of those locations and the 

great work that goes on behind the scenes there. 

Senator UDALL. We should probably have a visit and take a look 

at that. That would be very helpful. 

Mr. WOODY. I look forward to it, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Do tribal governments play a role or could they 

play a role in certifying authentic Native American arts and crafts 

for sale online? 

Ms. STANTON. They certainly could. They sometimes do have 

their own version of a certification program. I know the Cherokee 

in Oklahoma, and in a different forum that we talked about in 

Oklahoma, have similar issues as well as—I think that perhaps the 

Cherokee in North Carolina. 

Senator UDALL. Chief, have—and also to Miss Shappert—have 

any charges been brought against retailers for violating the IACA 

for online sales or any pending? 

Mr. WOODY. Not that I am aware of, off the top of my head. 

Ms. SHAPPERT. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. WOODY. Not that we’re working on. 

Senator UDALL. Do you have agents that are looking for illegal 

activity online? 

Mr. WOODY. Depends on what the agents are working on. Assigned to the cases they’re working on right now, yes. But talking 

specifically, that—I can’t answer that question. 

29 

Senator UDALL. Do you think it would be helpful to dedicate resources to improving fraudulent—to looking at the fraudulent online sales? 

Mr. WOODY. With the right information coming in, absolutely, 

yes. 

Senator UDALL. Miss Shappert? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. We would be delighted, in the Department of Justice, to review anything that our colleagues in Fish and Wildlife 

bring to us from their online searches for possible Federal prosecution. 

Senator UDALL. Okay, great. 

I’d like to turn to the recent Fish and Wildlife Service investigation known as Operation Al Zuni that’s been reported as the largest investigation ever into fraudulent Native American jewelry 

sales under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

As reported in the press, this case involves individuals who established and operated manufacturing facilities in the Philippines 

in order to market and sell Native American-style jewelry and 

handicrafts as authentic Indian-made. Counterfeit Indian-made 

jewelry, in particular, was sold in stores located in Albuquerque 

and Santa Fe with heavy tourist foot traffic. 

So from Miss Shappert and Chief Woody, I know this is an ongoing investigation, but to the extent you can answer, does Operation 

Al Zuni—does that investigation go deeper than the individuals 

who were indicted earlier this year? 

In other words, are more indictments coming in this case? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. With all due respect, we cannot comment on ongoing investigations. 

Senator UDALL. Chief, you’re in the same position on that one? 

Mr. WOODY. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. And I would just advise everybody to look at the 

reporting that’s out there, because there’s some very good reporting 

that I think elucidates some of these issues, and we’ll look forward 

to be following what’s going on. 

Is DOJ and Fish and Wildlife Service prioritizing this investigation, and would you characterize this case to be part of a broader 

network of counterfeiters? 

Mr. WOODY. The case is prioritized. We have had—New Mexico 

Attorneys’ Office has been absolutely top-notch with this. It is a 

priority. There are a number of cases out there being worked. 

Senator UDALL. Okay. Good. I wanted to have that for the 

record. 

You testified that the declared value of sales in fraudulent Native American-style jewelry related to this investigation is 11 million. But is that the retail value or is it substantially higher? 

Mr. WOODY. That’s the declared value coming into the U.S. I 

would say maybe Meredith can answer this better. You know, 

whether it’s a wholesale after that or retail after that, it’s substantially much higher. So that is the declared value when it comes 

into the U.S. 

Senator UDALL. Is there a way to—please go ahead. 

Ms. STANTON. I don’t think it would be farfetched to say that the 

11 million easily turns into double that. 

Senator UDALL. So that’s your best guess at this point. 

30 

Ms. STANTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Chief, would you argue with that? 

Mr. WOODY. No, I would not argue with Meredith. 

Senator UDALL. And obviously, this is an enormous amount of 

money that should be going back to Indian Country. Native jewelers and artisans rely on their works to earn a living, provide for 

their families and sustain their cultural expression and identities 

from generation to generation, not to mention its impact on consumer confidence in the Indian art market. 

In other words, this is not a victimless crime. Miss Shappert and 

Chief Woody, what are your agencies doing to combat the spread 

of violations of the IACA? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. Well, I reference to you—first of all, Chief Woody 

has talked about some of the things that his agency is doing in collaboration with the Department of Justice. And I know from my 

colleagues in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in New Mexico, they are extremely grateful for their close partnership with Fish and Wildlife, 

which goes into many different areas of prosecution. 

We talked about the importance of deterrence, and part of that 

is, Meredith referred to us getting the message out. The U.S. Attorneys’ Office in New Mexico and other U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are 

engaged in that. They make a point of emphasizing the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Act in their trainings, their tribal consultations, and 

their meetings with other law enforcement partners so that we 

could discourage this type of activity. 

And as we saw in the Alvarez prosecution, when these cases are 

prosecuted, it does send a chill through the minds of those who 

might be tempted to commit these kind of crimes. 

Senator UDALL. Anything to add? 

Ms. STANTON. I totally agree. The deterrent value of these investigations and prosecutions, they’re just—it’s priceless. 

Senator UDALL. In your testimony, you state that, ‘‘The scope of 

the counterfeiting problem is far larger than expected.’’ 

Are there other IACA investigations ongoing, and could you 

please describe them, and are they limited to the United States, or 

is there an international component? Or is that one that we 

shouldn’t be getting into? 

Mr. WOODY. There are other cases, and there’s an international. 

Senator UDALL. Good, good. 

Well, we really appreciate your effort on this front and look forward to sharing and visiting with you, as you talked about, in 

terms of making this a top priority and also making sure that the 

people targeted are the ones that are doing the most damage. 

Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Miss Shappert, I wanted to ask you, you mentioned a couple of cases, including the case of Mr. Alvarez, that resulted in probation being handed out. Do you think that the punishments typically imposed under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act 

typically provide an adequate deterrent? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. Well, I can tell you the punishments provided are 

what the Act currently provides. And with the current sentencing 

guideline configuration, the inclination would probably be, in most 

cases, if someone doesn’t have a record, I’m speculating that they 

31 

would not get active prison time. But that’s another reason why the 

financial component of the punishment must be significant. 

Because, as important as prison is for many kinds of crimes, hitting people in the pocketbook is a real chilling deterrent for many 

fraudsters. 

Senator HEINRICH. And do you find that that portion of the penalties handed out typically does have that kind of impact? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. Well, as I indicated in my testimony, we’re very 

interested in the possibility of having conversations with the Committee, including on things like aggregation of the penalties so that 

you could go after individuals more effectively who were engaged 

in large-scale amounts of money. 

And Chief Woody referred to forfeiture as something to be considered. Asset forfeiture is a powerful tool for dealing with fraud and 

other types of crime when you can go after the instrumentalities 

and the profits and the large monetary base of these operations. 

We are happy to have any conversations with the Committee 

that they would like to have about these issues. 

Senator HEINRICH. I suspect the Committee looks forward to 

that. 

Chief, does your collaboration extend to BIA law enforcement, 

given their tribal relationships? 

Mr. WOODY. To date, we have not worked—we’ve worked with 

them on some of the operations when they’re coming to conclusion, 

working—the investigators working. We do not have anybody working with us at BIA at this point. 

That’s not to say—we’re open for those conversations with BIA 

in the future. 

Senator HEINRICH. It sounds like a lot of this is really coordination working across multiple agencies; U.S. Attorneys, Attorneys 

General, Fish and Wildlife Service, you mentioned Customs and 

Border Protection. 

Mr. WOODY. It is excellent cooperation. 

Senator HEINRICH. That’s great. 

Much of the conversation today has focused on jewelry. To what 

extent does this same sort of enforcement extend to things like textiles, pottery, ceramics, and other tribal Native American arts and 

crafts? 

Ms. STANTON. Well, certainly we have complaints about all 

media; very contemporary work; very traditional works, weavings, 

masks, carvings. In fact, these are from one of the five indictments 

in Alaska. And so it’s all across the board. 

Senator HEINRICH. Can you tell us a little bit about what those 

are? 

Mr. WOODY. Yes. So in this particular case—and again, to get to 

the crux of these cases—you’re putting people undercover and 

working these. I’m looking at the back of these, and on this particular one on my right, to your left, you’ve got a price tag of 

$1,700. And then you’ve another tag that says, ‘‘Authentic Native 

handicraft from Alaska,’’ and a third sticker that says, ‘‘Made in 

Alaska.’’ 

Just looking at that, you’re not going to know it. But again, 

working behind the scenes and getting to the fraud that went into 

making this, putting those stickers on, that’s what we focus our inVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
32 

vestigations on doing. There were a number of items similar to this 

that were seized in the case, and actually, the complaint came in 

from some tourists on what was going on behind the scenes, and 

that we worked on this case. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well, I want to thank you all again for your 

testimony today. I’m going to have to leave right now, but I’m going 

to leave you in the Vice Chairman’s very capable hands. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. I really appreciate 

you spending so much time with us here this morning. 

And let me once again just thank the witnesses. And you’re certainly invited to stay and listen to the second panel. I know you 

may be busy and heading off to other things, but really, really appreciate your travels and testimony here today. 

We’re going to take just a five-minute break to rearrange name 

tags and to sort out things up here. And so we excuse this panel, 

and we have a short recess and call up the next panel, which is 

Damon Martinez, Joyce Begay-Foss, Mr. Dallin, and Harvey Pratt. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess from 11:41 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.] 

Senator UDALL. Okay. Let’s have everybody sit down. Any conversations that are going on, we hope that you will move those off 

the floor a little bit. We understand people had a little bit hard 

time, especially the court reporter. So we really urge you to stay 

very close to your microphone. And I may remind you a little bit 

every now and then or the people behind me may say, ‘‘Speak up,’’ 

or ‘‘Move in’’ like that to the microphone. 

I just very briefly, before I introduce our second panel and proceed with them, I would like to recognize—there have been many 

tribal officials that have visited here today, in and out. And I want 

to recognize the very, very good leadership they have given on this 

issue in Indian Country. 

And we have a number of them that have been here this morning. Governor Mark Mitchell, with Tesuque; Governor Peter Garcia, Ohkay Owingeh; First Lieutenant Governor Mac Zuni with 

Isleta; Second Lieutenant Governor Marvin Trujillo, Laguna; Councilman Gil Vigil, with Tesuque; Ben Chavarria, Tribal Historic 

Preservation office, Santa Clara; Second Lieutenant Governor Matt 

Martinez, Ohkay Owingeh. 

We’ve got Councilman Pascal Anjade, Mescalero Apache; Lieutenant Governor Jerome Lucero, Zia Pueblo. And also from the 

Navajo Nation, Barbara Mago. She’s the Native arts and crafts director there. 

Let me just say once again to our second panel, thank you for 

coming, and thank you for traveling here. We really appreciate 

having you here today. We have Mr. Damon Martinez, the former 

U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico; Miss Joyce BegayFoss, director, Living Traditions Education Center at the Museum 

of Indian Arts & Culture right here located in Santa Fe; Mr. Dallin 

Maybee, chief operating officer Southwest Association for Indian 

Arts; and Mr. Harvey Pratt, a Native American artist and retired 

forensic artist from Oklahoma. 

Thank you for coming. I look forward to hearing your testimony, 

beginning with Mr. Martinez. 

Please proceed. 

33 

STATEMENT OF DAMON MARTINEZ, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, 

DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Udall. It is a great 

honor to testify before this Committee regarding the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Act. I also want to thank the Santa Fe School for 

hosting this field hearing. 

In New Mexico, we are very privileged to have Native American 

art and craftwork that reflects generations of unique culture and 

a rich heritage. In the 1990s, as an assistant Attorney General for 

the State of New Mexico, I gained an appreciation for the difference that government can make when I watched you as Attorney 

General protect Native American artists and artisans from dishonest practices. 

Now, after having served as a U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, I 

submit it is important for law enforcement—including the U.S. Attorneys’ Office—to prioritize its limited resources on prosecuting 

those who knowingly counterfeit Native American art and 

craftwork. 

To accomplish this effectively, Federal law needs to provide the 

necessary tools to investigate and prosecute those who exploit and 

undermine the cultural heritage of Native Americans. In modernizing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, I have proposed—I have respectfully proposed to this Committee seven recommendations for 

your consideration. 

Mr. Vice Chairman, also at this point, I would like to take the 

opportunity, having served in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, there’s 

two people that I want to recognize from the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. 

These are the ones who are incredible public servants, and the job 

that they do on behalf of the community, on behalf of the nation, 

they never receive credit for it. Those two people right now are 

Christopher Houghton and Jonathan Gersen who are in the audience today. They are true public servants, and they deserve credit 

for the work that they do. 

And at this point, I would just answer any questions you have 

on the second set of recommendations that I’ll make, or any other 

questions that you would wish to propose. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAMON MARTINEZ, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF

NEW MEXICO, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Good morning. Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, Senator Heinrich, and 

members of the Committee on Indian Affairs, it is a great honor to testify before 

the Committee regarding the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

In New Mexico, we are very privileged to have Native American art and craftwork 

that reflects generations of unique culture and a rich heritage. In the 1990s, as an 

Assistant Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, I gained an appreciation 

for the difference that government can make when I watched then Attorney General 

Tom Udall protect Native American artists and artisans from dishonest practices. 

Now, after having served as the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, I submit it is important for law enforcement, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, to prioritize its’ 

limited resources on prosecuting those who knowingly counterfeit Native American 

art and craftwork. To accomplish this effectively, federal law needs to provide the 

necessary tools to investigate and prosecute those who exploit and undermine the 

cultural heritage of Native Americans. 

In modernizing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (the ‘‘Act’’), I respectfully propose 

the following recommendations for your consideration to make the law a more comprehensive and effective tool. 

34 

First, the Act should consider the importation of Native American-style merchandise into the commerce of the United States separate from the sale of Native American-style merchandise in the United States. 

Second, the Act should require clearly and simply that Native American-style 

merchandise imported into the commerce of the United States must have an indelible country-of-origin marking. Currently, a prosecutor must look to 19 C.F.R. 

134.43(c)(‘‘Method and Location of Marking Imported Articles’’), and 18 U.S.C. 

§ § 542 (‘‘Entry of goods by means of false statements’’) and 545 (‘‘Smuggling goods 

into the United States’’) to establish this requirement. 

Third, the Act should require that the seller of Native American-style merchandise in the United States have a basis for representing that such merchandise is 

actually Native American produced. 

Fourth, the Act should have a specific forfeiture section. Currently, a prosecutor 

must look to 18 U.S.C. § § 1341 (Fraud and Swindles), and 1342 (Fraud by wire, 

radio, or television) to seek forfeiture. 

Fifth, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Laundering of monetary instruments) should be amended 

to include a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1159 (Misrepresentation of Indian produced 

goods and products) as a specified unlawful activity. 

Sixth, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1)(c) (Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications) should be amended to include 18 U.S.C. § 1159 (Misrepresentation of Indian produced goods and products) as an offense for investigation. 

And finally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should be encouraged to 

flag or seize during custom inspections Native American-style merchandise imported 

into the commerce of the United States that does not have an indelible country-oforigin marking on each item of merchandise. 

Thank you for your consideration of my recommendations and I stand ready to 

answer any questions the Committee members may have. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Pratt, please proceed. 

And we’ll get to questions after we go through the entire panel 

and their testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HARVEY PRATT, CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO 

MASTER ARTIST 

Mr. PRATT. Good afternoon, Vice Chairman Udall. My name is 

Harvey Pratt, and I’m pleased to testify before you today. I’m a 

Cheyenne-Arapaho master artist from Oklahoma, on the Board of 

the Red Earth Festival, which represents a large annual Indian art 

market in Oklahoma City. I recently retired with over 50 years in 

law enforcement from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. 

While I was also—while I am also the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Board chairman, I am testifying today solely on my capacity as a 

private citizen and as a Cheyenne chief. My recommendations are 

my own and do not in any way reflect the official position of the 

Board or the Department of the Interior. 

Indian art is not just a commodity. Indian art reflects who we 

are, where we came from, where we’re going. It’s a reflection of our 

beliefs, religion, legends, and lifestyle. You can see these connections in the kachina carvings, paintings of Green Corn Dances, Native American Church fans and rattles, and Spider Woman’s role 

in weavings, to name a few. 

Art is also about healing. For example, following an alarming 

number of Indian youths committing suicide in record number, all 

that, at the invitation of the Board’s Southern Plains Indian Museum, I provided a workshop at the museum to encourage the Indian youth and their families to constructively cope with these 

tragedies. 

Indian art is also about being able to provide important income 

for our families to carry on traditions of our ancestors in contemVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
35 

porary and a challenging world. I know from firsthand experience 

about the importance of promoting and protecting Indian artists 

and their creativity and about the importance of Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act enforcement. 

When Indian artists are undercut by the sale of fake Indian art, 

the integrity of authentic Indian art and artists suffer. We’re also 

being robbed economically, culturally, and spiritually. These unscrupulous businesses are also ripping off consumers and the viability of the Indian art. An example would be my brother Charles 

Pratt, an internationally known Cheyenne-Arapaho sculptor, residing in New Mexico, made a bronze chess set featuring cowboys and 

Indians. It was later purchased and knocked off by a non-Indian, 

who then duplicated it and sold it as Indian art. 

Though many Indian artists do not have the resources to fight 

these injustices, fortunately, Charles did and was compensated by 

his loss by taking this individual to court. And after the hearing 

of this, I too support the modernization of the Act to better protect 

the artists and the Indian art industry. When Charles was confronted by this man, he told him that he had been doing this over 

30 years and had never been confronted before. 

Although the State of Oklahoma does not provide State tribal 

recognition status, state recognized tribes have been a significant 

issue in Oklahoma. This is due to the fact that, unlike the Federal 

tribal recognition procedures, there is no such standard for official 

state tribal recognition. State tribal recognition requirements dramatically vary among those states that provide such recognition. 

Inconsistency in recognizing criteria also affects New Mexico Indian artists as well as Indian artists nationwide. Artists from federally recognized tribes are often selling their art next to artists 

from tribes that may or may not be officially recognized by a state. 

These artists may also consider their tribe officially recognized by 

a state, even if the state does not. A clear, easily verifiable standard within the statute would benefit all Indian artists. 

As an Indian artist, I also firmly support any effort to expand the 

Act investigative program conducted by the Board through their 

agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of Indian artists, businesses, and tribes, as well as consumers. 

In addition, I support education and educating all appropriate 

Federal law enforcement about the Act and the need to protect Indian artists and collectors from fraudulent activity. When state 

tourism and the economy are so dependent on Indian artists and 

culture, here where such a high percentage of Indian artists are 

distributed to businesses and consumers nationwide, I believe that 

strengthening the Act would not only benefit your constituents but 

consumers nationwide. 

Senator UDALL. thank you for the opportunity to share my 

thoughts with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pratt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARVEY PRATT, CHEYENNE-ARAPAHO MASTER ARTIST

Good Morning Vice Chairman Udall and Senator Heinrich. My name is Harvey 

Pratt and I am pleased to testify before you today. 

I am a Cheyenne-Arapaho master artist, a traditional Peace Chief of the Southern 

Cheyenne Chief’s Lodge, and on the Board of the Red Earth Inc., which runs a large 

36 

annual Indian art market in Oklahoma City. I recently retired following over 50 

years in law enforcement with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. 

I come from a long line of Indian artists. My brother is internationally known 

Cheyenne-Arapaho sculptor and New Mexico resident, Charlie Pratt, and my mother, Cheyenne storyteller and educator Ann Pratt Shadlow, received the honor of Native American Woman of the Year in 1987. 

While I am also the Indian Arts and Crafts Board Chairman, I am testifying 

today solely in my capacity as a private citizen, and my comments are my own and 

do not in any way reflect the official position of the Board or the Department of the 

Interior. 

Indian art is not just a commodity. Indian art reflects who we are, where we came 

from, and where we are going. It reflects our beliefs, religions, legends, and life 

ways. You can see these connections in our kachina carvings, paintings of Green 

Corn Dances, Native American Church fans and rattles, and in Spider Woman’s role 

in weavings, to name a few. 

Indian art is also about healing. For example, I had the great pleasure of participating in a three-day event sponsored by the Board’s Southern Plains Indian Museum in Anadarko, Oklahoma. This event, supported by the surrounding Indian 

tribes, was held to help address an alarming number of Indian youth suicides affecting every member of the community. I spoke to the children and their families about 

the importance of the arts in the healing process, and provided a painting workshop 

to engage the children and encourage them to constructively cope with the tragedies 

of losing family members and friends. 

Indian art is also about being able to provide important income for our families 

and to carry on traditions of our ancestors in a contemporary and challenging world. 

I know from first-hand experience about the importance of promoting and protecting Indian artists and their creative work, and about the importance of Indian 

Arts and Crafts Act enforcement. 

When Indian artists are undercut by the sale of fake Indian art, the integrity of 

authentic Indian art and artists suffer. We are being robbed economically, culturally, and spiritually. These unscrupulous businesses are also ripping off consumers and the viability of the Indian market. 

Time and time again, I hear from my fellow Indian artists about their art and 

craftwork being knocked off by nonIndians and sold as Indian made. In fact, my 

brother Charles Pratt made and sold a bronze chess set featuring cowboy and Indian chess pieces. Later, Charles discovered that the purchaser had reproduced that 

chess set in silver without his approval, and was selling the reproductions to galleries as Charles’ work. Many Indian artists do not have the resources to pursue 

these cases. Fortunately, Charles was able to take the man to court, stop the reproduction, and was compensated for the sales. The purchaser later told Charles that 

he had been knocking off others work for over 30 years, and no one had previously 

challenged him. 

As the title of this hearing conveys, I too believe that ‘‘modernizing’’, in other 

words strengthening, the Act would greatly benefit Indian artists and the Indian art 

industry. 

I support removing any obstacles or unintended loopholes that have hindered Act 

investigations and enforcement. For example, as an Indian artist I believe the statute’s current definition of State recognized tribe should be reexamined and revised. 

Although the State of Oklahoma does not provide State tribal recognition status, 

State recognized tribes have been a significant issue in Oklahoma. This is due to 

the fact that, unlike the federal tribal recognition process, there is no such standard 

for official State tribal recognition, and State tribal recognition requirements dramatically vary among those states that provide such recognition. 

Inconsistency in recognition criteria also affects New Mexico Indian artists, as 

well as Indian artists nationwide. Artists from federally recognized tribes often are 

selling their art next to artists from tribes that may, or may not, be officially recognized by a State. Those artists may also consider their tribe officially recognized by 

a State, even if the State does not. A clear, easily verifiable standard within the 

statute would benefit all Indian artists. 

As an Indian artist, I also firmly support any efforts to expand the Act investigative program conducted by the Board through their agreement with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Office of Law Enforcement on behalf of Indian artists, businesses, and tribes, as well as consumers. 

In addition, I support educating all appropriate federal law enforcement about the 

Act and the need to protect Indian artists and the collectors from fraudulent activity. 

Here in New Mexico, where the State’s tourism and economy are so dependent 

on Indian art, artists, and culture, and here where such a high percentage of Indian 

37 

art is distributed to businesses and consumers nationwide, I believe that strengthening the Act would not only benefit your constituents, but consumers nationwide. 

Senators Udall and Heinrich, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts 

and concerns with you today. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Mr. Pratt. 

And let’s proceed. Mr. Maybee, please. 

STATEMENT OF DALLIN MAYBEE, CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER, SOUTHWESTERN ASSOCIATION FOR INDIAN ARTS 

(SWAIA) 

Mr. MAYBEE. Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak a little bit about my experiences and insights and perceptions of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and its 

implications on the contemporary Native American art world. 

My name is Dallin Maybee. I am Northern Arapaho and Seneca. 

I grew up on the Cattaraugus reservation in Western New York, 

but I’m actually enrolled in the Wind River Agency up in central 

Wyoming. I am the chief operating officer for the Southwestern Association for Indian Arts, the nonprofit that produces the 96 yearold Santa Fe Indian Market. I have a background in Native American performing arts and visual arts and, of course, in Federal Indian law. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act was a welcome addition to the 

world of Indian art. It was meant to be a buffer and a safeguard 

to the economic opportunities of our communities. Artists have 

been able to see firsthand the significance of the Act as they 

produce art forms and narratives that often present aspects of their 

cultural identity that they choose to share with the world. 

As a participating artist at the Santa Fe Indian Market, my eyes 

were opened to the economic opportunity that the Native art market offered, as people appreciated my creativity and continuation of 

art forms that we have often been practicing for generations. Often 

utilitarian in usage, some everyday art forms have evolved into fine 

art forms in which our artists are able to receive suitable compensation for. But like most perceived opportunities were gained, 

many of these forms have been copied and reproduced, robbed of 

the Native soul and creativity that often accompanies authenticity. 

The nonprofit that produces the Santa Fe Indian Market, we 

hold a venerated and prestigious place amongst all the now-interested in Native American fine art markets. We are the oldest and 

had humble beginnings in 1922. And for almost 96 years, artists 

from predominately the Southwest and now tribes from throughout 

North America and Canada descend upon the Santa Fe community, 

the traditional homelands of Tesuque, and other pueblos here in 

New Mexico, to not only enjoy the beautiful scenery and the fine 

food, but also to experience Native America at its finest. 

And it’s presented through the many fine art forms we see. We 

also, as part of our programming, produce everything from couture 

and traditional fashion to food to performing arts. We cooperate 

with and partner with the National Museum of the American Indian to present a film festival. All of these things cooperates to create an experience unlike any other, with an economic impact of almost $80 million upon the state of New Mexico itself and the city 

of Santa Fe. 

38 

When we engage with our visitors, they indicate that they come 

to Santa Fe simply to experience what Native America has to offer. 

As thought leaders for a constantly evolving dynamic of how people define Native art, our foundation is the artists themselves. We 

currently accept artists from across the United States and Canada, 

and we do require that participating artists provide proof of enrollment or, as per the Act, evidence of tribal certification from the 

tribe that they claim descendancy. This definition of how we define 

who is Indian, as Senator Campbell indicated, is still a challenge 

almost 30 years later. We routinely hear of artists who have legitimate descendancy, either from their mother or their father’s side. 

But my own example, for instance, if I was not enrolled on my 

mother’s side—even though I was half Seneca—my father is a fullblooded Seneca—it’s a matriarchal enrollment process. I would not 

find a place at Santa Fe Indian Market or elsewhere to be able to 

say, ‘‘As a Native American, I am producing art, and you can, 

therefore, buy it.’’ 

I would be precluded from the Act. 

Some of the challenges that we see at Indian Market for our artists is the appropriation that occurs, not only from the theft of design, but also from the wholesale theft of often cultural identity. On 

occasion we find artists who submit for consideration their application claiming descendancy in order to come to Indian Market and 

take advantage of the economic benefit that our market has, but 

they simply on any level are not Native, either through 

descendancy or enrollment. 

So the first challenge that we see would be in the definitions of 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. How do you define who is an Indian? And we create models and mechanisms for tribes often to 

participate or adapt or evolve in order to help them create a certification process for themselves. We want to exercise our sovereignty, 

but oftentimes we lack the resources or the knowledge to create the 

models ourselves. 

So if we see successful models from Cherokee or the Choctaw in 

Oklahoma, we would hope that we’d be able to create forms or engage with them in order to create models for other tribes that need 

assistance on that form. 

The testimony today is also reflected heavily on enforcement. 

While we have seen a lot of success on both sides of that issue of 

either dealers engaging in fraudulent representation of Indian art 

or artists themselves engaging in fraudulent identity, there just 

simply needs to be more enforcement. I won’t spend too much time 

on that because I think it’s been stressed quite a bit. 

But again, I am grateful for the opportunity to present my experiences with the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. The challenges are 

definitely many, but through further definition and clarification, I 

think we can continue to step forward and protect the interests of 

our Native artists and their art forms. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maybee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALLIN MAYBEE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

SOUTHWESTERN ASSOCIATION FOR INDIAN ARTS (SWAIA) 

Good morning, my name is Dallin Maybee, I am Northern Arapaho and Seneca 

from the Spoonhunter and Maybee family’s. I am the Chief Operating Officer of the 

39 

Southwestern Association for Indian Arts (SWAIA), the non-profit that produces the 

world-renowned Santa Fe Indian Market, which is currently in its 96th year. I have 

an extensive background in Native American performing arts, in the visual arts, 

and in Federal Indian law. 

I would like to thank the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for the opportunity 

to speak to you today about my experience and insights on the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act was a welcome addition to the world of Indian 

Art. Meant to be a buffer and safeguard to the economic opportunities of our communities, artists have been able to see firsthand the significance of the act as they 

produce artforms and narratives that often present aspects of their cultural identity 

that they choose to share with the world. As an artist for most of my life, I would 

create the elaborate outfits I wear in social and ceremonial settings, often spending 

hundreds of hours just on the beadwork and feather-work alone. As a participating 

artist at the Santa Fe Indian Market, my eyes were opened to the economic opportunity that the Native art market offered, as people appreciated my creativity and 

continuation of art forms that we have often been practicing for generations. Often 

utilitarian in usage, some everyday forms have evolved into fine art forms in which 

our artists are able to receive suitable compensation for. Like most perceived opportunities for gain, many of these forms were copied and reproduced, robbed of the 

native soul and creativity that often accompanies authenticity. I have recently heard 

first hand from a Navajo Jeweler whose acquired skills began at the age of 12, 

under the lessons of his silversmith father. He related how he was providing for 

himself at 14 through his jewelry skills, but given the competition during the 1980’s, 

at the age of 17 he was producing examples for a non-native dealer and working 

side by side with 40 non-native jewelers to reproduce these items which were then 

sold as ‘‘Native’’ made. Thankfully, the ‘‘truth in advertising’’ component of the Act 

protects our artists to some extent. 

SWAIA, the non-profit that produces the Santa Fe Indian Market (Indian Market), holds a prestigious and venerated place amongst all Native fine art markets. 

With humble beginnings in 1922, our market has bolstered and supported generations of Native artists, elevating traditional art forms and in many cases, evolving 

them. Artists who are able to jury into the competitive market find a venue unlike 

any other, a place where almost 100,000 people descend upon Santa Fe to experience one of the most beautiful and expressive forms of our cultural identity. In addition to fine art, we partner with the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of 

the American Indian to present film and our additional programming includes a 

Gala auction, art previews, traditional and Couture fashion events, performing arts, 

and of course, food. Many markets look to our high-level standards requirements as 

a model for authenticity, and even foreign countries have sent representatives to 

meet with us in an effort to learn our model for elevating ‘‘traditional art and craft 

forms’’ to high level fine art. 

As thought leaders for a constantly evolving dynamic of how people define ‘‘Native’’ art, our foundation is the artists themselves. We currently accept artists from 

across all tribes in the United States, and have recently began accepting First Nations artists from Canada. We do require that the participating artists provide proof 

of enrollment or as Tribal Certified Artisans as per the Act. Year after Year, artists 

bring their most exciting pieces to Indian Market in the hopes of garnering one of 

our coveted prize ribbons and accompanying award. These represent achievement of 

the highest level, not only in the realm of the creative, but in technical mastery and 

expertise in the form as well. Exquisite jewelry forms, traditional dolls, carved 

masks, and textiles routinely garner Best in Show next to more recognizable forms 

of paintings or sculptures. It is amongst these exciting opportunities that the Act 

has helped to protect, that we have also seen the biggest issues and violations. 

Appropriation sees many forms in the Native art community. While there has 

been a healthy exchange of ideas, songs, dances, and ceremony amongst tribes for 

generations, there was a protocol and respect associated with an exchange of ideas. 

Western ideas of property teach differently however. Especially in art. We have 

most recently seen the appropriation of family designs, often associated with the sacred, taken by fashion designers who claim to want to ‘‘honor’’ or pay homage to 

native culture. Others simply recognize the popularity of Native design and simply 

hope to gain. Perhaps the most extreme of these, are those who without enrollment 

or even descendancy, will appropriate an entire tribal identity in order to gain economically, spiritually, or for some other self-serving reason or status. Our certification process during jurying does eliminate some of these fraudulent artists, but 

we cannot simply verify with every tribe the validity of their artists. We often rely 

on our relationship with the Indian Arts and Craft Board to assist us in identifying 

40 

potential violators. This is a critical component of our market because attendees are 

assured that what they are seeing and experiencing here is genuine and authentic. 

Artists are grateful for the enforcement efforts that have been made to date, but 

I am sure that the testimony heard today will reflect a desire for increased resources for continued and ongoing enforcement efforts. Just as there is trademark 

and patent protection for ‘‘intellectual property’’ concepts, so too should there be for 

artists whose commodity and creation isn’t simply art, they are cultural identity 

concepts. This also places a measure of accountability on tribes themselves. They 

must have the mechanisms in place to identify their cultural patrimony and verify 

the validity of their claim. The development of a model mechanism will assist tribes 

in the creation, tailoring, and evolution necessary to fulfill this accountability. Another mechanism that could be facilitated and presented to tribes for potential adoption would be something to address the Tribal Artisan Certification process for legitimate descendants who simply don’t fulfill enrollment requirements for their particular tribe. 

Again, I am grateful for the opportunity to present my experiences with the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. While the challenges are many, I do suspect though that 

moments like this, further definition and clarification, will increase the effectiveness 

of the Act and its continued protection of Native art forms. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Mr. Maybee. And you’ve got 

a real—like all of the witnesses here—they all have real expertise 

and something to offer here. We hope all of you, as you hear this 

testimony and then walk away from it, will keep sharing with us 

your ideas and help us improve on what we have going on right 

now, which is some good stuff, I think. 

Ms. Begay-Foss, love to hear from you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE BEGAY–FOSS, DIRECTOR, LIVING 

TRADITIONS EDUCATION CENTER, MUSEUM OF INDIAN 

ARTS AND CULTURE 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. Welcome to tribal leadership and officials, Federal and state officials, and other guests. 

Thank you, again, Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich and the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for scheduling this very 

important field hearing on the topic of the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Act. 

I am an accomplished weaver for over 40 years, and I have won 

numerous awards at the Santa Fe Indian Market. And I’ve also 

showed at the Eight Northern Pueblo show and San Felipe. So I 

draw on this expertise as a writer, instructor, and lecturer on traditional Navajo textiles and dyeing techniques. I curated several 

exhibitions at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture on Navajo 

textiles. I’ve also been involved in addressing issues and concerns 

about the intellectual and cultural property rights of the Southwest 

tribes, especially with Dine ́ (Navajo) weavers. 

And for many years I’ve been in contact with local Navajo weaving association groups, such as Ramah Navajo Weavers Association, and Sheep is Life, in Navajo, which is Dibe ́be ́lin . 

My clan is the Nakaidine ́ (Mexican clan) born for Tachi’ni, (Red 

Running into the Water People). And I was born in Shiprock, New 

Mexico. And on my mother’s side, that’s where I learned weaving 

from, was from my great aunts who were weavers. So they were 

like—my mother is in her 80s now, and they were like in their 

hundreds. I was very fortunate to have that kind of traditional cultural knowledge from them. 

And so my aunts lived around Lukachukai, Arizona. And about 

30 miles from Lukachukai in Canyon de Chelly, there’s an 800-foot 

41 

tall rock called Spider Rock. So as a child, I was told stories of Spider Woman (Naashje ́i Asdz ) and said she lived on top of this rock 

and that she gave our people this gift of weaving. 

So for the Navajo people, weaving is not just an art form, the direct connection to our environment and lifeways. Weaving teaches 

you stamina and perseverance. 

And I didn’t put some of this earlier stuff in my written testimony, but some of the earliest textiles that we have came from 

around 1850s and 1880s. This was during the time of Long Walk. 

So even during that time, our people persevered and carried on 

that traditional knowledge of weaving. 

