U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–991 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–197

NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED PLACES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

JUNE 18, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Bear, Joyce, historic preservation officer and manager, Cultural Preservation Office, Muscogee [Creek] Nation, Ocmulgee, OK ............................... 11

Bettenberg, William D., director, Office of Policy Analysis, Department

of the Interior, Washington, DC .................................................................. 3

Brady, Sr., Steve, headsman, Northern Cheyenne Crazy Dogs Society,

member, Medicine Wheel Coalition for Sacred Sites of Native American, Lame Deer, MT .................................................................................... 17

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, chairman,

Committee on Indian Affairs ....................................................................... 1

Harjo, Suzan Shown, president, The Morning Star Institute, Washington,

DC .................................................................................................................. 8

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 1

Preston, Gene C., chairman, Pit River Tribal Council, Burney, CA ............ 13

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ........................................ 7

White Face, Charmaine, director, Defenders of The Black Hills, Rapid

City, SD ......................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Bear, Joyce (with attachment) ......................................................................... 33

Bettenberg, William D. (with responses to questions) .................................. 39

Brady, Sr., Steve ............................................................................................... 48

Harjo, Suzan Shown (with attachment) ......................................................... 54

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 29

Kile, Nancy ........................................................................................................ 31

Preston, Gene C. ............................................................................................... 65

Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon ...................................... 30

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ........................................ 30

Weahkee, Laurie, executive director, SAGE council, Albuquerque, NM

(with attachment) ......................................................................................... 70

White Face, Charmaine (with attachment) .................................................... 74

(1)

NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED PLACES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room

485, Russell Senate Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Campbell, Johnson, Thomas, and Smith.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee on Indian Affairs

will be in session.

Welcome to the fourth hearing in this committee’s series of hearings on legal protections of Indian sacred places. As we have done

in hearings past, today we will hear from the Department of the

Interior and tribal representatives to discuss specific and active

cases where Indian sacred places are or may be threatened. We’ll

hear from the Department of the Interior; from Suzan Harjo, my

dear friend for so many years; from Charmaine White Face of the

Defenders of the Black Hills; from Joyce Bear of the Muscogee

Creek Nation; from Gene Preston, the chairman of the Pit River

Tribe of California; and from my Northern Cheyenne brother, Steve

Brady, from Lame Deer, MT.

Senator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Campbell. I’ll just be

very brief, and I have a full statement to submit for the record.

Let me say that I appreciate the timeliness of this hearing. I

hope that it leads to a strengthened approach to sacred site protection.

In my home State of South Dakota in the past year or so we

have had five instances that come immediately to mind where

we’ve had very troubling circumstances arise relative to sacred

sites. One is relative to the Bear Butte Region in the Northern

Black Hills, where Federal money through a community development block grant fund, which, of course, does go through the State

government and through the State decision to utilize those Federal

dollars, resulted in the beginning of a development of a rifle range
2

near Bear Butte, one of our most sacred sites in South Dakota.

That is now caught up in litigation, but it is one more instance

where I think a lack of consultation and lack of sensitivity was apparent.

We also have circumstances along the Missouri River where the

Corps of Engineers’ management to the river has caused the impoundments behind the large earthen dams to rise and to fall, and

in some instances that has led to the uncovering of remains of Native people, bones literally sticking out of the ground and into the

river, complicated most recently in the north point area where the

Corps of Engineers in the State of South Dakota have struck a

joint arrangement with the State to improve campgrounds and picnic areas and so on, but it has resulted in literally the bulldozing

of Native remains. That, too, is now caught up in litigation, and a

special master has been appointed, but it is a sad commentary that

it has reached that point.

Recently, in the Sioux Falls region and in the Mitchell area of

South Dakota, earth work for the development of commercial and

residential areas has again turned up Native remains. There seems

to be a great deal of confusion about what to do once that has occurred and what the rights of the property owners are, what the

jurisdiction of the State and local jurisdictions is, what the Federal

role is.

So it is my hope that this hearing today will help shed some light

on what the existing legislation does, where we need to better enforce the existing legislation, and to promote better communication,

and where the existing legislation is simply inadequate and where

it needs strengthening.

I’m looking forward to testimony that we will receive today and

further analysis relative to Representative Rahall’s legislation on

the House side, H.R. 2419, the Native American Sacred Lands Act.

There is no similar legislation pending in the Senate. Representative Rahall’s bill is a codification of President Clinton’s Sacred Sites

Initiative, and I look forward to insights shared with us from the

panel relative to that particular piece of legislation.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue.

I look forward to working with you. But this really does involve a

profoundly consequential matter, as Native people find over and

over again their most sacred sites, sacred remains being treated in

a way that would be considered utterly intolerable in any other

community, and it should be intolerable for them, as well. I hope

that we can find ways that we can get out of the courtroom and

resolve these issues in a more expeditious, more thoughtful, and

more sensitive way than has been the case in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that very fine opening comment.

[Prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I think in the case of South Dakota you probably

represent as many or more Indian people than anybody in the

United States Senate, and I know that South Dakota is caught in

somewhat of a difficult position because you have a huge influx of

people in South Dakota. It’s a big State for tourism, as an example,

which creates jobs, and so many important things that Indian people need as well as anybody else, and at the same time many of

the people that come into the States are not very well educated or
3

versed on taking care of the traditional things that are of such importance to Indian people.

Senator JOHNSON. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, as is so often the

case, I have multiple conflicting hearing obligations, including a

markup going on today, and I’m not going to be able to stay as long

as I would like. I won’t be able to stay for all of the panel testimony, and so I apologize for that. But I will be reviewing all of the

testimony and I do have staff here, because this is a very, very important matter to me.

Again, I thank you for organizing this hearing today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks for being here as long as you could.

We’ll start with the first witness, and that will be William

Bettenberg, director of the Office of Policy Analyst, Department of

the Interior.

Mr. Bettenberg, if you would like to abbreviate your comments,

your complete written testimony will be included in the record. Go

ahead and proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. BETTENBERG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF POLICY ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. BETTENBERG. Thank you very much.

My name is William Bettenberg. I’m director of the Office of Policy Analysis in the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately for

this process, I am a substitute witness. Chris Kearney testified last

year and was expected to be here today. His father died just the

day before yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. I’m sorry.

Mr. BETTENBERG. And so he had to go to Connecticut.

The person who has been primarily working on this, as well, is

in the hospital this morning. Jim Pace’s father is undergoing some

sort of an operation this morning. So I learned that we needed a

substitute witness just yesterday afternoon.

I have reviewed some of the documentation regarding this matter. We have an executive order in place. We have departmental

guidance in place in the departmental manual. I’m advised that

each of our five land managing bureaus have their more specific

guidance in place as required by the departmental manual. As I

understand was discussed at last year’s hearing on this subject,

there are some very practical problems in implementing the policies and, as a result of that, the Department of Interior reactivated

its Sacred Sites Working Group. They have interacted with interested parties, including those in the Native American community,

over the past year.

There are three key issues. The first one is confidentiality of

sites. That has to do with how do you administer Interior’s land

management responsibilities and still maintain the confidentiality

of a site. If you go to a public hearing, for instance, and you want

to discuss the issues regarding a site but you can’t describe the

site, you don’t want people to know about the site because of fear

of looting, you have fairly obvious practical difficulties. You also

want to run the remainder of your process in such a manner that

you don’t reveal the site.
4

The second is discreet delineation that’s called for in the Executive order of President Clinton. It describes it as ‘‘discreet, narrowly delineated location on Federal lands.’’ Ultimately, substantial

judgment must be exercised in these cases.

The final issue is how do you assure appropriate consultation,

given these other two issues. The working group is working to provide clarity to the procedures that the Department follows as opposed to changing policies. My understanding is that the working

group is expected to complete its deliberations and have further

guidance on procedures out yet this summer, but it is not available

at this point for this particular hearing.

The only other remark that I could make is probably just a personal observation in reviewing the material for this. The Department may at some point need some legislation to allow it to protect

confidentiality because of issues that arise in the context of the

Freedom of Information Act and other acts that are intended to

bring sunshine to the Government.

As a former director of the Minerals Management Service at the

Department of the Interior, I was protected by legislation that allowed the Minerals Management Service to receive and maintain

the confidentiality of proprietary data. This is data that was typically coming from oil companies; in some other cases information

coming from people paying money for mineral leases where there

were issues in dispute. That I think served us well, and at some

point I think that something like that probably ought to be considered.

That concludes my brief remarks, and I will attempt as best as

I can to answer any questions.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Bettenberg appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, since you just came on, we’ll ask you a few

questions and then we’ll put some in writing for you, too, if you

would get back to the committee.

Mr. BETTENBERG. That would be fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas of Wyoming has arrived. Did

you have an opening statement, Senator, before we ask some questions?

Senator THOMAS. Why don’t you go ahead, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, let me maybe start with a couple of

things that I’ve had concerns about for a number of years. There’s

a place in South Dakota that Senator Johnson is very familiar with

called Bear Butte, which is a sacred site to the Cheyennes, but also

to many other tribes that use it, too. And part of that mountain,

that butte, is owned by the tribe and part of it is owned by the

State of South Dakota. The part that the tribes use, in order for

Indian people to use that, which they have done for eons, I guess,

maybe hundreds of years, they have to go through some private

land to be able to get to the sites that they need.

For a while—I don’t know if this has changed. Maybe Senator

Johnson knows—but for a while the State of South Dakota had an

overlook by—they have a visitors center up there and there was

sort of an overlook and you could have rented binoculars where you

could watch the Indians pray, like some form of recreation or something. I don’t know if they have done away with those or changed

those. I talked to a State Senator up there a couple of times about
5

getting a bill through the South Dakota legislature to see if the

tribes couldn’t get an easement through the State park so they

could go to the land that they need without going through private

land and upsetting private ranchers.

I guess the question I would have for you is: In your Office of

Policy Analysis, do you or do you know anybody in Interior that

has what might be called an ‘‘arbitrator’’ between States and tribes

to try and resolve issues like that one?

Mr. BETTENBERG. We don’t in the Office of Policy Analysis, but

in a matter like that I think that it would certainly be appropriate

for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] to attempt to arbitrate a

case like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I mentioned that because I’ve often thought

if you were a Catholic it would be akin to being in communion and

have somebody come in and watch and take pictures or something.

It’s a brutal kind of a thing.

Mr. BETTENBERG. It would seem to be very inappropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. Really inappropriate. But I think that’s one of

the things that we face a lot of times in Indian country is a lot of

the people that come out to Indian country, they don’t know the

difference, and so part of it has to be education and part of it has

to be through tighter restrictions in the law.

In implementing—you spoke of President Clinton’s order 13007.

In implementing that order, as I understand from your testimony,

because of the ongoing reorganization at the Bureau, implementation of the order will be done by the Office of Environmental Safety

and Cultural Resource Management rather than the Office of

American Indian Trust. Will the Office of American Indian Trust

be dissolved or folded in, or what will be the—— Mr. BETTENBERG. Its responsibilities are being divided between

the office that you just described and the Office of the Special

Trustee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BETTENBERG. There’s some element of nostalgia with me

with regard to that, since I was the one who originally conceived

of and sought funding for the Office of American Indian Trust back

in 1990, but I guess it has served its time, I think in a distinguished manner, and the Department is moving its trust functions

to the Office of Special Trustee, which is undoubtedly appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned the difficulty of identifying sacred

places because many times they shouldn’t be revealed. There’s an

inherent danger of letting people know where they are in the first

place for Indian people to admit where they are or tell you where

they are. You talked about that a little bit. But, given those beliefs,

how do you try to protect them?

Mr. BETTENBERG. My understanding is that there are a variety

of things that you can do. What you’re dealing with is some sort

of a public land action. For instance, you have a road. The contractor that is building that road doesn’t necessarily have to understand why the road might be somewhat strangely routed, for instance.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BETTENBERG. Just simply to avoid a site. The larger the site,

the more difficult the problems in terms of discreet delineation.
6

The CHAIRMAN. Bottomline is if you don’t know where they are

you can’t do much to protect them unless you sort of stumble into

them.

Mr. BETTENBERG. Well, we have to accomplish that through consultation with the tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. BETTENBERG. Because otherwise you could definitely create

a problem there. But even when you do know where it is, there is

a difficult problem maintaining the confidentiality of it, but there

are practical solutions in many cases to this.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; well, given that answer, then how do you

determine which tribes to consult with? Is it based on cultural criteria or geographic criteria or historic criteria or what?

Mr. BETTENBERG. Well, it would need to be probably all three of

those. A lot of tribes are not in the general location where they

were historically.

The CHAIRMAN. And have tribes generally been helpful guiding

you or helping you?

Mr. BETTENBERG. I can’t answer that accurately. I would assume

so.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I realize you just came on board. Is that

process of consulting done through the Federal Register notice

process?

Mr. BETTENBERG. I don’t know that.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you find that out?

Mr. BETTENBERG. I surely can.

The CHAIRMAN. And report that back to the committee, because

I, frankly, think there is an inherent danger in that, too.

Maybe the last question I have is a bill I introduced recently. It’s

S. 288—if you would write that down and look at that. It will encouraged the Department to contract with tribes to provide culturally appropriate services for archaeology, surveying, mapping,

and site management, too. I’d appreciate your response and what

you think of that.

Mr. BETTENBERG. Okay.

The CHAIRMAN. I see Senator Smith is here from Oregon. Did

you have an opening statement?

Senator SMITH. I’ll submit it

The CHAIRMAN. Okay.

[Prepared statement of Senator Smith appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson, did you have any questions?

We’ll just go in order of appearance here.

Senator JOHNSON. We will submit some questions to Mr.

Bettenberg and allow him and his colleagues to respond to those.

Let me just say one question that I do have to ask you directly,

and I suspect that you’re not prepared to respond at this point, but

I would be interested in the Administration’s evaluation of H.R.

2419, the House bill currently pending on that side, because we

may be thinking about some variation or some counterpart here on

the Senate side, and I would be interested to know whether the

White House views this as a beginning point for Senate action or

whether the Administration has strong objections to some components of it. I think it would be very helpful to us to get your perspective on that legislation.
7

Mr. BETTENBERG. My understanding is that the Administration

has not taken any position on it yet. No hearings have been scheduled, I believe, on that. So I don’t know what the ultimate disposition will be.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, the Administration sometimes goes a

long time without taking a formal position, and I can understand

that when it’s not on the verge of consideration, but I would be interested, even if the Administration hasn’t taken a formal position,

in any critique that your Agency might have, even if it falls short

of being a formal position of the Administration. It would be very

helpful to us.

That’s the only question I have at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas.

Senator THOMAS. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith, any questions?

Senator SMITH. Not at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, we thank you. If you will get back

in writing those several things that I mentioned and Senator Johnson mentioned, I’d appreciate it.

Mr. BETTENBERG. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. And, by the way, I wish you will also thank the

Secretary. She is next week going to attend the unveiling of the Indian Memorial at the former Custer—now Little Big Horn—Battlefield in Montana, which is going to be this Wednesday on the 127th

anniversary. That’s something some of us have been working on for

the last 16 or 18 years to get that, and she just yesterday notified

us that she will be going up, as will Aurene Martin, the acting assistant secretary, too. So we are very, very pleased with that, if you

would pass that on.

We’ll now go to our second panel: Suzan Harjo, the president of

Morning Star Institute—welcome, Suzan; Charmaine White Face,

director of the Defenders of the Black Hills, Rapid City; Joyce Bear,

the historic preservation officer and manager of the Cultural Preservation Office for the Muscogee Creek Tribe; Gene Preston, chairman of the Pit River Tribe; and Steve Brady, headsman for the

Northern Cheyenne Crazy Dogs Society and member of the Medicine Wheel Coalition.

We’ll start in that order.

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave. I

have another appointment. I wanted to mention that we will have,

among other things discussed, is the Medicine Wheel area in Wyoming, an area that has been talked about now for at least 10 years

and trying to find a solution. We certainly look forward to working

to have that done. The question there is really what you put in the

categories, the different categories that are available, and the size

that goes into it.

We certainly have a national historic landmark. That’s very

clear. But when you get on in then to the surrounding area, then

that becomes more difficult.

We do need to be able to define these areas a little better and

to have a way of doing that. We need to recognize also that these
8

are multiple use lands. And so I am glad that you are into this,

and I’m sorry I can’t stay, but we do have health care on the floor

and I have to be over for that. But I do want to say we need to

continue to work to do that, but a national historic landmark is not

a land management tool particularly, and so we need to be able to

come to conclusions on it and we want to work with the tribes to

do that.

[Prepared statement of Senator Thomas appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and for those of you on the panels, Senator

Thomas is also the chairman of the Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee of Energy, too. We appreciate your input.

Why don’t we go ahead. We’ll just do it in the order I called. If

you would also like to diverge from your written testimony, it will

be all in the record.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF SUZAN SHOWN HARJO, PRESIDENT, THE

MORNING STAR INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. HARJO. Thank you, Senator, Mr. Chairman. We’re just so

happy that the committee is taking the approach it is taking

through oversight hearings and taking testimony from Native people who are the most directly affected by these troubles at sacred

places and the people who are the most knowledgeable about them,

and holding on development of legislation until we really conclude

these oversight hearings.

I don’t think any of us has a problem in going forward with the

development of legislation, if it is meaningful, if it is serious stuff.

The House bill has been mentioned a number of times, and I would

like to address that briefly.

The Sacred Places Coalition gathered in November of last year

and came up with something that is very simple, just bare bones:

Essential elements for legislation to protect sacred places and objectionable elements. The House bill, unfortunately, has almost

none of the essential elements that we identified and has too many

of the objectionable ones.

The two most important are the first in each category. The first

one that we identified as an essential ingredient, an essential element, is a cause of action. We need a way to get into court, if only

to avoid going there. Without a cause of action to protect sacred

places, we have no way of getting around a negotiating table. For

the most part, we don’t have any leverage, because people just take

the attitude, ‘‘So sue me’’ because they know we can’t, or that we

cannot sustain a defense in court. So we need a door like the rest

of America has to get into the courtroom, and perhaps we need several doors, but we certainly need a specific cause of action for the

protection of sacred places.

The number one objectionable element in legislation would be

definition of the sacred. And, as you know so well, Mr. Chairman,

we’ve resisted in the repatriation laws all the pressures to define

sacred objects. We said, ‘‘It’s sacred because people believe it to be

sacred.’’ But, no one else in America, no other religion, has to prove

the sacredness of anything—of an object, of a place, of a church. It

is sacred because the practitioners of that religion believe it to be

sacred, and that’s the answer. We would like that same treatment.
9

We would like equal treatment when it comes to definition of the

sacred. We don’t want one.

We have heard about ‘‘discreet delineation’’ here, which is a very

limiting term that is in the sacred sites Executive order and has

caused a lot of problems. We don’t want that term in. So, in my

written statement, I’ve outlined all of our essential elements and

objectionable elements, and have listed those sacred places that

were identified by the gathering in November of the coalition and

by the cognizant committees of the National Congress of American

Indians, also in November in California last year.

I would like to make one remark about the confidentiality point.

Within the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management

had a practice in the California Desert Plan called ‘‘areas of sensitivity.’’ They would take, in fact, ink blots and have a 100-mile

or 200-mile area, 5 miles, whatever the area was, and a sacred

place would be identified through consultation with the traditional

leadership as being somewhere within that ink blot. It could be on

the edge, it could be right in the middle, but somewhere in there.

And that entire area was an area of sensitivity. That worked for

a long time, the cooperation. There was trust there. It was something that worked with the Bureau of Land Management’s operations. I think that kind of creativity carried through to the Bureau

of Land Management’s operation of Tent Rocks National Monument. I mention that specifically because the Bureau of Land Management is doing a good job, and the Cochiti Pueblo, whose sacred

place that is, feels they are doing a good job. They’re co-managing

through a cooperative agreement that allows for confidentiality, allows for closures at ceremonial times, allows for flexibility and review and updating in consultation, in the particulars of the management plan. So we know that the Federal agencies can do this

and can do it well and can do it to the satisfaction of the Native

peoples who are the most directly involved.

We hope to see more of these best practices highlighted and to

have the other agencies and sometimes just other field offices within the same agencies take a lesson from things that are already in

place and that have already been proven and that work.

But, if you have to pick out one thing to do, it is to create a cause

of action, because without that the rest is just entertainment.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Harjo appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll now just proceed in order to Ms. White

Face.

STATEMENT OF CHARMAINE WHITE FACE, COORDINATOR,

DEFENDERS OF THE BLACK HILLS, RAPID CITY, SD

Ms. WHITE FACE. Thank you, Chairman Campbell and Senators.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of

Bear Butte.

My name is Charmaine White Face. I am Oglala Lakota from the

greater Tetuwan Oceti Sakowin, commonly known as the Great

Sioux Nation.

Bear Butte is a small mountain on the northeast corner of the

Black Hills, although separated from the hills by about 8 miles of

prairie. It rises on the plains about 1,300 feet. It looks like a bear
10

lying down with its head pointed toward the northeast. It is one

of the most sacred places to more than 30 Native American nations

from throughout the United States and Canada.

Today, people from all over the world come to Bear Butte to

pray, from Australia, Europe, all over. It is at Bear Butte that we

receive spiritual messages and gifts. Moses did the same thing on

Mount Sinai. More than 4,000 years ago, Sweet Medicine received

guidance and gifts for the Cheyenne people at Bear Butte. To put

this in perspective, Christianity has only been around for 2,000

years. The Cheyenne continue to pray at Bear Butte today, traveling thousands of miles from Oklahoma, Montana, since they were

separated in the late 1800’s by the United States.

Geologists, on the other hand, call Bear Butte a laccolith, or a

bubble of magma that did not become a complete volcano. They say

this happened millions of years ago, yet the Oglala Lakota people,

my people, call this place ‘‘Groaning Bear.’’ How did my people, the

Oglalas, know that this mountain groaned? It is estimated by archaeologists that we have been present in the Black Hills for

11,000 years.

We also go to Bear Butte for guidance, messages, and gifts. Bear

Butte, the mountain proper, currently a National Historic Landmark, is managed by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish,

and Parks. Although a few parcels of adjacent land has been purchased by some Native American nations, the rest of the surrounding area is ranch land or is being sold to developers. Two drag racing strips, a biker bar, a convenience store, campgrounds, and

housing developments are all located within a few miles of this sacred place.

Most recently, the nearby town of Sturgis and a group of private

businessmen, some of whom own gun ammunition manufacturing

companies and ammunition manufacturing companies, received

$825,000 in HUD CDBG money to build a rifle shooting range

within a few miles of Bear Butte. It is a private shooting range and

requires in the hundreds of dollars to have membership. It is supposedly a nonprofit shooting range, and recently the State of South

Dakota passed a law that if you were a nonprofit shooting range

within 15 miles of a municipality, you could have certain tax

breaks for visitors that come to use your establishment.

As Federal money was involved and as it is so near to this National Historic Landmark, Bear Butte, the businessmen were told

over and over by the State South Dakota Historic Preservation officer that they needed to consult with the Native American nations

who use Bear Butte to pray. They did not. Instead, they said that

all of the environmental and all of the legal qualifications to receive HUD CDBG money was completed; that there were no adverse impacts.

A lawsuit has been filed citing violations of four Federal laws—

National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy

Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

2000, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A second lawsuit

has been filed regarding the misuse of CDBG funds which are

meant for low-income people. This lawsuit has been filed as a class

action lawsuit on behalf of the low income people of the city of

Sturgis.
11

I also happened to bring petitions with 659 signatures asking for

protection of this sacred place. I know there are more signatures

out there. These are just the ones that I was able to gather; that

I have in my own personal possession. Now, to a lot of people 659

signatures are not very many. In South Dakota, though, it was less

than 659 signatures that caused Senator Johnson to be able to be

a Senator in this term. We are a very sparsely populated State. It

also was the 400-some signatures from Pine Ridge Reservation, my

reservation, that elected Senator Johnson. So 659 signatures in our

State is very important. And 659 signatures from Native people

who use Bear Butte to pray is very significant.

We strongly recommend that Bear Butte come under Federal

protection, including a land buffer zone of 5 miles around this holy

mountain. A lot of this development is occurring right very, very

closely near and within this 5-mile limitation of Bear Butte.

The recommendation I give is given on behalf of Bear Butte and

all our relatives: The bald eagles, the golden eagles, the buffalo, the

deer, the coyotes, all of the sacred plants that grow. There are over

30 kinds of sage that grow on Bear Butte, itself. I give this on behalf of all our relatives Mitakuye Oyasin.

Do you have any questions?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I’ll have some, but I prefer to finish with everybody first and then I’ll come back.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been jotting down as you have been

speaking. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. White Face appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will go to Ms. Bear, Joyce.

STATEMENT OF JOYCE BEAR, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND MANAGER, CULTURAL PRESERVATION OFFICE,

MUSCOGEE [CREEK] NATION, OCMULGEE, OK

Ms. BEAR. Thank you, Chairman Campbell. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and speak today. Also, I appreciate

your including the Ocmulgee Old Fields in this hearing.

The Ocmulgee Old Fields is located around Macon, Georgia. It’s

in the Ocmulgee River Valley in the south-central part of Georgia.

This is where the Piedmont and the coastal plains come together.

No other area in our Muscogean ancestral homelands match the

Ocmulgee Old Fields, as recorded in depth or scope of our settlement in the southeast.

You probably wonder why I’m speaking about it, since my tribe

is now from Oklahoma, but we were one of the tribes that were

forced to remove from the southeastern part of the United States

in the early 1800’s.

Oral history tells us that the Ocmulgee Old Fields is our place

of origin. This is the cradle of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy.

The Muscogee Creek Nation is the remnants of that Muscogee

Creek Confederacy.

Numerous treaties were passed and signed by our Muscogee

Creek ancestors, and they ceded a lot of the land that was in the

southeastern part of the United States, and especially along the

Ocmulgee River. In 1805 the treaty with the Muscogee Creek Nation, when they ceded this land, they left out a section of this land,
12

a tract of land in this section along the Ocmulgee River, and this

is what contained the Ocmulgee Old Fields.

In 1821 a Lower Creek chief named William McIntosh then

ceded that tract of land, along with some other lands that went all

the way to the Flint River.

When our people were removed from the southeastern part of the

United States, the Ocmulgee Old Fields became lost in myth and

in legend, so in 1903 the United States Congress authorized a portion of the Ocmulgee Old Fields to be set aside for the Ocmulgee

National Monument. It is now under the National Park Service.

They preserved some Indian mounds of great historical importance

in and around this town of Macon. In the recent years, the

Ocmulgee Old Fields were determined eligible for the National

Registry of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property. These

are the first lands east of the Mississippi River to be determined

eligible to receive that classification. Even as more of our people

recognize the significance of this area, the Ocmulgee Old Fields are

still threatened by a road project proposed by the State of Georgia.

The Ocmulgee Old Fields are a sacred place to the Muscogean

people and it contains numerous unidentified and identified settlements and cultures that were used in the area, established during

a 12,000-year occupation. The most prominent features are an extraordinary and distinct mound complex that includes a mound rising 50 feet high above the Macon plateau, the only known spirallyascended mound in North America. There is also an earth lodge

which was used for ceremonial, and in the original floor of it has

an effigy of a large bird. It is dated back to 1,000 years.

In addition to these unique features, the area has a significant

number of funeral mounds. Back in the 1930’s WPA worked with

the railroad and they excavated some of those and removed some

of those remains. My tribe is still looking for where those have

been stored. We have found some and we are in the process of repatriating 11 of those, but there were over 100 that were excavated.

While some of the mounds and the settlements have been damaged and destroyed in the town of Macon as it was being developed, much of this area still needs to be protected.

In the 1980’s the Georgia Department of Transportation developed a plan to construct a major highway, the Fall Line Freeway,

across the State of Georgia from Columbus to Augustus. The road

proponents identified the Old Fields as a prime location for the

road corridor through Macon, and for the past 5 years the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Department, the

agency charged with overseeing this project, have been studying

possible alignments. Despite the request from the Muscogee Creek

Nation and others, they have failed to identify a route that avoids

this sacred area and have not adequately explored alternative

alignments.

The Muscogee Creek Nation has passed resolutions calling for

the preservation of the Ocmulgee Old Fields and opposed the construction of the freeway through the area. We have been joined by

numerous other tribes with and without ancestral ties to this land.

The Intertribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes represents more

than 450,000 people across the United States. They passed a reso-
13

lution supporting us in our efforts to protect this cultural identity

of the Ocmulgee Old Fields.

In addition, the United South and Eastern Tribes, comprised of

24 federally recognized tribes, passed a resolution strenuously opposing the construction of the road and requesting the Federal

Highway Administration to enter into a good faith consultation

with all tribes affiliated with this land.

The National Congress of American Indians also recognized that

this sacred area is being threatened, and passed a resolution calling for the protection of the Ocmulgee Old Fields.

In addition to tribal opposition to the highway, both the National

Park Conservation Association and the National Trust for Historic

Preservation have listed the Ocmulgee Old Fields on their Most

Endangered Places List.

Chairman we urge this committee to support us by requesting

the Federal Highway Administration engage in meaningful consultation with the Affiliated Tribes and to develop an alternative

route that would avoid encroachment into our traditional cultural

properties, the cradle of the Muscogee Creek Nation.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Bear appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll go to Chairman Preston. By the way, Mr.

Preston, are you related to Lucky Preston?

Mr. PRESTON. Yes; Lucky is my brother.

The CHAIRMAN. Lucky is your brother?

Mr. PRESTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And so my namesake, Ben Nighthorse Preston,

is your nephew? He’s your nephew?

Mr. PRESTON. Yes; and he is doing in good order.

The CHAIRMAN. He’s about 13 now?

Mr. PRESTON. Yes; he is.

The CHAIRMAN. When you go home, give him my best wishes and

tell him some day I want him here in this chair.

Mr. PRESTON. I’ll work on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PRESTON. I’ll help you with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Go ahead, proceed.

STATEMENT OF GENE C. PRESTON, CHAIRMAN, PIT RIVER

TRIBAL COUNCIL, BURNEY, CA

Mr. PRESTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an

honor to be here with you and the other honorable tribal leaders

to participate in this committee hearing on sacred sites. I come to

you from the Pit River Nation, lower eastern California, to speak

to you about an area of great interest and sacred value to our people. The sacred area I speak of is Medicine Lake Highlands. It is

located on the continent’s largest shielded volcano in the remote,

pristine, Modoc National Forest.

The Medicine Lake Highlands are an area of utmost spiritual

significance and critical to the cultural survival of the Pit River

Nation, the Klamath Modoc Tribes, and other surrounding tribes.

The sacred Medicine Lake with the shining lake has been designated as a 32-square-mile traditional cultural district by the Na-
14

tional Register of Historical Places. The highlands are located adjacent to Mount Shasta, and these two most sacred landscapes are

closely related in North American creation stories with many physical and mystical links between them.

Medicine Lake Highlands are a place where the full magnitude

of the creator’s presence can be experienced, a place where the creator has left messages for the people on how to live, and a place

of refuge. Activities have included ceremonies, vision quests,

cleansing, healing, prayer, medicinal plant gathering, hunting, and

obsidian trading. This is what the Medicine Lake Highlands has

been to the Native people for the last 10,000 years and continue

today.

The Medicine Lake Highlands has always been respected as a

sanctuary where the many tribes from the area put down their

weapons and share the common cleansing sanctity of the land.

Unbeknownst to my people, in the 1970’s and 1980’s plans were

made and leases sold giving away 66 square miles of the Medicine

Lake Highlands with no consultations held with the tribes. Only in

1996, when the first two projects were being reviewed, was the Pit

River Tribe consulted, long after the leases had already been sold

promising full rights to development and commercial production.

One of these projects, Telephone Flats, is proposed to be located

in the heart of the Medicine Lake Caldera and would encompass

eight square miles, a full fourth of the designated tribal traditional

cultural district.

Another project, Four Mile Hill, will be located on six square

miles just outside the caldera in an area not yet evaluated for the

National Register. Both projects are associated with geothermal

power generation and the Calpine Corporation.

Since 1996, we followed the process of environmental review and

after-the-fact consultation with the Government agencies. The environmental impact studies documents recognize these projects would

cause severe significant impact to Native American culture that

could not be mitigated, as no mitigation measures are capable of

alleviating the impact of these developments in a way that would

preserve the cultural values of the tribes.

In the case of the Medicine Lake Highlands, the agencies have

made a mockery of the section 106 process by issuing geothermal

leases without consulting with the affected tribes and traditional

cultural representatives, in spite of knowing the significant of the

area.

A significant additional threat is assessed, the high risk of contaminating the State’s largest fresh water spring system that is beginning in the Medicine Lake Highlands. The contamination is assessed to be from arsenic, mercury, and other effluents which will

flow from the development to downstream rivers, lakes, and drinking water wells. It is clear the cumulative effects of these developments would result in the total destruction of the qualities needed

to continue the spiritual and cultural use of Medicine Lake.

Over 90 percent of the general public’s comments were in favor

of stopping the development. In 1998, after environmental impact

studies were shown, the leases were again renewed, again without

consultation with the tribes. Without the tribes’ input in the consultation, the agencies build their own decisions on their own per-
15

ceived assumptions regarding traditional and historical tribal values. Without consultation, the tribal assessed environmental impacts go unaddressed. As a matter of fact, the tribal issues and

concerns are not often addressed at all, or, if addressed, many

times result in indefinitely being tabled.

In a May 2000, compromise decision under the Clinton administration Four Mile Hill was approved. Within the same compromise

decision, the Telephone Flat project was denied as a statement of

the value to the culture was recognized by the Government at that

point, thus the compromise decision. At the time of the May compromise decision there was also a companion moratorium against

additional development in the Medicine Lake Highlands for a

multi-year period. Then, after only one year had passed, Calpines

Corporation sued the Government for denying Telephone Flat, and

under the Bush administration obtained a settlement agreement

that reopened the decision.

The outcome of the reconsideration as a result of the settlement

agreement was that the original denial of the Telephone Flat was

reversed and that project, too, was approved in November 2002.

This is an issue not only regarding the value equation of the sacredness of the Highlands, but it is also an issue of the integrity

of the relationship with the Federal Government toward its first

people of the lands. The meaninglessness of the Federal promises

to tribes has become proverbial, and the latest decision has only

deepened that wound. In approving this project, the Government

has made an assessment of the value of the tribal culture without

the tribe’s consultation, leading to several very challenging questions.

The first is: How do agencies put a price on the impact of their

decisions as they have on culture and religion of the Native American governments? Additionally, assuming that question could be

answered, how can agencies assess the price of the culture and religion of Native American governments with no consultation regarding consideration or compensation to the affected governments. And

then, third, where is the value equation that says trading our culture is worth the perceived gain?

It is our belief that the result of the practice is that the price is

only calculated in terms of bottom line profit that is privatization

to companies, while the impacts, cost, and sacrifices become the ongoing burdens of the Native American people, nature’s creatures,

society, and future generations.

The calculation again presents the all-too-familiar privatization

of profits through the socialization of cost. This concept is not an

isolated one. It is being carried throughout Indian country in a

seemingly systematic fashion.

In addition to the privatization of profits in Medicine Lakes

Highland threat, the developer or leaseholder in this case, Calpine

Corporation, in our opinion seems to have no limits to its ambition.

The Highlands’ cultural significance is widely recognized, and the

development of these projects is vehemently opposed by the Pit

River Tribe, the Native Coalition of Medicine Lake Highlands Defense, and the National Congress for American Indians, International Indian Treaty Council, and many other legal groups. Legal

steps have been taken to appeal these decisions.
16

Specifically for the Pit River Tribe the Medicine Lake Highlands

maintain a sacred sense of place, the sacred places that are used

for prayer, vision, healing, and renewal. The specific relationship of

meaning and kinship with the Pit River Tribe as to this specific

landscape and its creatures is unique to indigenous culture. It expresses Native people’s particular genesis and the gift that Native

people have to the world. When the sacred relationship with the

land is made inaccessible through destruction or alteration of an

important sacred area, Native people lose their identity and the

definition as this identity and definition is, at its core, the basis for

transmitting and translating their cultural uniqueness.

Considering current events in the world, it is our belief that it

is truer now than ever that the project impact outweighs any possible public benefit that this or other proposed power plants in the

Medicine Lake Highlands could create. For these reasons and numerous others stated countless times by the Pit River Tribe in its

comments, resolutions, and consultations, I respectfully ask, one,

that you take the strongest possible position of protection of the

Medicine Lake Highlands by issuing a directive from the Government to deny these damaging projects and buy back the leases that

were illegally granted, and, secondly, support the upgrade to existing regulations to require that the tribes must be included in the

most basic land use steps of land management process.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before your

committee and for listening to my testimony on behalf of my people

and allowing me to fulfill my responsibility to the creator by speaking on behalf of the Medicine Lake Highlands, who must be represented but has no voice of its own.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Preston appears in appendix.]

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. Is there a piece of legislation under consideration

to do what our witnesses are asking?

The CHAIRMAN. Not a complete piece of legislation. Some things

are already in the law, but they are not implemented very well or

evenhandedly, and in some cases, in my view, tribes are not informed well enough ahead of time to be involved in the discussion

process.

Senator SMITH. It seems to me that we are dealing with a problem as old as the story of mankind, and that is how to make fairness out of an inherently unfair situation where you have an ancient culture and a newer culture and how the newer culture can

stop development where there’s some objective evidence of the earlier culture that they can be bound to respect and to uphold.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SMITH. And I’ve listened with great interest to the testimony, and I will tell you it is unfair that we say, ‘‘Well, you’ve got

to make objective what it is you want to protect,’’ but the more that

can be done, the more we’re apt to be able to help and to stop development where it does intrude on sacred places.

Most of the modern sacred sites of Christianity or Judaism or

Islam, they have a providence that you can trace, and we just simply need to quantify those things as best as we can from the cul-
17

tures of the Native American people so that we can provide greater

protection.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator SMITH. I’m just saying that we need your help. We need

your help.

The CHAIRMAN. So that’s why this panel is here, because they

have much more experience and better speakers about it than we

are.

Senator SMITH. Yes; thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me maybe start with a couple questions of

my friend, Suzan.

Oh, I apologize. I forgot Steve. Go ahead, Steve.

STATEMENT OF STEVE BRADY, SR., HEADSMAN, NORTHERN

CHEYENNE CRAZY DOGS SOCIETY, MEMBER, MEDICINE

WHEEL COALITION FOR SACRED SITES OF NATIVE AMERICAN, LAME DEER, MT

Mr. BRADY. [Native words.] My Cheyenne name is Night Wolf.

I’m talking as a headsman of the Crazy Dog Society today on some

very profoundly sensitive and meaningful issues of our people.

First of all, I guess, in terms of my testimony, I would like to

have it made a matter of record what was submitted.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record.

Mr. BRADY. And we may also submit something here at a later

date to include with my testimony.

I have made some recommendations at the beginning of my testimony, so I request that the committee carefully review our recommendations, and to also please include the Sand Creek National

Historic Site Act of 2000 and the Little Big Horn Battlefield name

change legislation and those procedures that have been in place for

some time to be carefully reviewed.

Even though we have had existing legislation in place and administrative procedures, Federal agencies often take off on a tangent and do things on their own, and sometimes that has happened

even with Sand Creek, as comprehensive as legislation as it is. So,

in any case, Federal agencies do need some controls and to carefully consider consulting with tribes on a regular basis.

We have been working on the Medicine Wheel Medicine Mountain for very close to a decade and a half. Many spiritual leaders

have been involved with that from different tribes, Plains tribes, as

well as State and Federal agencies and the County Commissioners

of Wyoming. We have come to a historic agreement there with regard to the historic preservation plan and the consultation process,

but even then there still needs to be protective measures for the

cultural resources that are there on the Medicine Mountain.

We have also requested that the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, remove the radar tower, radome, that sits there. That was

done without the consultation of tribes. So FAA is looking into the

eventuality of removing the radome at some point in time.

One of the other things is that Wyoming Saw Mills and the

Mountain States Legal Foundation is in litigation against the U.S.

Forest Service, and the Medicine Wheel Coalition has joined the

U.S. Forest Service, and that’s currently pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the Mountain States Legal Foundation
18

and Wyoming Saw Mills are purporting that we’re interfering into

their timber harvesting and that the HPP is interfering into their

timber harvesting.

With regard to Bear Butte, our people have gone there for centuries upon centuries. Our traditional government comes from

there, which I represent here today, the Counsel of 44 Chiefs, of

which I am also a member, Senator Campbell, and the military societies and our sacred covenant, the Sacred Arrows, which we still

have today, and the prophecies of Sweet Medicine and the gifts

that were brought to our people.

But also the special emphasis should be made that we are landowners, as tribes there, as the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and as

other tribes. Our people have gone there to pray, especially during

difficult times when our veterans or our military is engaged in conflicts around the world. My grandfather, Alec Brady, went there to

pray with the Sacred Arrow Keeper in 1971 during the Vietnam

Conflict and they fasted there for several days and prayed for the

end of Vietnam. And even as I joined the military in 1975, my

grandfather took me there for offerings and prayers. And when my

son joined the military, when he joined the Marine Corps, I took

him there for offerings and prayers and I also took him to the Medicine Wheel.

These are the things that we do that are directly connected with

what’s going on around the world, and my son has come back home

in a good way, and he is now with the law enforcement locally.

These prayers are very meaningful in many ways.

The Housing and Urban Development has done this without consultation with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and they seem to

have weaseled out of it, but we’re not going to let them go. We’re

not going to let them forget about it. We’re not going to let them

go that easy. The United States Government still has a Federal

trust responsibility to tribes that is derived from treaties.

We’ve also been engaged for quite some time with Bear’s Lodge

with what is now referred to as Devil’s Tower. That was engaged

in litigation for some time, as well, and ended up in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with the rock climbers and the tribes and

Devil’s Tower, and it ended up to be that June was the month that

tribes wanted set aside, and it ended up to be that June is a voluntary ban, not a mandatory ban on rock climbing.

If I was to go downtown here to start climbing the steeple of one

of our churches here in the community here, I’d probably end up

in jail.

The other thing is that we are faced with energy development on

the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, on and around the Northern

Cheyenne Reservation within the Powder River Basin. We are

probably sitting on the best coal in the United States and everybody wants that. And, in addition to that, coal bed methane is

going on and is contaminating, depleting our very precious resource, a sacred resource, our water supply.

Railroads, power lines, pipelines, et cetera, powerplants are going

into the Powder River Basin. We’re right in the middle of that. And

so we need to have that addressed and have our reservation preserved.
19

The Cheyenne battle sites and massacre sites need to be preserved. We have a very extensive history of resistance to the encroachment of the United States. We have many, many battle sites

in an eight-State area, and many of these battle sites have hastily

buried human remains, and we need to have these battle sites protected. Sand Creek massacre site legislation, the Little Big Horn

Battlefield legislation are just the beginning.

Finally, the Native American Church, they need to have access

for the acquisition of the holy sacrament peyote. It is getting very,

very difficult and very costly to go in and acquire the sacrament

peyote down in Texas.

I dedicate my testimony to all of those that have worked on sacred sites—and they are listed in my testimony—and certainly to

those generations that we work for that are not here yet.

Thank you, committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Brady appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve jotted a couple of notes here. Let me start

with Suzan.

As you were speaking, