29–010 

Calendar No. 638

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 108–310 

TO ACKNOWLEDGE A LONG HISTORY OF OFFICIAL DEPREDATIONS AND 

ILLCONCEIVED POLICIES BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REGARDING INDIAN TRIBES AND OFFER AN APOLOGY TO ALL NATIVE PEOPLES ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S.J. Res. 37] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the joint 

resolution (S.J. Res. 37) to acknowledge a long history of official 

depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native 

Peoples on behalf of the United States having considered the same, 

reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute and recommends that the joint resolution (as amended) 

do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S.J. Res. 37 is to acknowledge a long history of 

official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States 

Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States Government. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Prior to the establishment of the United States, British and 

Spanish colonies established early relationships with Indian tribes 

through negotiated treaties. These treaties served as agreements 

between two sovereign governments and considered supreme law of 

the land. 

After establishment of the United States constitution, the new 

U.S. government continued relations with Indian tribes by assuming the role of establishing treaties with tribes. Federal policy on 

relations with Indian tribes was also established in the U.S. ConVerDate jul 14 2003 05:01 Jul 17, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR310.XXX SR310
2

1 Article 1, Section 8, also known as the Commerce Clause, states that ‘‘The Congress shall 

have the power to . . . [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several 

states, and with the Indian tribes.’’ 2 1 Stat. § 137 (1790); see also 25 U.S.C. § 177. The Indian Non-Intercourse Act prohibited all 

Indian land transactions that did not have Federal government approval. This policy, though 

reaffirmed and refined, continues to be current policy. 3 21 U.S.C. § 543 (1823). 4 30 U.S.C. § 1 (1831). 5 31 U.S.C. § 515 (1832). 6 24 Stat. 388, codified as amended by 25 U.S.C. §§ 331–334, 339, 341, 342, 348, 349, 354 and 

381. 

stitution through the Commerce Clause,1 legislation in the Indian 

Non-Intercourse Act of 1790,2 and by United States Supreme Court 

cases such as Johnson v. McIntosh,3 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,4

and Worcester v. Georgia,5 on which is built the doctrine of the Federal trust responsibility. 

From the earliest days of the Republic, there existed a sentiment 

that honorable dealings and peaceful coexistence were preferable to 

bloodshed. Indeed, Congress in 1787 provided in the Northwest Ordinance that ‘‘[t]he utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians.’’ S.J. Res. 37 recognizes past dealings, both good 

and bad, between the United States Government and Indian tribes 

and that there were many treaties made between the Federal and 

Indian tribal governments. 

However, the young Republic had a nearly unquenchable demand 

for land as immigrants entered our country and settlers spread 

west into lands traditionally occupied and used by Native peoples. 

Too often the United States Government did not uphold its responsibilities provided in its covenants with the Indian tribes and, as 

a result, Indian lands were taken away from tribes, relationships 

were strained, and distrust became the hallmark of the Federaltribal relationship. 

The relationship was further strained by the promulgation of 

several Federal policy initiatives set forth by the United States 

Congress through passage of the General Allotment Act of 1887, 6

also referred to as the Dawes Act, and legislation that called for 

the termination of the Federal-tribal relationship. These policies 

were meant to encourage assimilation of Indian people into mainstream America. The policies were disastrous in that they further 

deteriorated the Indian land base, eroded tribal cultures, and did 

nothing to improve the political, economic and social conditions of 

Indian tribes or Native people. 

Nonetheless, there is a recognized need by those of goodwill for 

some type of reconciliation. However, before reconciliation, there 

must be an acknowledgment of past misdeeds and repentance. S.J. 

Res. 37 is intended to be the first step toward healing the wounds 

that have prevented the United States Government and Indian 

tribes from striking a positive, forward-looking relationship that 

will endure for decades to come. 

The resolution is meant to provide the foundation for a new era 

of positive relations between the United States Government and Indian tribes and intended to help heal the divisions in our land and 

reconcile all Americans as one people, with one destiny. 

The resolution acknowledges and honors the importance of Native Peoples to our land and our country—in the past and in the 

present day—and offers an official apology to the Native peoples for 

3

the official depredations and ill-conceived policies of the United 

States Government regarding Indian tribes. 

Significantly, S.J. Res. 37 is not intended to fuel any continuing 

controversies, or engender or support any litigation or claims by or 

against the United States and Indian tribes. It is both the sponsors’ intention and the Committee’s understanding that S.J. Res. 37 

does not, and should not be construed to, authorize or support any 

claim against the United States nor should it serve as evidence to 

support in any way a claim against the United States. In this regard, S.J. Res. 37, or any part of the resolution, is not intended for 

use as evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 in any 

proceeding or proffered as applicable law to govern any judicial 

proceeding. 

At the same time, it is both the sponsors’ intention and the Committee’s understanding that S.J. Res. 37 does not authorize or 

serve as a settlement of any claim against the United States by an 

Indian tribe or tribes. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S.J. Res. 37 was introduced by Senator Brownback on May 6, 

2004, for himself and for Senators Campbell and Senator Inouye. 

Senators Akaka, Daschle and Dodd were later added as additional 

cosponsors. On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Indian Affairs 

considered the resolution and ordered the resolution, in the form 

of a substitute amendment, reported to the Senate with favorable 

recommendation that it pass. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in open business session on June 23, 2004, by a unanimous voice vote of a quorum 

present, considered the resolution and ordered the resolution, in 

the form of a substitute amendment, reported to the Senate with 

favorable recommendation that it pass.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONCERNS

The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of this 

measure has been requested but was not received at the time the 

report was filed. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

There have been no executive communications received on this 

legislation. 

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation 

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out 

S.J. Res. 37. The resolution is not a regulatory measure in the 

sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant 

economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses. No 

personal information would be collected in administering the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy. Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment 

of S.J. Res. 37. 

4

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by S.J. Res. 37, as ordered reported.

Æ