And today, I feel we’re losing that cultural knowledge as well as 

our language. And it disturbs me that people throughout the world 

are misappropriating our traditional designs and profiting from it. 

Our earliest designs came from our baskets, and then they went 

into, transitioned into our women dresses, chief blankets, shoulder 

and child’s blankets. These textiles were finally woven from 

handspun warp and weft woolen yarns. Back then people had their 

own sheep and goats, and they had to spin it, so they did not have 

the resource of buying commercial because it was in the 1800s or 

even earlier. 

So colors were limited to natural brown, white, black, and indigodyed yarns. In these textiles, patterns were specifically woven a 

certain color and placement for a reason. However, today the import market has taken some of these very traditional designs and 

have displaced or rearranged them in knockoffs that I find offensive. We also have regional styles throughout the reservation that 

have been misappropriated as well. And these styles are Storm 

Pattern, Ganado, Crystal, Two Grey Hills, Teec Nos Pos, Yei, and 

Yeibechai, to name a few. 

The Two Grey Hills, Ganado, Crystal are actually chapter areas. 

We have 110 chapter houses on the reservation. And so within 

these areas, among as weavers, we know, like I come from 

Shiprock, and Shiprock area, but I know I’m not going to weave a 

Two Grey Hills rug, out of respect. 

So that’s why we don’t really, like, copyright our designs. It is 

traditional—Howard brought up it’s how we were raised to weave 

these patterns. So we know what they mean and how the placement is and the colors. 

So besides the misappropriation of designs in the import market, 

Navajo weavers face competition in the lower cost of an import 

item. Unfortunately, some consumers prefer to buy a cheaper 

knock-off of a Native American design product. Currently, Navajo 

knockoffs are being woven in over 15 countries, probably more, including Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Thailand, Nepal, India, Ukraine, 

Moldova—which is near Ukraine and Romania—Japan, Egypt and 

Turkey. 

Weavers on the reservation have limited—we have limited 

venues to sell their rugs. There are few trading posts which will 

purchase or trade for rugs or blankets. But again, weavers are getting a lower price for their weavings. They can also get their work 

juried at different art shows in the country. They can gain recognition for their work, and also collectors or buyers can have that conVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
42 

sumer confidence in their purchases because the art shows juried 

work and, you know, they have a screening process. 

There are so many issues. So I’m trying to keep it within the five 

minutes, but there are some other issues to be considered. More 

education, working with weavers, to have better labeling on their 

weavings, like saying cultural affiliation. Like we could say it’s 

Navajo or Dine ́, a description of your weaving patterns, the materials that you use, because we not only have traditional and contemporary, we—I could weave a Navajo rug made out of acrylic 

yarns. 

The Federal law will not protect you as a buyer. It just says it 

has to be Indian made. It doesn’t say it has to be wool. So some 

buyers might buy a wool rug that might be—have different fibers, 

and then they get upset, because it’s not what they thought they 

had purchased. 

Museums and juried art markets should have how to buy Indian 

art on their websites. And I’m going to talk to my museum director 

in my art department to see what we can do to do that. 

And then also Indian Arts and Crafts Board, I think they need 

to hold more workshops nationally on different issues regarding 

Native American art, not only just for artists but for the general 

public. I am currently working with the Board on the Navajo weaving brochure, and the museum is providing images of some of our 

textiles. 

So it’s very important that we need to educate consumers, and 

we also need to address, you know, the issue of the importing. 

Even in the country, though, it’s not just imported; it’s other designers and other people that are using Native American designs, 

not just in weaving, but in basketry, in jewelry, pottery, everything. 

And there’s only 12 states; Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota and Texas that have enacted laws prohibiting the 

misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. I think other states 

need to enact laws as well. Because we have those other issues of 

the cultural objects and how we’re going to prevent people from 

taking them. 

And we need stricter U.S. Custom laws regarding imported nonNative American products coming into the country. And under the 

former statements earlier, there are obvious—many manufacturers 

that can be identified. 

So thank you again, Senators, and the Committee for allowing 

me to submit testimony regarding the issues about Navajo weaving. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Begay-Foss follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOYCE BEGAY-FOSS, DIRECTOR, LIVING TRADITIONS

EDUCATION CENTER, MUSEUM OF INDIAN ARTS AND CULTURE

Thank you to Senator John Hoeven, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs for scheduling a field hearing on the topic of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

I am an accomplished weaver for over 40 years and have won numerous awards 

at the Santa Fe Indian Market, the Eight Northern Pueblos Arts and Crafts Show 

and the San Felipe Arts and Crafts Show. I draw on this expertise as a writer, instructor and lecturer on traditional Navajo textiles and dyeing techniques. I have 

curated several exhibitions at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture on Navajo 

43 

textiles. I have been involved in addressing issues and concerns of intellectual and 

cultural property rights of the SW tribes especially with Dine ́ (Navajo) weavers. I 

am in contact with local Navajo weaving groups such as Ramah Navajo Weavers 

Association and Sheep is Life (Dibe ́ be ́ Iina ́). http://navajolifeway.org 

My clan is Nakaiidine ́ (Mexican Clan) born for Tachii’ni (Red Running into the 

Water People). I was born in Shiprock, New Mexico and on my mother’s side my 

great aunts were weavers and lived in Lukachukai, Arizona. About 30 miles from 

Lukachukai in Canyon de Chelly there is an 800 foot tall rock spire (Spider Rock). 

As a child, I was told stories of Spider Woman (Naashje ́ii Asdza ́a ́ ) and that she 

lives on top of that rock and that she gave the Navajo people the gift of weaving. 

For the Navajo people weaving is not just an artform but a direct connection to our 

environment and lifeways. Today I feel we are losing the cultural knowledge as well 

as our language. It also disturbs me that people throughout the world are misappropriating our traditional designs and profiting from it. 

Cultural Misappropriation of design by import market 

Our earliest designs came from our baskets and then transitioned into our women’s dresses, chief blankets, shoulder and child’s blankets. These textiles were finely 

woven from handspun warp and weft woolen yarns. 

Colors were limited to natural brown, white, black and indigo dyed yarns. In 

these textiles patterns were specifically woven a certain color and placement for a 

reason. However, today the import market has taken some of these very traditional 

designs and have displaced or rearranged them in knock-offs that I find offensive. 

We also have regional styles throughout the reservation that have been misappropriated as well. These styles are: Storm Pattern, Ganado, Crystal, Two Grey Hills, 

Teec Nos Pos, Yei and Yeibechai to name a few. 

Navajo Rug Economy 

Besides the misappropriation of designs of the import market Navajo weavers face 

competition in the lower cost of the imported item. Unfortunately some consumers 

prefer to buy a cheaper knock-off of a Native American designed product. Currently 

Navajo knock-offs are being woven in over 15 countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Thailand, Nepal, India, the Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Japan, Egypt 

and Turkey. 

Weavers on the reservation have limited venues to sell their rugs. There are a 

few trading posts which will purchase or trade for rugs/blankets but again weavers 

are probably getting a lower price for their weavings. Weavers that can get their 

work juried at different arts shows in the country can gain recognition for their 

work and also collectors can have consumer confidence in their purchases. 

Other issues to be considered: 

• Weavers need to have better labels on their weavings showing: Cultural affiliation (i.e. Navajo/Dine ́), Description of weaving and materials used. 

• Museums and art markets should have: How To Buy Authentic Native American 

Art on their websites. 

• Indian Arts and Crafts Board should be holding workshops nationally on different issues regarding Native American Indian Art for Native Artists as well 

as the general public. Currently working with Indian Arts And Crafts Board on 

a Navajo weaving brochure. This brochure in very important to educate consumers and also to address import/knock-off Navajo weavings. 

• Only 12 states—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas—have enacted laws prohibiting the misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts. Other 

states need to enact laws as well. 

• Have stricter US custom laws regarding imported non-Native American Indian 

Art products coming into the country. There are obvious manufacturers that can 

be identified. 

Thank you, Senators and the Committee for allowing me to submit my testimony 

regarding the issues about Navajo weaving. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Miss Begay-Foss. 

And I once again thank all the witnesses. And because you presented such insightful testimony, I have a number of questions 

here that kind of probe down on what some of you have testified 

to today. 

44 

Mr. Martinez, in your—you’ve done a lot of law enforcement 

work. You’ve worked in various capacities here in New Mexico. You 

testified that one of the challenges you face in enforcing the IACA 

is its failure to address importers of Native American-style merchandise. 

How would a clear country of origin label help to prosecute violators of the IACA? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Vice Chairman Udall, that is crucial in your consideration from my perspective, because one of the things that you 

need to show when you’re prosecuting these cases is knowledge. 

And so if you have a clear label of a country of origin on the product itself, that would help the future prosecutors going forward as 

far as, did the person who’s importing the product have knowledge 

or is the person who’s buying the product and then selling it retail 

have knowledge. 

Senator UDALL. And so it sounds like that could be the difference. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Very much so, sir. 

Senator UDALL. One of the goals that I have in mind strengthening the IACA so that we dismantle counterfeit operations in 

their entirety, how could amending the law to include a forfeiture 

clause help to do that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, through a forfeiture clause, Vice Chairman 

Udall, it would allow that future prosecutor to seize the money 

from the operation, seize the proceeds from the operation, and seize 

any merchandise that was bought from those proceeds. 

Senator UDALL. And in a forfeiture, you don’t necessarily need a 

criminal conviction in order to do a forfeiture, is that correct, or 

would you be recommending the two be combined together? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, you have both civil and criminal forfeiture. 

In this Act, I would, from my personal perspective, I would recommend that you look at a criminal forfeiture, Section 4, amending 

this Act. 

Senator UDALL. Okay, great. Thank you. 

Now, you in your testimony talked about, Mr. Martinez, seven 

recommendations. How would you order those in terms of the most 

important and the most urgent? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, the first recommendation that I would have 

is—and this goes back to part of your original question—was that 

there’s two places to target; the merchandise being brought into the 

country and then the point of sale of the merchandise in the country itself. 

So I respectfully recommend that you look at adjusting the statute to look at those two points separately. Also, again, just stating 

what you already mentioned in the question, it’s crucial that this 

statute have—it makes clear that there should be an indelible 

country of origin marking. Because right now, what the prosecutors 

need to do is, they need to go a civil—to the Civil Rule, 19 C.F.R. 

134.43. But if you can incorporate that requirement in the statute 

itself, that’s going to make a difference. 

Also, you mention a forfeiture. That’s crucial. 18 U.S.C. § 1956, 

it’s important that you incorporate Section 1159 as a specified unlawful activity. Also, something that is absolutely crucial here is, 

the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, they go after organizations, and one of 

45 

the sections is 2516, 18 § 2516. That’s the authorization for a wiretap statute. And if you can make Section 1159 as an offense for investigation, that would be very important for the fact that again, 

in going to knowledge, one of the best ways that you prove knowledge is communication. 

So if there comes a time in the future that a U.S. Attorneys’ Office needs to investigate an investigation, and they’re able to prove 

to the Court that a wiretap is necessary, that would help prove 

knowledge, that communication. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And I’m going—I may come back to 

you in a minute or so. 

Mr. Pratt, in your testimony, you gave the real-world example of 

your brother. A person purchased his work, then replicated it and 

sold the replicas as authentic. Did your brother file a complaint 

with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board or did he take legal action 

on his own? 

Mr. PRATT. He took legal action on his own, once he discovered 

that his work was being duplicated. That rarely happens in the Indian world. They don’t have the funds to do those things. And my 

brother had the funds to do that and stopped this guy from doing 

that and made him pay royalties and seek what he had left. 

Senator UDALL. So he was successful in his legal action, but obviously in a legal action, you have to hire a lawyer, you have to pay 

the lawyer on an hourly basis, and then you hope to win, but you 

never know, because there’s always two sides of a story in legal 

cases. 

Mr. PRATT. And we see that a lot among Indian artists; that they 

don’t have the assets to do that. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. PRATT. And if they complain to somebody, they don’t have 

the knowledge to pursue it. 

Senator UDALL. What was the role of Federal law enforcement, 

if any, in your brother’s case? 

Mr. PRATT. None. 

Senator UDALL. None. 

Was it reported through various law enforcement channels and 

outlets? 

Mr. PRATT. I think he discovered himself when he saw his work 

had been duplicated. He originally did it in bronze and the man 

was duplicating it in silver. When he realized that was his work 

in silver, he didn’t do it, he found out who was selling it under his 

name as a limited edition. And he filed a charge against him. 

Senator UDALL. Now, Mr. Martinez, like any agency, we are oftentimes forced to juggle priorities when we have limited resources. 

As U.S. Attorney, what was your particular interest in pursuing 

these counterfeit cases, and would you like to see the current U.S. 

Attorneys’ Office keep on the same path? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Vice Chairman Udall, here in New Mexico, the 

U.S. Attorneys’ Office have great responsibility. We have two national labs. We have military bases. There’s immigration issues. 

There’s crime issues. There’s a drug epidemic and then what we’re 

talking about today. So with the limited resources, it was important to try to figure out how to prioritize and try to get the limited 

resources to all these issues that we’re talking about. 

46 

As stated on your first panel, one of the things that was absolutely crucial was good partnership with the law enforcement agencies and, to the extent possible, with the community when you’re 

doing investigation. 

And so what was important in prioritizing is the amount of damage that’s occurring in each investigation. The topic that we’re talking about today is extremely damaging to the Native American 

community and with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office has a trust responsibility to the Native American community. 

And as some of the panelists have already told you, this is damaging to the heritage, it’s damaging to the culture, and then as part 

of that consideration, too, is a large part of the economy in New 

Mexico is tourism. And it’s also damaging there if people can’t trust 

what they’re buying. 

And just lastly answering your question, it is my hope, and I 

have to believe that the next U.S. attorney will also keep this as 

a priority. 

Senator UDALL. And I think it’s important as a priority, and I 

will be conveying that to whoever becomes the next U.S. attorney. 

And I hope that the acting U.S. attorney, which sometimes, you 

know, the acting U.S. attorneys, if they’re listening and understand 

how important this is, sometimes they serve a—for a matter of 

months in these kinds of situations. And so they’re the top person 

at the office. 

Please go ahead. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Vice Chairman, the current acting U.S. attorney 

is Jim Tierney. He was first assistant in the office. He has over 33 

years of experience in the office. And after having him as my supervisor and having worked with him, I have no doubt that this is 

a priority for him and for this office. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Martinez, when I was attorney general of New Mexico, you 

may recall that many of the complaints that came into my office 

were from individuals that felt they were getting a bad deal. So we 

took action under State law that had been on the books for quite 

a while. But it seemed to me there should be much more coordination between state, local, and tribal authorities. 

As U.S. attorney, did you work with nonFederal authorities on 

any of these particular cases? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Vice Chairman Udall. What we tried to do 

is take the comprehensive approach. The basic is prosecution. But 

also what we did is, we had a tribal liaison, and we tried to make 

sure that we were touching base with the tribes as often as possible. We also had listening sessions where we tried to bring all of 

the tribes together so that they could bring us input on how the 

U.S. Attorneys’ Office was doing—good or bad. 

And then also from a regional perspective, we also—and during 

my last year, we hosted the Four Corners Conference where we 

brought together the U.S. Attorneys’ Office from Utah, Colorado, 

and Arizona, and the various players in these areas to try to talk 

as a collective of what we were doing right and what we were doing 

wrong to be better in the future. 

Senator UDALL. And my understanding, when you were the U.S. 

attorney, you initiated efforts with the leaders of the Indian NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
47 

tions here in New Mexico and asked their input and how to do better in the job which you were doing, which I’m sure you heard 

about these issues in that context. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. Vice Chairman Udall, with the limited resources we had, we were trying to get out and talk to the community as much as possible. 

Senator UDALL. Do you think it would be possible to have a joint 

Federal-state-tribal task force to implement a coordinated enforcement response? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Vice Chairman Udall, to the extent possible. 

Sometimes you can’t do it when you’re doing an investigation. But 

to bring folks together in a collective and try to talk through the 

issues, one of the most important things is getting people to the 

table. And that would show that it’s a priority. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Maybee, an issue that concerns me is the 

impact of fake, mass-produced goods that are marketed as authentic Indian arts and crafts on the local economy. As an executive at 

SWAIA, do you have any experience with Native vendors at Indian 

Market or elsewhere being impacted by counterfeiters of their 

work? 

Mr. MAYBEE. Absolutely. Obviously, it’s disconcerting to hear 

about an artist going into a local shop and see their hallmark piece 

of work that they didn’t touch. As I talked to other artists. And as 

an artist myself, you know all the pieces that you’ve produced in 

your career, you’re very familiar with them and the techniques. 

And so there is a direct economic impact on the artists when they 

see counterfeits. 

And even then, it’s the dynamic between what we do as an organization in terms of educating our visitors and our collectors. We 

give two licensing agreements to magazines to produce, and give 

Market publications that are very heavy on educating our collectors 

and casual visitors, even, as to what’s the difference between a 

thousand dollar squash blossom necklace and maybe a $40 squash 

blossom necklace that they can find in a shop 20 feet away, often, 

from artists at Indian Market itself. 

And so it’s not just the fraudulence. It’s the level of standards 

that are often being seen. In my written testimony, I related an experience of just recently talking to an artist who started his career 

at the age of 12, and at the age of 14 was using his jewelry skills 

to provide for himself. But at 17, the competition was so strict, he 

actually went to work for a dealer who employed 40 additional nonNative artists to produce works that he would produce. 

He produced a piece, and the dealer would ask him what he 

would ask for that and take it to his non-Native jewelers and said, 

‘‘What can you produce this for?’’ And often pennies on the dollar 

in comparison. He only did that for a short time, but it was mainly 

a matter of survival. 

Even today, you can go into the shops in Gallup and see artists 

who, as a matter of survival, have to undercut each other, because 

there’s 30 other people who will sell—30 other Natives, often—who 

will sell because of—at a lower price point, these pieces of work, 

because the dealer will sell them and very unscrupulous and unethical in how they deal with the compensation for these artists. 

48 

Senator UDALL. Do you know if Native vendors have been forced 

to lower prices to compete with the wholesale counterfeits flooding 

the market elsewhere? 

Mr. MAYBEE. Not so much at our market. We’ve—we have the 

luxury of having presented authenticity, high-level standards for 

decades. Generations of artists have been able to utilize the 

strength of our market and the prestige in order to gain what is 

fair prices for their work. 

But for the rest of the 363 days out of the year, absolutely. If 

they are struggling to find representation in galleries or find commission work, they have to undersell themselves often, because the 

dealers know, If I don’t get something from this artist, I can go get 

something similar. And for some, it will be straight counterfeits. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Pratt, I understand you wear multiple hats 

and have a wealth of experience not only as a master artist but as 

a former law enforcement officer and the Chairman of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Board. 

Can you provide some perspective on whether the IACA is serving its intended purpose, and if it’s not, ways that we can improve 

the law. 

Mr. PRATT. Well, I think that since 2014, that Indian Arts and 

Crafts Board and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act has had some success. Prior to that, I think it was very limited because of no enforcement. We had a hard time getting enforcement to enforce 

laws, because local-state-tribal authorities didn’t have the expertise 

in these specific crimes. And they were limited to just serve jurisdictions. 

So they couldn’t—many times couldn’t cross into other jurisdictions. So I think it was very limited as what we were doing. What 

we did in 2015, and prior to that, with Fish and Wildlife, that had 

great impact. I think it opened a lot of people’s eyes that things 

have changed. 

And I think I saw that in the past when my brother did that. 

It made this man change his whole technique about what he was 

doing. He said, ‘‘I’ve been doing that for 30 years. No one ever 

stopped me.’’ 

He said, ‘‘It’s a new age.’’ 

And I think we see that. Task forces, I think, would be—if we 

could get people trained, if we could train people at Artesia, train 

people in Georgia, in the Federal services, to cooperate and realize 

that this is a tremendous impact on the Indian people and on our 

economy; that we could train people to pursue these cases. 

And the Arts and Crafts Act is instrumental in that, in not only 

protecting artisans but protecting collectors. And I think that’s 

really important. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And I think it’s important. Like you 

say, it is a new age. And if people are violating the law, we’re going 

to be coming after them, and they will be brought to justice. 

As a Native artist, Mr. Pratt, how are knockoffs impacting your 

livelihood? Do you believe under-enforcement of the IACA is part 

of the problem? 

Mr. PRATT. I do. I think under-enforcement is part of the problem. People have been doing things for years, you know. You can 

sell a piece of art, an original painting to someone. And over the 

49 

years I’ve seen that thing end up as a print, as a limited edition 

print, and the artists have nothing to do with it. Artists have never 

received any kind of royalties at all over those prints and that’s 

just in that. 

You see that same thing in sculptures, in duplicating those 

things. And Indians don’t pursue it. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Joyce, you’re working with the IABC to educate consumers on 

how to buy authentic Navajo rugs. Why is consumer education so 

important to preserving the cultural integrity of traditional Navajo 

weaving? 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. That’s a good question. Well, I think we still 

have a lot of consumers are not very educated about Navajo 

weavings, because they’re still buying the imported or even 

knockoffs, as they call them, products. And then even there are 

other designers—I won’t mention their names—but there are companies that produce other products. The designs are taken from 

Navajo weavings as well. 

But the thing that I’ve been working with Meredith’s office, even 

when I was chair, like, three or four years ago, I brought that issue 

up to her again. And then I also helped her on a case involving a 

Navajo weaver trying to sell an imported rug. 

But the thing is that consumers look at something and say, ‘‘Oh, 

that’s nice.’’ That’s a weaving, and they just assume that it was 

made by a Native person, and it has that Southwest Native design. 

And then they get home, and they realize, ‘‘Oh, my God, this is not 

even an authentic product.’’ 

Even at the museum, we have people come in and bring in—they 

want to know, ‘‘Is this a weaving?’’ And they ask me. I have visitors that come to the museum. And as a curator and a weaver, I 

say, ‘‘No, this is a Mexican rug or an imported rug. It is not authentic.’’ 

And they really get upset. They go, ‘‘Oh, my gosh.’’ 

And so with the brochure, what we want to do is, like I said in 

my testimony, we need to get the weavers to say, ‘‘Yes, this is my 

rug. I’m Navajo. This is the style that I weave, whether it’s Two 

Grey Hills, or it’s my own personal style. It’s made out of wool. It’s 

hand dyed. The warp and weft are wool,’’ or whatever it’s made out 

of. 

Because Federal law does not protect the consumer on the materials. And this goes true with all the other art categories, like pottery and jewelry. You know, we have this huge issue with block 

turquoise. It’s not even real turquoise or coral. I don’t know, I could 

go on and on about the jewelry. 

But with the weaves, yeah, I think it’s very important, because 

it is affecting the Navajo weavers. So, like, they can barely get 2- 

or $300 for a small rug today. And that’s, like, a couple of hundred 

hours. And it’s, like, barely a dollar an hour. So if you go and you 

look at, like, some of these imported rugs they sell along the 

streets, even at, you know, different markets or, you know—what 

do you call them, flea market type shows, places—you get them for, 

like, 15, $20, $30. Nothing. To me, I can tell. I’m like, you know, 

you’re getting what you pay for. But, you know, they think they’re 

getting, like, this Native product. 

50 

So that’s why I think it’s important throughout the brochure and 

to educate the consumer and our Native artists that there is a Federal law, and they have to comply with it. But that’s at the Federal 

level. I think we also need to address state laws, and then I think 

the tribes—especially Navajo tribe, too—we need to come to the 

table. And we need to set some, I don’t know, laws, or whatever. 

But I think we need to have some educational things on how to 

buy products from our communities, whether we have laws or 

whatever information. Or even if they could have, like, a consumer 

complaint place, you know, within the different tribal communities 

and bring up these issues, because we have to start somewhere. 

We don’t—you know, through all our state and Federal agencies, 

you know, there’s no—there’s limited funding. But I think at the 

grass-roots level in tribal communities, I think we need to watch 

out for each other, and we need to help. Our people can do that, 

and that’s is how I do it. I talk to the weavers, like Sheep is Life 

and Ramah Navajo Weavers, and they tell me, you know, ‘‘We’re 

having a hard time. We can’t make a living.’’ 

And, you know, Navajo Nation is remote. There are weavers that 

live 30, 40 miles from a store. And for them to take their rug and 

try to sell it to get groceries, you know, it’s devastating when you 

don’t have that $50 or $100 to last you a few more days. 

So it’s economically, and it’s culturally, and it’s a very—I don’t 

know—distressing topic that we’re talking about today. 

Senator UDALL. Now, Joyce, what other action can the IACB or 

Congress take to ensure and build consumer confidence in Indian 

arts and crafts? 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. Well, it just comes down to educating people, 

I think. What are you buying? I mean, you can go buy a diamond 

ring; you go to a jeweler, ‘‘Is that gold, 14 carat gold?’’ 

I think there are not enough questions asked by the consumers 

when they buy Indian art. They have to look at Federal. Okay. So 

this person—so the Federal law says it has to be Indian. What does 

‘‘Indian’’ mean? I think that definition needs to be elaborated on 

saying that you need to ask Native American artists—even the 

word ‘‘Indian,’’ people don’t like the word ‘‘Indian.’’ ‘‘Native American,’’ ‘‘American Indian.’’ But they need to go by cultural affiliation. 

So I can say, ‘‘Yeah, made in China,’’ well, where in China is that 

made? I can’t find that as a consumer. But let’s say, you know, 

going back to Indian. If it just said, ‘‘Indian made.’’ What the heck 

does that tell you? 

So my responsibility as an artist and as a weaver, I can say, ‘‘No, 

you’re buying a Navajo rug from me. It’s 30-by-30 inches. It’s a saddle blanket. It’s made out of churro wool. I have indigo dyes.’’ I sign 

that, and I give it to my buyer. That’s a done deal. 

But if the same buyer goes to another weaver and buys it, let’s 

say, not just a Native buyer but a non-Native buyer, because they 

think it looks Native, and they buy it. ‘‘Oh, I thought I bought a 

Native American product.’’ 

I say, ‘‘Well, where’s your receipt? Where’s your proof?’’ 

Has to go to provenance or some kind of a guarantee of authenticity. We have to go to that level, I think, some kind of authenVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
51 

ticity certification, receipt from the artist. I think that’s going to be 

our thing that will hold up. 

Senator UDALL. Joyce, you testified that for Navajo people, weaving isn’t just an art form but a direct connection to your environment and to lifeways. Weaving is also a big part of what you describe as the Navajo rug economy. Can you elaborate on the impact 

of Navajo rug knockoffs from abroad, on cultural knowledge and 

the future of traditional Navajo weaving. 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. Well, first of all, I can say in my testimony, it’s 

very disturbing. And I really get upset about it, because they’re 

misusing our designs. And, in fact, behind you, there are some baskets that are imported on the wall. And those are Navajo baskets, 

and I really do not like how they misuse even the design of our 

Navajo culture, because that represents our mountains. That’s your 

life. 

All these designs and symbols—especially the traditional designs, 

not just from our people but throughout our country—our Native 

people, these early designs mean something to our people. It’s beyond—it’s sacrilegious, in a way, how they just totally distort and 

misappropriate the use of the design. And we were taught, growing 

up, what these designs and patterns meant. So each of the weavers 

would know what I was—we’d be talking about. It’s our connection 

to the sheep and the horses and the lifeways and, you know, being 

on the reservation. 

Those of us that do—I do natural dyes, so I use rabbit brush. I 

use sumac and the Native tea. I use indigo, cochineal, and that’s 

connection to those lifeways I’m talking about. 

You talk about storm pattern. There’s things about cosmology 

with what the lightning, and the placing even of our four sacred 

mountains. 

I could go on and on. I mean—so to me, these imported designers 

or people that are taking our designs, and they’re abusing—I don’t 

know how to explain it. It’s misappropriating, it’s abusing our—it 

goes into the Native American Religious Freedom Act. It’s a violation of using our symbol—it’s not just a symbol. These things mean 

something to our people. 

I think it’s not just the Navajo. It’s all of our people throughout 

the country. And so I think that comes into cultural and intellectual property rights. 

Senator UDALL. Joyce, thank you. The fake baskets on display, 

the point we’re making today is, there needs to be better awareness. I mean, there’s no doubt about that. I think all of our witnesses are very much in agreement there. And one of the things 

that we need is an informed public to know what they’re buying. 

Does the New Mexico Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, which 

is a very popular tourist destination, does that museum play a role 

in educating the public on buying authentic Indian arts and crafts? 

In your opinion, is there any reason to increase public awareness 

of fake Indian arts and crafts, would be in the best interests of Native artists or the market? 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. Yes, we do off and on, especially during Indian 

Market. We will have invited the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. 

They’ve done presentations at the museum. We also had intellecVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
52 

tual cultural property rights, a person coming in, Deborah Peacock 

from Albuquerque, she’s a lawyer, and she did some presentations. 

We try to work with artists, too, and educate them. But like I 

mentioned in my testimony, I think we need to maybe look at putting that online. And I think all of these things, you have the Hurd 

Museum—especially museums that have, like, Native art shows. 

We have Native treasures, too. It’s an art show, several hundred 

artists show it in May. And it’s a good venue for artists, too. 

So yes, we are trying. Once a month we do have a program 

called, ‘‘Let’s Take a Look.’’ But that’s when people just bring in 

things just for us to identify. We don’t do appraisals, because you 

know, we can’t do that. We can’t do appraisals. But we can tell 

them if it’s authentic or not. 

But there is a tremendous need for that. And there are a lot of 

people that are wanting those type of services or want to learn or 

read about it. So the public is interested in that. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Now, the last couple of questions here for 

the artists on the panel. Where do you see the future of the Indian 

arts and crafts business if we don’t update the law to include better 

enforcement? And do you see a role for tribal governments in the 

future enforcement of the IACA? 

Mr. Pratt, why don’t you go ahead, and we’ll work down the line. 

Mr. PRATT. I know Oklahoma has 39 federally recognized tribes; 

22 of those tribes have their own law enforcement, and many of 

their law enforcements are very large. And the other 17 are law enforced by the BIA. And I think that some tribes are making steps 

to do something to protect their artists. Not all the tribes are doing 

it. 

I think that there should be some kind of training programs to 

the tribes to make them more aware of the laws and how to protect 

their own artisans. And I think at that point, an education of the 

public and collectors is going to be extremely important to know 

who you buy from. Buy from reputable galleries. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Maybee? 

Mr. MAYBEE. Yes. I believe that without increased fine-tuning of 

the Act itself to strengthen it, not only in terms of enforcement, but 

also the education on the part of people interested and wanting to 

engage in Native art. You know, the fraudsters and the dealers of 

counterfeits, they get savvy. And they are savvy, and they’ll increasingly move towards better techniques to defraud consumers. 

And we’ll hopefully never see the market slide back to what it 

was back in the ’60s and ’70s and ’80s. So it’s going to take some 

increased efforts on the part of the Act. That doesn’t absolve tribes 

of their own accountability for creating mechanisms to certify 

unenrolled artisans who have legitimate descendancy. 

It is within the tribe’s purview to define the membership, but 

they can go a step further and engage artists who are simply in 

the business of protecting their art forms and narratives. 

A large component of what we do at Indian Market is, we allow 

for the evolution of art forms. We don’t dictate to the artisans what 

they should or shouldn’t create; whether it should be X amount of 

traditional forms or contemporary forms. That stuff evolves organically. We simply encourage them to keep producing art. 

53 

Because more often than not, those art forms are direct translations of who they are as people. They engage their lifeways, their 

traditional and ceremonial narratives. They do a pretty good job of 

policing themselves and not delve too much into the cultural patrimony. We want to encourage that. We want them to be as expressive as possible and simply be artists and not just Native artists. 

The Internet is a very real threat. It is very disheartening to see 

that not too many prosecutions have occurred over the Internet 

when all trends indicate that the Internet is going to simply continue to explode exponentially in terms of the amount of commerce 

that engages in what is often a very anonymous arena. 

Dealers can create an eBay website and have it disappear a week 

later after they have sold significant counterfeits. It makes it very 

difficult to prosecute some instances where there still is a little bit 

of anonymity, especially for an unsavvy collector, a person who 

wants to delve into the area of Indian art. 

Senator UDALL. Joyce? 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. Well, with the Act itself, I would like to see 

them change the term ‘‘Indian’’ and look more at cultural affiliation 

for artists. And then also addressing the issue of tribal—what do 

you call it, like, ‘‘blood quantum’’? 

If there’s a way that they can work with tribal leadership, because I know there are families that have—that intermarry or they 

marry outside. And then—like for me, for example, my grandkids. 

They’re Navajo, but they’re not enough Navajo. 

So anyway, they come from a strong lineage of ancestral Navajo 

people, because my great-grandma is Dine ́, Navajo. Anyway, forget 

the tribe, forget the government. They’re still Dine ́, no matter 

what. We are a matriarchal society, so even among our own people 

and own clans, we do that. 

But I think there needs to be something at the tribal level to 

help some of our other artists, because I think we’re going to lose 

more of those type of artisans in that definition. And we also need 

to educate the people, artists, and the general public. I mean, it’s 

just ongoing. You have to keep educating people. 

I think at the tribal level they need to work more closely at the 

Federal level and how the Indian Arts and Crafts Board carry out 

their mission for this big giant import, you know, counterfeit cloud 

here. We’re way over here, and there’s this big storm over here. I 

see this big storm. I don’t know how to clear it, to get rid of it, but 

it’s always going to be there, I think. 

But we need to work—I think it’s a matter of working together 

as agencies and as people to work on this ongoing issue, because 

it’s not going to go away. I think we really need to just work together. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Just as a final question to the whole panel or giving you an opportunity to just sum up here, is there anything that you’ve heard 

that you want to agree or disagree with, or is there something that 

we haven’t given you the opportunity in terms of asking questions 

to comment on? 

Joyce, why don’t you start with you and work to the left. 

Ms. BEGAY-FOSS. I think we overall—everyone has some very 

empowering comments at many different levels. I would like to see 

54 

more—if we have another hearing on this issue at the tribal level 

with our leadership and just hear what they have to say and how 

they can work together with your office at the Federal and then at 

the state level. And then, you know, look even at revisiting even 

our state law, and really looking and identifying the, like, the Indian art markets, with Dallin, you know, the Hurd Museum. And, 

you know, there’s other art markets throughout the country, looking at some of the standards, how we can help our consumers. 

Because they’re the ones that are buying the work. I mean, so 

you’ve got to look at, Who are we targeting? And who do we want 

to listen to us? Who can help us? 

So it is just figuring out all the players. I think it is very important to me that myself as a Navajo and member of the Navajo 

Tribe, that I would like to hear from my leadership on this very 

issue. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Dallin? 

Ms. SHAPPERT. So I’m highly encouraged by the efforts that have 

come from the Federal, state, and even the local level. The City of 

Santa Fe recently enacted an ordinance that created an Indian Act 

Zone that mimics the Act in a lot of ways on a state and Federal 

level with a little bit of an enforcement issue. 

They do say that for those vendors who are unscrupulous in their 

business practice, they can have the potential of having their business license revoked or taken away. It would be nice to see cooperation on the state level if those prosecutions do come through. They 

can recommend to the City of Santa Fe. 

It’s elusive, I know. Oftentimes ownership will shift hands from 

one relative to the next in a span of a day or two. But that does 

send a message. In terms of the Act itself, one point I wanted to 

make was, you know, we live in a world where the laws often have 

to define every aspect. We see it in trademark, in patent law, areas 

of the law I was not a fan of in law school. 

But it was necessary. There’s often resistance to defining things 

to a point, but I think with enough conversation, yes, we can recognize it. It’s not enough to simply say, ‘‘Oh, this is inspired by’’ or 

‘‘I’m paying homage to.’’ 

That is very much a loophole to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

So if we can continue to work towards those definitions of who is 

an Indian, what does it mean to be a Native artisan or to create 

Native art, I think we still need to move forward. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Harvey? 

Mr. PRATT. I think that we need to move towards training and 

education. Training of law enforcement, workshops with galleries, 

with the tribes, make them more knowledgeable of what their 

rights are and what they can expect if they discover something 

wrong, who they can go to, to effect a result; whether it be on a 

Federal level or state level, tribal level. A lot of states have reservations. Oklahoma does not have a reservation. We have trust 

lands, allotted lands, and tribal lands. And allotted land could be 

in the house next door to you. It would be tribal land and have no 

jurisdiction there. 

55 

So I think that we need to educate collectors and the public and 

artisans and tribes about what they can expect. 

Senator UDALL. Thanks. 

Damon? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Senator, I would ask that in addition to revising 

the statute, that you would also consider respectively contacting 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, specifically the U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, because when they’re doing the 

inspections at the port, they need to know about the C.F.R. that’s 

currently in place. And if they come across anything that isn’t 

marked, that they either flag it or seize it. 

And so that’s going to be the first line of defense right there. And 

thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you so much. And I just really 

want to thank this panel—the previous panel—but in particular 

this panel that I think brought really insightful testimony to what 

the harm is, what we’re talking about here. And I think all of us, 

my staff here, we’ve learned a lot, and so we really appreciate you 

sharing with us and giving these examples and taking your time 

to do that. 

Since there are no more questions for today, I would like to remind folks that senators that are on this Committee, they also submit follow-up written questions to you for the record. You may get 

questions from the Chairman. Senator Hoeven really appreciates 

that the Chairman sent his top person out here, and I know that 

he may visit us in the future, and I may visit him in North Dakota. 

He’s been a great chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. He’s been very interested in the issues that we’ve talked 

about today. And I really hope—he’s got many tribes in North Dakota. I hope I’ll have an opportunity to visit Senator Hoeven there. 

And so I thank him very much. 

The hearing record will be open for two weeks. I thank the witnesses again for their time and testimony. I just want to say a 

word about staff. And thank you, Senator, for being here, former 

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. He’s been here the whole time 

listening and hearing all of this. 

You know, one of the things that I’ve learned being a senator is, 

to be a good senator, you’ve got to have a great staff. And we’ve 

had a great staff effort in this entire operation here. We have the 

Senate Indian Affairs Committee staff here. Jennifer Romero and 

Anthony Sedillo, both of them are native New Mexicans. 

We also have Mike Andrews and Holmes Whalen from Senator 

Hoeven’s staff. Also, the personal staff of my office that’s helped 

with all of the organization here; Josh Sanchez, Greg Bloom, my 

State director, Alex Jordan, Ned Adrian, Zoey Wilson-Meyer, and 

Cal Curlen. 

So we appreciate all of the things that they’ve done, and I’m 

going to tap the gavel, but I want you to just recognize we’re also 

going to recognize—is Jude still here for the closing prayer? 

Okay, terrific. 

Senator Campbell, did you—you’re going to—you want a closing 

comment, a quick one? 

Senator CAMPBELL. Yes. 

56 

Senator UDALL. Please come on up. I call him Senator Campbell, 

you don’t know I say former senator. 

The tradition with senators is, Once a senator, always a senator. 

So Senator Campbell, give us your closing. 

Senator CAMPBELL. The only advantage of being an ex is, you 

don’t get as much hate mail. 

I really haven’t been to a hearing for a long time. I was really 

interested in the testimony. I would mention even when I was the 

chairman, there is always budget constraints. 

Under the present, current budget of President Trump, there’s 

going to be a 30 percent cut in the Interior’s funds. Part of that 

money comes out of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Even when 

I was active in the Senate, they were always ramming against the 

edge trying to do more with less. They’re going to need a champion 

this year, and I know you’re going to be that champion, Mr. Chairman. 

This was really interesting to me because about three weeks 

from now, as Chairman Maybee will tell you, there will be over 

100,000 people in this town, and the vast majority are wonderful, 

caring, loving people that are going to spend a lot of money, visit 

with Native people, support Native people, and so on. 

But in that 100,000 crowd, just like any crowd of 100,000, there’s 

going to be a couple of rats. And it’s always been that way with 

any major group. But in this case, they will be around 

photographing or copying right through your glass cases of the artist. And a month later, you’ll see those in a magazine made in 

China. 

That actually happened to me with a necklace I made one time 

years ago. In fact, I think it made it into Indian Market that year. 

And within a year later, I saw it in a magazine which comes from 

China. Well, where does that leave an individual craftsman? It 

leaves you out in the cold. You don’t have the resources to sue 

them in an international court. 

So you just kinda wave, oh, you’ve been ripped off, and you can’t 

do anything about it. So as you dream up the new revisions of the 

bill, Mr. Chairman, if you can also look at how we—maybe not protect, maybe that’s not a good word—but educate Native people and 

how they can record their work, document their work, and protect 

themselves, either through going through a patent office registering 

the name as a copyrighted name or at least on their designs, or 

something of that nature. Because clearly, there’s a big deficit between how they make something and how they protect it from 

being plagiarized. 

Thank you so much for this hearing, and thank you for inviting 

the old man back. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for the closing comments. Really appreciate that. I’m going to adjourn. But as soon as we adjourn, 

we’re also going to have Jude up here and recognize him. He’s from 

the Santa Clara Pueblo to offer the closing prayer. So the hearing 

is adjourned. 

And Jude, why don’t you come up and give us a closing prayer. 

[Closing prayer recited.] 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m, the Committee was adjourned.] 

(57) 

1 ATADA is a professional organization established in 1988 in order to set ethical and professional standards for the art trade and to provide education for the public. ATADA membership 

has grown to include hundreds of antique and contemporary Native American and ethnographic 

art dealers and collectors, art appraisers, and a strong representation of museums and public 

charities across the U.S., dedicated to the promotion, study and exhibition of Native American 

history and culture. www.atada.org. email director@atada.org, PO Box 45628, Rio Rancho, NM 

87174. 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MOLLOY, PRESIDENT, ATADA 1

ATADA is an international organization honoring the artistic vision of indigenous 

people. ATADA represents professional dealers of historic and contemporary tribal 

art from around the world. We support the lawful circulation, trade, collection, preservation, appreciation, and study of art and artifacts from diverse cultures. 

Our objectives are to promote ethical and professional conduct among art dealers, 

to encourage the responsible collecting, research, and study of tribal arts and culture, and to educate the public in the contribution of tribal cultures to the wealth 

of human experience. 

As a condition of membership, ATADA members guarantee the authenticity of all 

objects that they offer for sale. 

ATADA is deeply concerned by the misrepresentation and mislabeling of Native 

American, Native Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian works of art and craft. Misrepresentation deceives individual consumers and the public. When misrepresentation occurs, it also damages the reputation of the art trade as a whole. Bad business practices by a few bad apples can negatively impact many honest traders, Native artisans, art dealers, and other important commercial interests. There is a trickle-down 

effect to all legislation affecting Indian arts and crafts which impacts much larger 

constituencies and business interests, whether they are those of workers in the cultural tourism industry, or the diverse businesses that depend upon tourism, especially in the Southwestern region. 

It is early in the legislative process and no specific amendments to the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Act have yet been proposed. Without having actual proposed 

amendments to respond to, ATADA states that it supports in principle the amending of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act to provide greater protections for consumers 

and the public, Native artists, and the legitimate art trade. However, ATADA notes 

that currently, prosecutors and tribal plaintiffs have excellent tools to combat fraud 

and misrepresentation in domestic matters, and to require proper, indelible labeling 

in foreign imports. The problem is not that stronger laws are needed; resolution requires more and stronger enforcement of existing laws, and funding to ensure that 

tribes are equipped to fight using the legal tools already to hand. 

Testimony at the hearing by Damon Martinez, former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, pointed out the need to distinguish between (1) steps to improve the U.S. Customs marking requirements for imports to ensure that the items are not later misrepresented, and (2) steps to halt and penalize misrepresentation and other unfair 

business practices in the U.S. 

Proper Marking On Imported Goods 

Proper marking is a key issue, as has been made clear by the descriptions at the 

hearing of arrests and prosecutions of large scale wholesalers alleged to have imported copies of Native American jewelry from the Philippines. Continuing investigations and prosecutions of individuals and corporate entities found to be engaged 

in wrongful wholesale imports appears to be working very well and will put a significant dent in any fraudulent activity, if it does not end it altogether. 

ATADA recognizes the inherent difficulties in indelibly marking very small objects 

(such as certain jewelry items) with the country of origin. Tagging protocols should 

not interfere with the lawful importation and sale of properly identified items. However, packaging and other options may provide a more flexible mechanism to make 

58 

clear the origin of a very small object. Larger items could reasonably be indelibly 

marked through a variety of means. 

If millions of dollars’ worth of fraudulently imported jewelry has been seized, as 

stated at the hearing, the federal government ought to do its best to fill this gap 

in inventory and at the same time, encourage economic development that would 

benefit tribal artists. One wonders whether the National Park Service could work 

with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board or with tribal communities to bring more 

authentic Native American arts and crafts into the federal parks’ concessions, especially in Indian Country, and make authenticity a primary selling point. 

Native artists receive recognition for the authenticity of their work when it is sold 

in the U.S. or elsewhere is another important task, in which enforcement of consumer protection laws is key. Marking options that would distinguish authentic contemporary Native American artworks and crafts could facilitate enforcement. 

Antique items cannot easily be marked without damaging the integrity of the object. No rules requiring marking should be employed for antique items. In this situation, consumers should be able to rely of a written receipt and guarantee that items 

are as represented; guaranteeing authenticity is mandatory for ATADA members already. 

Authenticity and Consumer Rights Under State Law 

ATADA strongly supports strengthened scrutiny of items offered for sale to the 

public as Native American and rigorous enforcement of consumer protections. We 

note that in New Mexico (and in several other states) state consumer protection 

laws can be a significant deterrent to bad businesses. Government should provide 

flexibility under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act for the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Board to provide advice and support to plaintiffs regarding state laws as well. This 

could enable cases to be brought on behalf of artisans and consumers at a lower 

cost, and to reap greater damages from violators. 

For example, New Mexico’s Indian Arts and Crafts Sales Act, NMSA 1978 § 30– 

33–7 makes it unlawful to barter, trade, sell, or offer for sale or trade any article 

represented as produced by an Indian unless the article is produced, designed, or 

created by the labor or workmanship of an Indian. NMSA 30–33–10 grants a private 

right of action to all consumers, and NMSA 1978 30- 33–6 establishes a duty on 

the part of the seller to enquire whether an item is authentically Indian and a duty 

to correctly label the item at the point of sale. 

Misrepresenting an item as Native American when it is not is a deceptive trade 

practice under NMSA 1978 § 57–12–2.D(4), which prohibits using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods and services. Willful violation of the standards creates liability for sellers of non-Indian 

goods under New Mexico laws of triple actual damages or $300.00, whichever is 

greater, under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, NMSA 1978 57–12–10.B. 

Attorney fees for plaintiffs are more easily available under both New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (NMSA 1978 § 57–12–10.B) and the Indian Arts and Crafts Sales 

Act , NMSA 1978 § 30- 33–1, both of which provide that on showing of a violation, 

the court must award attorney fees and costs. 

Copyright and Trademark 

Copyright and trademark were also briefly discussed at the hearing. Much of the 

discussion surrounding misrepresentation of Indian art at the hearing was in regard 

to wholesale importation of jewelry and textiles in imitation of Native American artistic styles. A ‘‘style’’ cannot be copyrighted, and even specific designs that are considered ‘‘traditional’’ were never copyrighted and are not eligible to be copyrighted 

now under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–553, October 19, 1976). 

Nonetheless, the specific creations of contemporary jewelers and weavers may be 

copyrighted, if they are deemed ‘‘original’’ under the law and meet other copyright 

requirements. While acknowledging that federal trademarks can be expensive to acquire, ATADA suggests that tribal organizations might consider establishing tribal 

trademarks that would serve as both an identifying mark and a marketing vehicle. 

ATADA supports federal funding to facilitate economic development programs within the tribes to provide education and assistance in trademark and copyright for 

tribal artists and artisans through the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, tribal heritage 

offices or tribal governments. 

Conclusion 

ATADA urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to consult with tribal government and economic development offices in order to determine the most direct 

and effective means of establishing authenticity for artworks in the market. The 

most successful measures will be those that boost consumer confidence and encourage the artists of the Native American community to continue to produce the outVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
59 

* The article Diasporas of and by Design, Historicizing the Growing Impoverishment of Native 

American Artisans by Kathy M’Closkey [Anthropology News November 2013] has been retained 

in the Committee files. 

standing works of art that represent Native American creativity and skill and that 

have come to symbolize the wonderfully diverse and unique Southwestern culture. 

ATADA looks forward to further discussions with the Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs on this and all other legislation affecting the interests of the trade in contemporary and antique Indian art. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY M’CLOSKEY, PH.D., ADJUNCT ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR/FREELANCE CURATOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY

AND CRIMINOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

I am writing as a U. S. citizen and anthropologist who has researched how the 

escalation of knockoffs of Navajo weaving designs is increasingly impoverishing reservation weavers. I authored Swept Under the Rug: A Hidden History of Navajo 

Weaving, UNM Press 2002/2008, and served as research director of the PBS documentary ‘‘Weaving Worlds,’’ directed by Navajo Bennie Klain 2008. Both the book 

and the film provide evidence of the destructive effects that knockoffs have had on 

diminishing demand for authentic creations. 

In her eloquent testimony Joyce Begay-Foss noted that ‘‘we can’t make a living,’’ 

and she mentioned how appropriation of Navajo designs is in violation of the Native 

American Religious Freedom Act. It is also in violation of Articles 11, 20, and 31, 

of UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The articles 

stress the right of Indigenous Peoples ‘‘to maintain, control, protect and develop 

their heritage, traditional knowledge and expressions. . . [including] designs, and 

the intellectual property over traditional cultural expressions.’’ Part II of Article 11 

stipulates that states shall ‘‘provide redress, including restitution with respect to 

their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, 

prior and informed consent.’’ 

It is very troubling that the magnitude of the problem has continued to increase, 

even though the Act was significantly strengthened within the past two decades. 

There is no question that Internet sales have grown exponentially, and pose a major 

threat due to the impersonal nature of transactions that can occur globally within 

a fraction of a second. Even if Al-Zuni is shut down in the U. S., it could continue 

to market knock-offs in any other country in the world. I doubt there is anything 

that the government can do about such sales. 

Although the recent hearing contained compelling testimony from eight presenters, the root of the problem concerns the lack of protection for Native American 

communal property rights, because the government placed designs in the public domain over a century ago. Regardless of how much ‘truth in advertising’ exists, the 

exponential increase in knock-off sales, allowable under free enterprise, increasingly 

impoverishes Native American households. For example, the Pendleton Company 

website advertises classic Navajo rug designs woven by Zapotec weavers living in 

Mexico. El Paso Saddle Blanket Company of Texas, continues to wholesale thousands of ‘‘trading post rugs’’ woven in Eastern Europe. Both companies comply with 

the IACB Act. 

In her testimony Meredith Stanton noted that the Board has prosecuted 22 cases 

successfully over the past two decades. Although each successful prosecution is a 

victory, Native American artisans continue to endure appropriation of their designs 

from unscrupulous entrepreneurs. In 2006 two friends were browsing shops in 

Santa Fe located on the Plaza. They were admiring a beautiful Navajo rug that had 

the weaver’s photo attached. When one of the staff noted their interest, he said that 

if they couldn’t afford a genuine rug, Packards would have it copied for a much 

cheaper price! These are just three examples of legitimate companies that practice 

‘‘truth in advertising.’’ I also know several weavers who have experienced theft of 

their designs. 

The recent hearing seeks to modernize and improve the IACA. It is evident from 

the testimony that an increase in the budget will be necessary if government agencies can root out and escalate prosecution of guilty parties. Perhaps the IACB could 

also review how Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to some extent offer design 

protection for their Indigenous Peoples. I have attached three publications which address this serious issue. 

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. * 

60 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KURT RILEY, GOVERNOR, PUEBLO OF ACOMA


707a1.eps

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commiltee, TnDal Leaders and Guests; 

On behalf of the Pueblo of Acoma C'Pueblo" or "Acoma"), we are deeply appreciative of the 

time taken by the Committee and your staff to travel to Santa Fe :in order to devote your 

attention examining the state of the Indian Am and Crafts Act. 

Th~ Indian Am and Crafts Act is an important safeguard to ensure the integrity of 

American Indian Art and the cultural sovereignty of our tnOes and our artists. Therefore, we 

are eager to share our experiences with the limits of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act as it is 

tested against new and unforelleen challenges. 

The Pueblo of Acoma, like many pueblos, is world renowned for its pottery. We arc proud 

to support Acoma's masterful potter:;, who maintain a tradition we have known since time 

immemorial :in gathering, shap:ing, and funning clay :into beautifully shaped pots. The 

:intricat~ designs that carefully adem these potteries have been handed down from 

generations, many having specific cultural meao:ings or having been ll.Scd by specific 

fllmilies to be passed dcWJJ through new generations of potters. The culmillation of the 

time, physical effort, and prayers recited, as these potteries come to life, results in beautiful 

works of art that are distinct in shape and design; recognizable against other pueblos, and a 

unique expression of Acoma culture. 
61 


707a2.eps

k a result, Acoma pottery is highly sought after by collectors and the general public alike. 

Acoma pottery adorns many homes, collections, galleries, and museums. Even an Acoma 

pot by the late Lucy Lewis, a master Acoma potter and matriarch. of Pueblo pottery, sat in 

the Oval Offiet: of Former Presldent Barack Obama, on loan from the National Museum of 

the American Indian. Acoroa is proud to share our art as an expression of our cultural 

heritage with the world. 

However, the Pueblo of Acoma is very particular in its statement: "our culrural heritage;" 

aad insists on the right to dictate who may use our name, "Acoma" and designs. We 

believe this stance aligns with the spirit of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, and its original 

intention of promoting tribal art and protecting tribal artisans. 

Therefore, it was exliemelY troubling for the ?ueblo of Acoma when we learned of the 

appropriation of Acoma's name and designs by companies and merchants seeking to 

capltal.h;e on Acoma's culture and artists. Two glaring examples that came to the Pueblo's 

attention were the creation of an Aooma themed dothing line by the designer Tory Burch, 

and the sale of Acoma themed home and bath products by the company Avanti. Both were 

being sold at major retailers across the country. Acoma learned of each example after the 

products were discovEred for sale by Acoma members, who immediately recognized the 

familiar Acoma designs both online and in retail stores 1. For Tory Burch, the Pueblo 

unfortunately learned after the collection line had made its mn Jn retail stores; undoubtedly 

resulting in thousands of dollars made on the use of Acoma's name and pottery designs. 

Fw Avanti, the Pueblo ]earned of the active sale of linen and ceramic products adopting 

Acoma's name and pottery designs while they were being actively sold in multiple major 

retail stwes; similar to Tory Burch, that likely rem[ted in thousand;; of dollars in sales. Both 

compaui~ nevc.r a:;ked peuuissiou frmu U1<.: Pu~blo of Acoma :!br usage of Its name, or its 

cultural designs that are the creation of our ance1tors a:nd present artists. 

Ultimately, the Pueblo of Acoma made the difficult decision to not pursue legal action to 

halt the usage of it:~ name and its designs. In the Pueblo's a:nalysis of each incident, the 

Pueblo was unclear as to how such claims would ultimately bold up in federal oourt. In 

large part, the federal case, Navajo Natirm v. Urbzn Outfitters, played a siguificant role in the 

analysis of a similar lawsuit. Unfortunately, for the Pueblo, Navajo Nation wa~ settled, but 

did offer insight in the limits the Pueblo might face if it made a similar claim. In Navajo 

Nation, the New Mexico federal district court dismissed several ofNavajo Nation's causes of 

action, inclutting claims about the usage of the name "Navajo," as the court did not agree 

the name met the burden of rising to a national trademark. Arguably, the Navajo Nation, in 

its case, was in a better position than Acoma as tb.e Navajo Nation holds several trademarks 

1 Soo At!acbmem 1 for photo<. 
62 


707a3.eps 707a4.eps

incOJ]Jorating its name, which Acoma does not. The Pu~blo of Acoma was deterred fiom 

seeking relief after seeing the major hurdles, and costly litigation that faced NaVlljO Nation. 

The cultural appropriation faced by the Pueblo of Acoma, and the Navajo Nation, is a new 

issue not contemplated by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Certainly, the rapidly shifting 

intcllectual property ftamework5 have tar outpaced th.e Indian Arts and Crafts Act in being 

able to respond to the appropriation and use of tribal names and designs. Although, the 

appropriation of names and designs for "inspired" products is not exactly the same as the 

counterfeiting that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act most <lirect.ly deters; the appropriation of 

tribal names, design, and art ultimatcly harm.!; the very people the Act seeks to protect. It is 

clear to the Pueblo of Acoma, that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act needs to be revisited to 

respond to these new issues, and workarouuds that companies have developed to profit off 

of our cultural art and heritllge. 

A.) Tory Burcb Product EJ:.amples: 

Attaebment 1 

I ' """"'""" 

~- .... --Top 

__ 

.... .......,.,_ ....... , ... , ....... --~·-

: :=:.:::..=:::::·---

·--- :=:'..."'..,::-:.;.:, 

-...... """'''"" 

.._,.,,., 

"""'"""" 

-
63 


707a5.eps
64 


707a6.eps

B.) Avunti Produd Examples: 
65 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY MONTIBON, CEO, MONTIBON PROVENANCE

INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Dear Senator Udall, Senator Heinrich and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

I attended the Oversight Field Hearing on Modernizing the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act in Santa Fe on July 7th, 2017. I was impressed with the quality of the 

testimony given and the sincerity of the Senators present. Senator Ben Nighthorse 

Campbell’s comments were particularly interesting. 

It is concerning that the problem of fraud in the world of Native American arts 

is now international in scope. Native Americans have been exploited and harmed 

enough. As an American citizen, I am outraged that nameless, faceless con-artists 

in other countries are exploiting Native American artists. As a nation we must do 


707a7.eps
66 

as much as we can to end the fraud that is rampant here in New Mexico, across 

the U.S. and around the globe. 

I understand that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the FBI and other participating 

Federal agencies have their hands full with these complex undercover investigations. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act definitely needs to be updated to give it more 

teeth—more legal tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to leverage when going 

after fraudsters (including asset forfeiture, etc.) 

However, I’d like to bring to the attention of the Senate Committee that there are 

also new technical tools and processes that can also be brought to bear on this problem. 

Our New Mexico tech startup, Montibon Provenance International (MPI) protects 

art, antiquities and cultural artifacts against forgery, fraud, theft, and counterfeit 

documentation (chain-ofcustody) by utilizing proprietary object identification technologies and chain-of-custody processes. 

MPI has been involved in R&D with nanotechnology scientists at a private lab 

in Albuquerque and physicists at Los Alamos National Labs to effectively solve each 

of these problems, (including cyber-security and long-term data archiving innovations). In lab testing to date, MPI solutions have proven to be effective. MPI has 

been awarded two NMSBA LANL research grants; have received three small NSFrelated grants through the NMFAST program coordinated through the Arrowhead 

Center at NMSU; and are currently applying for the NSF I-Corps pre-SBIR program. 

As you are aware, standard methods of identifying and authenticating art objects 

to protect and track them over time present problems for artists, collectors, museums and law enforcement. 

MPI is particularly focused on working to solve the problem of fraud in the Native 

American art market as Native artists are particularly vulnerable to such fraud. 

Unlike artists and collectors in the general contemporary art market, many Native 

artists do not have the personal financial wherewithal to seek justice through civil 

actions. In addition, the frauds against Native artists go beyond purely financial 

crimes and are actually crimes against American Indian culture, traditions and sovereignty, and thus, are particularly egregious. 

We would love to present our technological innovations to the Senate Committee 

as we feel that our New Mexico-developed solutions can make significant contributions as useful tools for law enforcement and prosecutors in criminal cases to: reduce the complexity and ambiguity of legal cases; increase the recoverability of stolen tribal artifacts; reduce the amount of counterfeit objects in circulation; and add 

weight to IP-related cases. 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WRIGHT, CHIEF, MA-CHIS LOWER

CREEK INDIAN TRIBE AND NANCY CARNLEY, VICE CHIEF

We appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the Modernizing of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Act. 

The Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama is a State Recognized Tribe 

by the State of Alabama. 

The Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama supports the modernizing of 

the Indian Arts and Crafts Law and supports strengthening the ability to enforce 

this Act as it should be. The Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama works 

to make sure that this Law is adhered. This Tribe has requested and continues to 

request the publication regarding the Indian Arts and Craft Law (from the Department of Interior) to disseminate to every tribal citizen, pow wow committee member, 

vendor, demonstrator, that participates at the Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe 

of Alabama. The Pow Wow Chairman verifies that each vendor is a citizen of a state 

or federal tribe if a vendor is not their booth has a sign placed in front Non-Native 

Made. 

I do not believe that the definition of who an Indian artisan is should be changed. 

It says quite clearly that ‘‘Indian is defined as a member of a federally or officially 

State recognized Tribe, or a certified Indian artisan’’; and the definition of Indian 

Tribe as ‘‘Any federally recognized Indian Tribe, Band, Nation, Alaska. . .’’ and 

‘‘Any Indian group that has been formally recognized as an Indian Tribe by a State 

Legislature, a State Commission, or another similar organization. . .’’. 

There will always be people who will try to circumvent the law. These people 

could be impersonating a federally-recognized Indian, a state-recognized Indian, or 

a certified Indian artisan. To ignore state-recognized tribes simply to make things 

easier is not the answer. Again, the Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama 

will continue in our endeavors to enforce the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

67 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the concerns of the Ma-Chis Lower Creek 

Indian Tribe of Alabama Tribal people. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AIDEN SHORTCLOUD, TRIBAL ARTIST, UNITED CHEROKEE

ANIYUNWIYA NATION (UCAN) 

To the Vice Chairman Udall and Senator Heinric and all others who attended the 

field hearing last Friday. I am a recognized tribal artist of the United Cherokee 

Aniyunwiya Nation (UCAN) My relatives can be found on the Cherokee Miller Rolls 

and the Henderson Rolls. Both are federal rolls that are dismissed by the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma as well as the Eastern Band Cherokee of North Carolina. I am 

therefore a State Recognized artist. My tribe requires documentation to a direct relative on any of the Cherokee Federal Rolls. There are 15 Cherokee rolls. The Federally recognized tribes only take 3 of these. Meaning for me my family is on the Miller roll which after 1923 was retaken as the final Baker Roll of Eastern Band Cherokee, all others before it no longer qualifies. My tribe’s standards are the same as 

Cherokee Nation, except they take all 15 rolls, not just one. 

To be clear I am writing on behalf of myself and not representing my nation or 

any other organization to whom I coordinate with. I have been an artist since I was 

8 years old. I make drums, I dance, I tell stories. I have a few art pieces here and 

there that have made it into museums. I make quality art that has been used by 

the History Channel, National Geographic and many other organizations. 

As Native people we rely on the sale of our art as a valuable source of income 

and of course a way to keep our traditions strong. Authentic art and authentic materials are becoming harder and harder to find. For example: The quahog shell that 

we use to make wampum beads from is no longer getting to a dark purple. The 

oceans are becoming more and more polluted. The Beautiful pink shell beads the 

Shoshone Bannock people in Idaho use for their loop necklaces are now endangered 

and can not be found. With the threats of deforestation and more and more regulations towards what can and can not be sold are causing artists to have to use plastics and fake materials. This severely lowers the quality of art. The amount of people still producing Brain tan leather at an affordable price are disappearing. On my 

trip to New Mexico this spring I was disappointed to find that the tribal silver artists are no longer making the beautiful turquoise items that used to be everywhere 

in my youth. The silverwork is plain, common looking. . . No Sterling feathers 

swirling around stones. . . Plain. . . The truth of the matter is we are also fighting larger pictures of destruction from overharvesting that is zapping our materials 

to make art. The laws in states allowing us to harvest the items needed to make 

this art are becoming more and more strict. 

There is no exemption for these products made unless you are a member of an 

Alaskan tribe. For example. I live in Idaho, here we are allowed the harvest of black 

bear. Two bears a year per person. We hunt in the fall for the fat, we use it to make 

an arthritis paste, we use it for soap, we use it for waterproofing, the list goes on. 

We hunt in the spring because the meat is also leaner at this time. We don’t hunt 

for the fur, so we have always sold it along with the claws. The money from this 

is distributed to my business, then to my tribe, then to local organizations, then to 

prison facility native programs and then to national organizations to help everyone 

to continue our strong culture. I sell claws and hides to other natives to make their 

art as well. Let’s face it, it is hard to make a sterling silver bear claw pendant, without a bear claw. . . . 

However, now many states don’t allow you to sell these products. This has lead 

to large websites such as www.Etsy.com to allow only Alaskan natives to sell their 

bear products (due to the exemptions in the Endangered Species act stated earlier 

for native made art) Yet there are no exemptions for other tribal artists who hunt 

and fish just as traditionally. This has lead to us throwing away bear hides, if I 

can’t sell them I can’ afford to make my art. It costs me $400 to tan a bear hide 

so that I can paint it and turn it into a robe that I might be able to sell for $600. 

So now, the art is dying. There are people who want these items to purchase to support me and my tribe, but due to laws they can not purchase and I can not sell. 

It creates a terrible waste for something that can be used and made into authentic 

art. 

I propose that the exemptions for Alaskan and Inuit artists also extend to any 

person enrolled in a state of federally recognized tribe. Because this art is preserving our art and culture it’s being purchased for spiritual use and it is being 

hunted for meat as discussed in our sovereign treaty rights. I am not suggesting 

being able to sell migratory bird items in any way, but to allow tribal artists to use 

68 

materials such as bear claws that are considered endangered in one state but are 

being harvested legally and made into authentic art by a native person. 

Another point I would like to bring up is websites such as www.etsy.com just 

spend five minutes on there and you will see no enforcement of the arts and crafts 

act. Vintage Chinese made imports line the top posts where as actual artists have 

little to no representation. www.ebay.com enforces this by requiring us to put out 

name and tribal affiliation. But still people list these fake items and confuse buyers. 

It is discouraging to have to look for 30 minutes to find maybe one or two pieces 

of native art that is genuine. I have written Etsy and all e-mails have been ignored, 

I have flagged listings and they remain up. I have reported Etsy to the IACA as 

well as the BIA and nothing has come of it. The fake fashion headdress remains. 

What if the site required verification or a tribal ID on file with the artist of a state 

or federal tribe? Disclosing my name and tribal status before the purchase of an 

item allows people to steal my name online. I always send a certificate of authenticity with the piece but it is very scary having that information out there for someone to take. 

Lastly in November 2016 Oklahoma passed a law banning my art from being considered Native American made because I am a member of a state recognized tribe. 

Oklahoma state also expanded the law to cover storytelling and any visual demonstration. This is in direct violation under the federal arts and craft act. As we 

saw with marriage equality state laws can not trump federal law. My family lives 

in Ardmore Oklahoma. We have lived between Ardmore and Rusk county for the 

past 6 generations. . . This severely effects me when I go home to visit my dad. 

I refuse to sell in that state, and it causes resentment towards the federal tribes. 

I am fortunate enough to live in Idaho where my art is still protected. However, 

this is very sad. Not only has it silenced my art, I can not competitively dance in 

that state. If I am paid for any activity where I state that I am a tribal member/ 

Native American I am in violation of state law but well within rights granted by 

Federal law. . . This means if I enter a competition pow wow dance and say I’m 

Cherokee I get a fine. Because I am not a member of a federal tribe there. It is 

a hidden agenda to make sure that only Federal tribal people can participate in cultural events and receive compensation. To me that just means they want a monopoly on the Arts and Crafts. Let’s not forget some tribes have lost their federal recognition and are now State recognized. Are they any less native? Oklahoma has increasingly become more and more exclusive. The state recognized tribes have been 

in existence since before 1990. The Powhatan tribes (many are state recognized) 

have always existed and are still state recognized. The Lumbee tribe is a great example of a state recognized tribe. They have treaties going back to pre 1900 and 

are STILL fighting for federal recognition. I would like to remind everyone that this 

law was created to protect Authentic handmade Native American Art from corporations and cheap fake imports. . . It wasn’t designed to tear each other apart. To 

put tribal people against one another. And to create a ‘‘who is and who is not’’ Native Barrier. Art brings people together, it holds history, stories. It holds culture. 

I will mention that I teach my art classes to federally recognized and state recognized people. I wonder sometimes how the federal artist would feel if I stopped 

teaching these classes and tried to exclude them from traditions the way they continue to try to exclude everyone else. But I continue to tell myself that that isn’t 

the traditional way to act, and I refuse to stoop to that level. 

I read a testimony that was upset about Federal artists selling next to someone 

who is state recognized. What it comes down to in that case is art quality. A federal 

tribal artist has nothing to fear from a state artist, unless their quality is less and 

vice versa. This is because, they’re both Indian in the eyes of the law. The hierarchy 

needs to stop. What about the Hispanic people who are now selling beadwork at pow 

wows and are assumed to be Native American. They are copying our northern art 

and selling it when they should be selling their beautiful traditional Aztec arts. To 

me this is more of a threat than another recognized artist selling. 

As a tribal artist my first responsibility is to ensure the art is passed on and the 

tradition is not lost. Secondly it is currently my only source of income. Thirdly I am 

a state recognized native and currently the thought of discrediting state recognized 

tribes would truly be a loss to so many arts and crafts. I am one of maybe 5 wampum weavers left. I currently only know of one wampum weaver in Cherokee Nation, although I have taught many Cherokee Nation Citizens, none have taken up 

the art to the extent that I have yet several members of my tribe are now excelling 

in making these historic belts and straps. 

I get bullied because I am a state recognized artist, I get harassed. I am immediately discredited and my work must be three times as accurate as the federal tribal artists. This is what I deal with when I go to sell my art on a daily basis. The 

69 

only protection I have is the Arts and Craft act of 1990 for my quality art that is 

getting harder and harder to find. 

State recognized people have few rights, the right to our identity is one of them. 

The right to say our art is Native made is accurate and granted by Federal law. 

I appreciate your time to hear my testimony. You are welcome to e-mail me at 

any time or contact me through www.cherokeespirits.com if you require further 

input or wish to look at my art which the federal tribes wish to revoke protections 

for. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELOISE JOSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALABAMA INDIAN

AFFAIRS COMMISSION

I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the Modernizing of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Act. 

The State of Alabama recognizes nine (9) tribal governments. Eight of these tribes 

are state-recognized and one (the Poarch Band of Creek Indians) is federally recognized. In 1984, the Alabama Legislature created the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission recognizing seven (7) tribal governments granting authority to the Commission Board to set up criteria for recognizing any further groups. Two additional 

groups were recognized by the Board in 2001 following that criteria, which is in the 

Administrative Code for the State of Alabama. 

The Commission consists of representatives from each of the tribal governments, 

one Senator appointed by the Lt. Governor, one State Representative appointed by 

the Speaker of the House, one Federally-Recognized Indian person living in Alabama (not Poarch Creek) and one representative appointed by the Board. 

The Alabama Indian Affairs Commission supports the modernizing of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Law and supports strengthening the ability to enforce this Act as 

it should be. The Commission office, as well as, State government works to make 

sure that this Law is adhered to. This office has requested and continues to request 

the publication regarding the Indian Arts and Craft Law (from the Department of 

Interior) in order to disseminate to every Mayor in Alabama, and every Indian tribe 

holding Pow Wows or Festivals where Indian art might be sold. In a further attempt 

to support the Indian Arts and Craft Act, the Commission will be introducing legislation to further strengthen the ability to make sure that any events held in Alabama adhere to the Indian Arts and Craft Act. 

I do not believe that the definition of who an Indian artisan is should be changed. 

It states quite clearly that ‘‘Indian is defined as a member of a federally or officially 

State recognized Tribe, or a certified Indian artisan’’; and the definition of Indian 

Tribe as ‘‘Any federally recognized Indian Tribe, Band, Nation, Alaska. . .’’ and 

‘‘Any Indian group that has been formally recognized as an Indian Tribe by a State 

Legislature, a State Commission, or another similar organization. . .’’. 

There will always be people who will try to circumvent the law. These people 

could be impersonating a federally-recognized Indian, a state-recognized Indian, or 

a certified Indian artisan. To ignore state-recognized tribes simply to make things 

easier is not the answer. Again, the State of Alabama and the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission will continue in our endeavors to enforce the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the concerns of Alabama’s Indian people. 

70 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HERMAN G. HONANIE, CHAIRMAN, HOPI TRIBE


707b1.eps

Dear Senators Udall and Heinrich, 

Thank you furtl1e Fiekl B~rlng ofSemde Committe-.> on Indian Afflrirs at the Santa Fe In:fum 

Sc.'mol cnJuly7, 2017, tlt!ed Cu\tuml Soveretgnty Series: Modcmi~ the Indian Arts and 

Crolts Act to HonorNativ£: Identity and Expression. The lfjlpi Tribe appredates your !luppolt for 

t!>.c Hopi Tribe and other tribes in nur effor!S to protect and preserve our o::ultuml heritage and 

nrtisans from fake Hopi Arts and Crafts. Therefor~ on behalf of the Hopi Tribe m:d the Hopi 

pcuple, I offer (f;Jr strong support f-or !llildemizir.g UJe Indian Arts and Crafu: Act to honor Nativ('l 

identity and expression. 

Hopl people trace om histruy back thou5ands of years, making Hopi Dnc of1hc oldest living 

cullures in the world. Today, Hopi is a vibrant, living cn1htre.. Hopi people. Hopfsinmn. cominue 

to perform our ooremor.Jal ;mci \ra\lilional respcmslbllities in our am:imlt languago. 

At Hopi, giving has been at the hem. of 'Jut societ)' Md social comp<~cl sill'V~ time immemwlal. 

The Yery com.:rstone of Hopi society and s-ociality is the exchange of mutually :X:ncfida,l gifts. 

and relationships reconfigured by11mse o:xcbrulg;;:s, Difis aro corr.m.unications b. a !l!l'.guage cf 

sooial beh:mgirzg, and g1vlu!,; :s r<:{;lprecal, binding lr:div!duals aud group..~ 10 ea~h cthttnnrl the 

3piritmll realm. The hooorofgiving meaiJS l'l:l.'>Pecling nnd honoring both the giver and th~ 

recipient. 

Hopi arts and cr~.s ttr~ an adaptation to the outside world of expressions of our culture. 

However, we fae« a reeurri!ll threat that strikes at the ]Jo:mi of our culture and eeonomy. W~: 

und.m!.and the problem ofintlt.ation Hopi art$ aild etafts.llopi euiturc is regularly misin~d 

and misrepresemed by r.on·Hopi peopic furt:om:uerclnl pllfJXlscs including the t:r.mlinuing sak: 

of fake Hop! nnsand croll:;. 
71 


707b2.eps

Pursuant to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act wc continually work with the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Bo!l.!"d to addr<Jss this problem in the United States. However, we also understand that this 

problem extends internationally, literally around the INOr!d. 

lllo:•rcfim:::, we share the ~oncerns expressed in the testimrmy of Joyce Begay Foss, Director, 

Lh•ing Traditions Education Center, Museum oflndian .1\r!s and Culture and Nnvnjo weaver 

regarding authenticity and cuhurul alliliation. Wll agree that authentic Navajo rugs are Navajo 

made., and Navajo rugs made by non-Nntive people or non-Navajo Native p~ople are no\ 

authentic. 

Authentic HopiKarsina dolls arc made exclulliYely by Hopi people and not non-Hopi people, 

including Native people such as Na,•ajo people or people from other tribes. Although the [ndian 

Arts am.l Crafts Act and Board has offered us same :mpp011 in the misapproprimion of Hopi 

culture by non-Native people and in addressing this frustrating and recurrent problem, our 

regular objections are only honored in cases of non-Native people. The current Indian Arrs and 

crafts Act is a truth in marketing law does not npply to non-Hopi Nativu pooplt: who create 

likenesses of Hopi Katshm dolls. Imitation Hopi Katsi1W dolls m~de hy non-Hopi Nntive people 

are considered legal under the existing Act. 

Fur1hcr, the generic and liberal use of the Hopi term "Kochina" by non-Hopi Nmive people, such 

as Navajo people or people of other tribes, as well us non-Nntivc people further contrihutcs to 

misleading marketing of'cleurly imitation art ar1s and crafts. 

Therefore, to protect the authenticity of our Hopi trihal heri1age, we recomm~nd the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs and Indian Arts and Crafts Board direct it~ effor1s and ot1ention to 

tnlth in marketing culturally and tribally authentic arts and crafts through the [ndinn Arts and 

Crafts Act, which is currently a truth in marketing law aU dressing Native Americans collectively. 

We agree !hot it is important far law enforcement to prioriti~ its resources on prosecuting those 

who kno\Vingly counterfeit Native American art and cmftwork, and tlmt to accomplish this 

effectively, federal law net:ds to provide the neccssnry tools to investigate and prOStJcute those 

who exploit and undermine the cultural heritage ofNative Americans. 

Therefore we also support the testimony ofallti\C witnesses at the hearing, and fully support the 

testimony Damon Martinez, Former U.S. Attorney far New Mexico, that laid out seven 

recommendations for modernizing the eurrentlaw to refiecl the needs of Native American 

communities. Specifically, to make the law more comprehensive and effective, we support: 

l'irst, that tho Act should consider~:te importution gfNutiw: Amorican-•l.l't~ men:lmndi«: imo tbo 

commerce of lito United Stutes >Cparu!dy from the sat• ofNative ,\meriCI!n·~l)'te morcllandtse in tlto United States. 

S•cond, tloc Acl;!tauld ""luirc ot .. rty ""d simply llm Native llmerk~n·Siy\o mcrchondiso 
72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHI OUELLET, PRESIDENT, INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS

ASSOCIATION

Dear Senator Udall, 

As the President of the Indian Arts and Crafts Association, I’d like to respond to 

your July 7, 2017 hearing on updating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Association is a non-profit organization based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Our mission is to promote, preserve and protect authentic 

Native American arts and crafts. We also support and promote Native American 

artists, and support all aspects of the Indian Arts and Crafts industry from the material suppliers through the end consumers. The Indian Arts and Crafts Association 

has been in existence for over 40 years, and while most of our members are here 

in the US, we do have members in Japan, Germany, France and Australia. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Act is the foundation of our organization and our educational efforts to promote authentic Native American arts and crafts. Educating the 

general public, Native American artists, and retail and wholesale businesses is critical to maintaining and increasing economic opportunity for Native artists. The 

fraudulent art market affects every aspect of the Native American art industry, but 

has a particularly harsh economic effect on artists. 

We fully support and encourage the modernization of the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Act. We hope that you will add specific language that addresses all aspects of the 

fraudulent art market including, Internet auction sites, web sites and social media. 

We also encourage you to increase civil and criminal penalties as deterrents. Specifically, we hope that language will be added that aggregates the total of non-authentic properties seized, so that it is not the dollar value, but rather the simple violation of the Act that triggers civil or criminal prosecution at the Federal level. We 

also hope that a forfeiture clause be added. Given the dollar value of the fraudulent 

goods being brought into the US, we believe that the current fines are treated as 

a ‘‘cost of doing business’’ rather than a true deterrent. 

In addition, while we would like to see a requirement to indelibly mark all imports with the country of origin. We understand that this issue is complicated and 

expensive, and although we believe that this could significantly reduce fraudulent 

goods being brought into the U.S., at this point we recommend study in Trademarks, Copyrights and indelible import marks, so as not to hold up the implementation of other critical parts of the modernization. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Association works very closely with the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Board, and supports its efforts to increase the economic opportunity of 

Native American artists. The services that the Board provides are invaluable to our 

members and therefore the preservation of Native American heritage and culture. 

The Board publishes and distributes brochures, conducts workshops to help artists, 

and provides information about current laws. The Indian Arts and Crafts AssociaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK

707b3.eps
73 

tion appreciates our relationship with the Board, and we are fully committed to support and approve legislation going forward to modernize the Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID S. MONTGOMERY, CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

TRIBAL MEMBER

Dear Senators Hoeven and Udall, 

My name is David Montgomery. I am of Cherokee and Choctaw descent, and I 

am a registered tribal member of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, one of the three 

federally-recognized Cherokee tribes. I have many friends and family who are artists and registered tribal members of various federally-recognized tribes in Oklahoma, New Mexico, California and throughout Indian Country. 

I was very pleased your committee visited Santa Fe for a Field Hearing on Modernizing the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) on July 7th 2017, and I was happy 

to be in attendance at this important hearing. 

I believe it is long overdue to modernize the 1990 IACA, and help protect Indian 

artists of federally-recognized tribes, as well as maintain the sovereignty of federally-recognized tribes to determine who is and who is not a member of their tribal 

nations. 

I know I speak for many Indian artists who would like the IACA to be updated 

to remove state-recognized tribes from the language of the law. As has been acknowledged by all federally-recognized tribes and several states facing the question 

of ‘‘state-recognition’’ of supposed tribes within their borders, it has long been determined that tribal recognition and issues concerning Indian tribes is the exclusive 

domain of the Federal government since the earliest days of the republic, and covered under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

What many federally-recognized tribes have now observed since 1990 is an explosion of groups of individuals claiming to be ‘‘tribes’’ in various states (most notably 

Southern states such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, etc), seeking 

and obtaining ‘‘state-recognition’’. The process for vetting ‘‘tribes’’ at the state-level 

for recognition is non-uniform and non-rigorous compared to the federal recognition 

process, and varies widely from state to state. It can be simply a ‘‘governor proclamation’’ (hardly the intent of the rigor expected for the IACA), or some state-level 

office on Indian affairs that lacks the stringency for tribal recognition that is used 

at the Federal level. Regardless, state-level recognition of Indian tribes as 

sovereigns and their members as ‘‘Indians’’ oversteps the bounds for recognition of 

sovereign entities that resides solely at the Federal level. 

As an example of the potential for corruption and circumvention of the existing 

IACA law, some state-recognized ‘‘tribes’’ simply ask for an annual fee (anywhere 

from $15–$50 dollars) and one can ‘‘join’’ the tribe, with no rigor in their registration 

process such as genealogical trees for descent from an Indian ancestor, state-certified birth, death and adoption certificates, etc. This also neglects the fact that most 

state-recognized tribes lack any historic record of connection to the tribe of Indians 

they are claiming to be, and state-tribes that have applied for federal-recognition 

with the BIA have been rejected because there was simply no burden of proof to 

support their claims as Indian tribes. 

To remedy this, I propose the following: 

1) removal of ‘‘state-recognized tribes’’ from the language of the IACA 

2) certification of an individual by a federally-recognized tribe as being an ‘‘Indian artist’’. This path would allow authentic tribal descendants, who may 

not be able to register as a tribal member but are deemed by the tribe to 

be authentic descendants of that tribe, to become certified as ‘‘Indian artists’’ 

and thus protected under the revised IACA. This path preserves the Federal 

government’s sole authority to recognize Indian tribes, preserves the sovereignty of federally-recognized tribes to determine who is and who is not a 

member of their tribe, and preserves sovereignty for tribes to acknowledge 

their non-member descendants as certified Indian artists in order for those 

non-enrolled individuals to be protected under the IACA. 

74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHN BAKER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE

NATION

ADDITIONAL LETTERS AND STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

To whom it may concern: 

As a citizen of the Echota Cherokee Tribe Of AL, I appreciate your work on the 

Arts and Craft Law and join with the Alabama Indian Affairs Commission in support of its strengthening. I implore you to maintain the definition of ’Indian’ set 

forth in the present law, and to continue the inclusion of the state recognized tribes. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Deborah Davis 


707b4.eps
75 

I was in Santa Fe last week and saw reproduction Native American jewelry all 

around the Plaza. One way to identify a business 

selling Asian made jewelry is to notice how bright the lights are inside the store. 

Lots of glass cases and too much light wattage is a dead giveaway. Why don’t you 

clean up that area and shut those people down? 

Glenn White, Scottsdale, Arizona 

I support Senator Udall’s proposal to modernize and enforce the livelihood of fellow Native Artist and their communities from Fraud 

Thank you 

Jesse Salcedo 

This is my statement and no way am I speaking for anyone but myself, but hope 

my concerns fall on open ears. 

First of all; we need all our artist where they be Federal or State-without all of 

them our culture, like our people die out-Their erpertise in the making and use of 

all natural materials and animals, not excluding anything from turtles/fish/trees 

and plants are needed. 

I am a local NA artist from Alabama where most of my cherokee ancestors lived, 

until the removal act was put in force.I try to use any and or all natural things 

the creator gave us to better my life and support myself and family. My bloodline 

comes down from Moytoy 1st through Robert Cherokee Thomas and his daughter 

Ann Martha Tiny bird CherokeeMy Ancestors were proud and resourceful people. They shared all they knew for 

future generations to survive and make use of if they chose.. They took from the 

earth what was needed and shared or traded items and their knowledge, to support 

them and family, letting others do the same. A lot of my living is making and selling 

items from beads to furs and hide, learning from 

those who teach it to me, and sharing this to others especially the younger generation (Our Future)in hopes our culture and Heritage does not die, as it almost 

has many times before-It is the Local State Artist in rural areas, that has opened 

the door for young people to see what in truth, our past was like, NOT what was 

taught in school- and to teach them about keeping it true, for the future-Many of 

my Ancestors have long gone and with just enough to pass down what they knew 

with me to survive and pass on with this generation.I am one of few who has kept 

this interest and hope to open the ears of others- If the State Recognized Tribes are 

cast aside and not allowed to Be/make, sell or trade same items as large companies 

and or Federal tribes-How are we to teach our arts/crafts and culture to others and 

survive?Not everyone has Internet or TV-But the ones who do mostly see the fake 

items passed off as Hand Made NA crafts, on Ebay or sites like Etsy, which in reality comes from China and other foreign countries.Many letters have been sent to 

try and stop this but falls on deft ears. How do we show how all parts of deer or 

shells of turtles and plants were used to make clothes and rattles to use in our spiritual ceremonies and gatherings or everyday use? and or give joy to those both seeing, wearing and using these items that they made?WE TEACH HOW-People like 

to see in person arts and crafts that are hand made-Why it is so important that 

local artist and teachers survive. Showing our children may keep interest in our culture; If these rights are not taken away, and not taught because for lack of interest?. Every State has its own rules now of what you can gather or use unless you 

carry a card from a recognized tribe, and then it is closely watched.Federal tribes 

and large companies, have tried to do away with State Artist and tribes for a long 

time and I have seen more and more items from China made from artificial materials, passed off as NA art coming from commercial companies at a lot of pow wows 

or gatherings, A lot of our people meet to share ideas and sell or trade their hand 

made crafts at these gatherings-The State Artist I know work hard to teach and 

promote the use of all items given of mother nature for our use, and spiritual being 

,giving back to their people and tribe.We need our State as well as Federal tribes 

to promote the growth and culture of our people. Since most are far apart. But we 

are limited to what and how much we can use, depending on State you are from 

and items you use to make your art, like bear claws and hides that come more from 

our Northern States, or Quahog shells that comes from the coast that was part of 

our culture for so long. and becoming more hard to find the good color that was once 

all along the clear waters, and with our waters poisoned with pollutants and forrest 

cut down, that helped us have fresh and healthy air and animals, now most is all 

gone.Fish and skin drumheads to use in our drums to make our hearts sore with 

76 

Eagles as we dance and wear their feathers. Are becoming much harder to find 

what was once plentiful.Forrest is taken away to make large cities, animals have 

no where to go or live. So materials from there are harder to come by.The ones that 

are, is usually just thrown on side of road or in a ditch from trophy hunters, just 

using the head, instead of offering rest to artist or families for food .If we are excluded from making and selling our wares at gatherings or stores; then our culture 

may be doomed, jobs to support our family gone, and more poverty taking controlI ask for the sake of my forefathers to not exclude State Tribes in this or other hearings, in being able to do and have the same right as Federal Tribes, or big companies. Most of us carry the same blood and need our rights to survive. Thank you 

for listening. 

Bob Upton 

Ladies & Gentlemen, 

I fully support Tom Udall’s efforts to strengthen the Indian Arts & Crafts Act of 

1990 to further protect our Native American Art. 

In a time when too many of the items available for purchase are ‘‘Made in China’’ 

it becomes imperative to protect the quality of all American products. Strengthening 

this Act is one step out of many which I hope will be taken. 

Protected Native American Art gives ‘‘Made in America’’ something we can be 

proud of. 

Thank you for your effort on behalf of our National Treasures. 

Sincerely, 

PATRICIA J. WITT, 

Marathon, FL. 

Over the years, I have heard Native artists complain about their work being copied. Their works are inspired by their culture and the lives they have lived. Natives 

are expressing their innermost thoughts through their art. It’s a personal expression 

not felt by those who copy. Those who are copying the Native artists are stealinga culture and potential income. 

I have also known people who have purchased and treasured art works they assumed were created by Native artists, but were not. The Indian Arts & Crafts Association’s logo ensures the art work is created by a Native artist. The IACA requires 

documentation from the tribe and examples of the artist’s work before including the 

artist in their registry. One of the problems has been the lack of funding for promoting the work the IACA has done and making potential buyers aware of what 

to look for when purchasing Native art. 

The bigger problem has been punishing those who knowingly copy Native art for 

profit. Even if the fakes have been found and reported, the laws protecting Native 

art are not always enforced. I believe this is due, in part, to limited Federal funding 

dedicated to this area. 

I have been an arts administrator for over 20 years and an artist for many more 

years, and I have felt the sorry artists feel when there work has been copied, particularly when they are not acknowledged or have not benefitted from financial compensation. I have also been honored to be an artist member of the IACA. 

CHRISTINE KLIMMEK, BS ART EDUCATION

Oneida Nation Arts Program Coordinator 

Dear Sir: 

I recommend the following: 

Only tribal members who are officially enrolled in a federally recognized tribe or 

state recognized be authorized to sale items as an authentic Indigenous/American 

Indian craft or art product. 

Proof must be provided by the craftsman/craftswoman as an officially enrolled 

member of either a federal or state recognized tribe. 

All Indigenous/American Indian craft or art work must be created and verified to 

have been done only within the USA. 

I am enrolled with the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. 

I was appointed to the Board of Directors for the Florida Governor’s Council on 

Indian Affairs for the state of Florida. 

I am a past member of The Board of Directors for the Vietnam Era Veterans 

Inter-Tribal Association, Inc. 

I am a member of the Presidential Advisory Board for President Trump. 

77 

I will be advising President Trump on all issues related to Indigenous/American 

Indians and tribal government issues. 

What is your relationship with Secretary Ryan Zinke? Have you included the BIA 

in this review of the Craft and Arts issue? 

I recommend that you send a formal notice to the following: 

All federal tribes 

All state recognized tribes 

All commissions of Indian affairs 

Provide a federal list for all federal tribes and state recognized tribes that are authorized to make and sale craft and or Art as Indigenous/American Indian made 

solely inside the USA 

Sincerely, 

JOEL K. HARRIS, SR., PH.D. 

Ocala, FL. 

Good morning members of the Committee, 

My name is Steve K. Boone, I am a member of the Zuni Pueblo Indian Tribe. 

I would like to submit a comment concerning the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 

which is vital for all gifted Native American artisans. More is needed to disceminate 

a large variety of the authenticity and quality of hand crafted designs that symbolize importance and meanings to each tribal nation across the Americas. By developing better educational efforts with the artisan and tribal leadership for all visitors 

who enter each region of where they could find and purchase the unique products 

for their appreciation, along with knowing they were handcrafted by an individual 

of an American Indian. 

Best regards. 

As a collector of genuine Native American art, I hope you not only continue the 

current level of enforcement and preferably provide an increased level of surveillance to ensure that authenic goods are being sold. 

I have been several galleries in Santa Fe when they have been trying to sell goods 

of dubious origin to visitors. 

It seemed to me at that time that this was short term thinking since if folks think 

they have been cheated, they are less likely to return to New Mexico, however for 

some making a buck is the immediate goal. 

PATRICK BLACKWELL

Dear Senator Udall, 

I am in favor of legislation that will support the livelihoods of Native artists, 

while also protecting Native artists and all Native Americans and their communities 

from fraudulent practices. 

Thank you. 

CHARLES T. SAUNDERS, PH.D, ACG, ALB, 

Franklin University—Columbus, OH 

Thank you for conducting the recent hearing in Santa Fe on proposed legislation 

to strengthen enforcement of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. I support your 

work to protect the livelihoods of Native artists and defend Native communities 

from fraudulent practices. 

KARIE LUIDENS

Respectfully, Native makers of Native art should be the decision-makers on their 

wares. 

Sen. Udall’s proposal to update the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 comes at 

a time when theft and fraud seems to be more sophisticated than ever. 

In New Mexico, we’ve learned there’s a need to protect our chiles and laws are 

now in place. 

It’s time the U.S. improve protections on all Native products. 

Sincerely, 

78 

SUSAN BORTZ-JOHNSON, 

Cedar Crest, NM. 

My name is James S. de Champlon, for the past 10 years I have worked with the 

Cultural Services Department of the City of Albuquerque as the Historic Old Town 

Portal Market Manager. The Portal Market is a multicultural arts and crafts market that is open year round, and though not limited to Native American artisans, 

a majority of the participants in the program are Native Americans. 

Over time it has become apparent to me that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act in 

its efforts to promote Native American artisans could use some kind of reinforcement in order to become more effective in achieving this goal and so I was excited 

to hear about the Senate Indian Affairs Committee efforts towards Modernizing the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Act. 

In my position as Portal Market manager I work with both Native American artisans along with artisans of other varied cultural backgrounds and it has been by 

experience that similar issues of, authenticity in production, and materials are 

shared by all of the artisans that participate in the Portal Market program and perhaps in the arts and crafts industry as a whole. 

I have developed some ideas about how the IACA might be reinforced, specifically 

thru the provision that relates to the establishment of trade marks and the possibility of broadening the scope of such a system so that it might include other arts 

and crafts categories related to various aspects of regional and ethnic heritage from 

both domestic and foreign artisans along with a differentiation between categories 

such as traditional, contemporary, and manufactured items. 

I would be happy to share my thoughts in more detail if the Committee might 

find it useful. 

Thank you for your efforts. 

Hello, 

I’m French, and looking for authentic Native American Indian Arts and Crafts to 

sell to Museums shops in France and in Europe. 

My last visit to the USA was in April 2016 and I saw in Santa Fe, Taos, Gallup. . . (even in Albuquerque airport) many items sold as Navajo pottery, Pueblo 

pottery, Zuni fetishes, Hopi kachinas. . .etc. . .which were obviously not authentic 

and not locally produced (looking like they were coming from the Far East and Middle East). 

Some of these items end up in European shops, and sometimes even in Museum 

shops. 

Just thinking that a testimony from across the ocean would be beneficial in 

strenghtening the Act enforcement and maintain the quality and authenticity of Native works of art. 

Staying at your disposal. 

Sincerely, 

OLIVIER LUCOTTE. 

Our retail store Ownership and Management at Lantern Dancer, in Pagosa 

Springs, CO, supports Senator Udall’s modernization proposal of the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Act. Specifically, we want to increase the capability to enforce compliance 

to the act and education and outreach to artists, organizations, businesses, and the 

general public. We also know it is critically important to address the selling of authentic Native American arts and crafts via the Internet and Social Media. We work 

direct with Calvin Begay and have been impacted by the influx of fraudulent and 

fake works. 

Thank you for helping us help protect our artists and our retail business. 

Sincerely, 

LEANNE GOEBEL, 

Manager/Board member IACA 

I fully support efforts to enhance and enforce legislation providing harsher penalties for those who would cheat our indigenous artists by appropriating their culture. As a retail member of the Indian Arts and Crafts Association, I know fakes 

hurt all of us. They take unfair advantage of the artists, the dealers and the 

unsuspecting consumers who unknowingly help perpetuate this fraud by their purVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
79 

chases. Penalties for producing fake Native American art or dealing in it must be 

stronger and must be rigidly enforced. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

SUZIE MCKAY, 

Indigenous Arts, LLC. 

Hello, 

I’m emailing in support of Senator Tom Udall’s proposal to submit a new bill to 

modernize the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. I am in favor of his proposed 

legislation to strengthen the Act’s enforcement, to support the livelihoods of Native 

artists and protecting Native communities from fraudulent practices. 

Hope this helps. 

I support the modernization of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, especially the aggregation and forfeiture issues. Also, we need an increase in the capability in enforcement and education and outreach to Native artists, organizations, businesses 

and the general public interested in buying and selling authentic Native art. 

Sincerely, 

DAWN DUNKELBERGER, 

Aka Dawn Dark Mountain 

Dear Senator Udall: 

I follow Indian Arts and Crafts for my own love of the art of Native Americans. 

One of the websites that I frequently utilize is Shumakolowa Native Arts in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This modernization is vitally important to protect the artifacts of native peoples for so many native artists; archeologists, and to provide clear 

and authoritative directions on how Indian Arts and Crafts should be handled. 

I did my homework before I selected two reliable, authentic & reputable artists’ 

distributors who feature work in specific areas: jewelry. pottery, art, instruments; 

media, pendletons and other woven items; carvings, baskets, rugs. There are here 

in the Bay Area many buyers who go into a store that sells turquoise jewelry which 

is not authenticated. Who kniws what they are really getting when they buy an Indian necklace. Shumakolawa authenticates every art piece they distribute to a 

buyer. And the case of stolen artifacts has become quite serious. Dishonest collectors 

are stealing valuable artifacts and selling them on the black market. This is a case 

of stealing the heritage of Native Americans. 

This law needs to be strengthened to reflect the changing circumstances that Native Americans are facing to support their culture and share their priceless artifacts 

with others through museums; reputable distributors and private collectors. 

I can attest that Native American jewelry is filled with so much life and so many 

activities that the jewelry symbolizes. 

Sincerely yours, 

REBECCA HAZLEWOOD, 

El Cerrito, CA. 

I whole heartedly support your proposal to update and modernize the Indian Arts 

and Crafts Act, and support better protections for Native American artists and 

crafts-people. 

Thank you, 

JOHN LANDRY

Thank you for supporting the new updated legislation proposed by Udall to protect the Native American Art and Crafts. 

CAROLYN RODRIGUEZ, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

Senator Udall please help us keep the Arts law as it currently is and keep the 

interests of State recognized tribes in good standing. I am not an artisan but I am 

friends and a tribal brother to several who are and they are every bit Native Craftsmen. Thank you for your involvement 

80 

MIKE RICHARDS, 

Echota Cherokee. 

Dear Honorable, 

The present efforts are to be commended, and continued, thank you. The present 

focus is on Items being made out of the USA and being brought into the USA and 

being sold as handmade/handcrafted American Indian Art. This practice needs continued enforcement. 

There are over 1,000 jewelry factories in Albuquerque, NM, that are also creating 

American Indian style jewelry. Mostly Navajo style jewelry. The Jewelry is sold retail and wholesale to shops/galleries around the country and world markets. These 

businesses have been very active since before the 1950’s. many of them have been 

and are members of the Indian Arts and Crafts Association. These Businesses have 

created this association the IACA. These businesses have wholesale/retail shows 

several times a year. Shops that buy from these Factories have a IACA label/sticker 

placed appropriately in their shops/stores, in America and Internationally. The 

IACA claims that all items sold by their businesses are American Indian Handmade/handcrafted. The authentication of each business member and their items for 

sale as American Indian Handmade/handcrafted items is based solely upon their application and acceptance into the IACA organization. No evaluation process to authenticate the items to see if American Indians are making the Items is done. The 

IACA sticker is placed in the shops and the customers feel confident that all items 

in these shops are handcrafted/Handmade by American Indians. These factory business also contract with award winning Indian Artists and use their designs to create 

jewelry. These manufactured jewelry pieces have been sold on TV home shopping 

markets in the past. The artist is brought on the show explaining how they handcraft/Handmake each piece. The pieces are massed produced by these factories and 

are sold on these tv shows. Mass production is their method of meeting the demand 

of their world market American Indian styled jewelry and products. So not all 

American Indian Style Jewelry is made overseas. The IACA is a great place to check 

for enforcing the present law. 

Creating the next generations of laws has to include the complete transparency 

of these companies in Albuquerque and Gallup, New Mexico and other places in the 

region. These companies pay no taxes for selling wholesale. The people who buy 

their products and sell at shows pay no taxes. The loss of tax monies over the years 

since the beginning including the beginning of IACA, is in the billions. 

Loloma, 

BENNARD DALLASVUYAOMA, 

Nephew of Charles Loloma. 

Good morning. I am writing in regards to the revision of the Indian Arts and 

Crafts Act. After watching the testimonies given, there are some concerns that the 

definition of what is ‘‘Indian’’ will remove state recognized tribes. I have concerns 

as I am a tribal citizen of the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. Because the 3 

federal tribes only use two (of many) rolls listing Cherokees, my family cannot enroll 

in a federal tribe. However, my DNA shows North, South and Central American Indian markers. My genealogy also shows Cherokee, Shawnee and Catawba ancestors. 

Yet, I cannot enroll in any of the federal tribes. There are thousands of people just 

like myself who are truly Native American, Their only option is to join a state recognized tribe or not be enrolled at all. This does not make us any less Native American. 

I would like to see the board pull from all three definitions of ‘‘Indian’’ and have 

all three participate in these discussion. It is unfair that only federal tribal members were included in the testimonies. Under the Act, ‘‘an Indian is defined as a 

member of any Federally or officially State recognized Indian Tribe, or an individual 

certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian Tribe.’’ 

Please consider a full representation of all Native Americans when addressing 

these issues by having federal, state and certified artisans in the decisionmaking 

process. 

Best regards. 

WEEYA MICHELLE SMITH. 

The American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA) promotes economic development and cultural perpetuation in Indian Country through its misVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
81 

sion: to define, introduce, grow and sustain American Indian, Alaska Native and 

Native Hawaiian tourism that honors traditions and values. Cultural tourism creates jobs and supports the teaching of each tribal nation’s distinct food, language, 

art, music, dance and cultural practices across generations. 

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) has partnered with AIANTA to present 

consumer information, marketing information and protections available to tribal artists and to educate various publics about authentic tribal arts and crafts. 

Art and crafts are integral to tribal cultures and heritage and represent important 

sources of revenue for tribal members and their families. AIANTA supports 

strengthening enforcement of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act through changing laws 

to allow for an aggregation of individual transactions that would enable federal 

prosecutors to more effectively prosecute largescale distributors who violate the Act. 

We also support more education and training of local, state and federal enforcement 

officers and increased funding for investigations, especially in the areas of Internet 

sales and making sure imports of Native American-style arts and crafts are indelibly marked with the country of origin. 

Tourist and other consumers’ confidence in the purchase of authentic American 

Indian arts are essential to authentic tribal tourism. Consumer education materials 

by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board educates visitors to Indian Country and gives 

them confidence in their purchases. 

We commend Senator Tom Udall and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for 

taking up this important strengthening of the Arts and Crafts Act 

CAMILLE FERGUSON, 

Executive Director, American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association 

Dear Senator Udall, 

I am president of the Santa Fe Downtown Merchants association, board Secretary 

and ex board chair of SWAIA, and a business owner in Santa Fe. 

I have cooperated with the IACB for over 17 years trying to stop the shameless 

miscreants in our own community as they cheat, lie, defraud, and commit cultural 

genocide with relative impunity since you left the Attorney General’s office. In fairness,other Attorneys’ General have tried, the Fish and Wildlife and other Interior 

people have tried as well, but the local corruption on every level and the greed of 

dealers, and even Native artists who also sometime lie about their materials and 

methods just gets worse and worse. 

Clearly, underfunding is the biggest issue, but following close on its heels is legitimate fear of these threatening and violent people, their very public bragging about 

paying off elected and appointed public officials, and their equally public display of 

stocks of automatic firearms, unsavory connections, and willingness to hurt others. 

Hopefully, bigger fines, increased enforcement, and more visible educational possibilities might help. Santa Fe’s new ‘‘authenticity zone’’ is an interesting idea, but 

carries with it no enforcement capability or intent. I simply hope that making some 

one sign a pledge will make it easier for the AG Balderas to prove that such a person was aware of the rules when he broke them. 

I wish that you had had more time to meet with those of us who actually live 

and work amidst this retail situation, and would recommend that you or your staff 

visit with me, with John Dressman, Mark Bahti, and some others as we are in a 

situation to see this entire dynamic play out ‘‘where the rubber meets the road’’. 

When a subset of local merchants is determined, in Santa Fe, in Scottsdale, in 

Gallup, or in Las Vegas to defraud consumers, cheat natives, and destroy a way of 

life, seemingly without retribution, it is alarming. 

We have tried to help in the past, and would like to do more. 

Enforcement, secret shoppers, and increased attention to money laundering, bribery, and other nefarious activities all require money, I suspect that is the eternal 

crux of the matter. Perhaps this could be sold as a form of enhanced border security. 

The IACB and other Interior personnel are dedicated, smart, determined, and 

overtasked. Again, I guess that’s money. 

Thank you. 

ELIZABETH MCNALLY PETTUS, 

Things Finer, Santa Fe, New Mexico 

I am writing in support of Senator Tom Udall’s proposal to submit a new bill to 

modernize the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. My wife and I have a small collection of authentic Indian arts and crafts and greatly treasure them. I am pleased 

to hear that the proposed legislation will strengthen the Act’s enforcement, supVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:16 Sep 15, 2017 Jkt 026821 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\26821.TXT JACK
82 

porting the livelihoods of Native artists and protecting Native communities from 

fraudulent practices. 

I have seen several locations selling items that were being passed as authentic. 

We have studied this art enough to note some inauthentic pieces being passed as 

authentic, and believe that if there is one piece on the shelf is fraudulent, they all 

are suspect. However, we have watched as other people bought these pieces believing them to be authentic, including jewelry, textiles (blankets) and pottery. 

This law needs stronger teeth and greater enforcement. Please stiffen the penalties and increase the enforcement so severely against fake Indian art that this 

fraudulent practice is not worth what these ‘‘con artists’’ will lose. 

JOE AND STEPHANIE CAVANAUGH

I urge you to take measures to strengthen the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. 

I have been a longtime purchaser and collector of Native American art and jewelry. 

Our native artists have faced an onslaught of cheap foreign producers flooding the 

market with knockoffs and imitations. 

Unfortunately, many people associate Indian jewelry with cheaply produced items, 

many of which are mass-produced overseas with fake turquoise and other materials. 

This cheats both consumers and producers. Additionally, labels used to identify native art are confusing. 

These practices undercut local markets, local jobs, and local economies as well as 

deceive consumers. High quality native artwork commands top dollar because of the 

skill and artistry involved as well as the uniqueness of the product. Many of us are 

more than willing to purchase American Indian art, handicrafts, and jewelry at fair 

market value, ensuring that the products are both authentic and priced to reflect 

fair market wages. 

Please develop ways to better protect American jobs and local economies through 

labeling, enforcement, and other measures to ensure the authenticity of Native 

American arts and crafts. 

Thank you. 

CYNTHIA F. VAN DER WIELE

Durham, NC. 

Æ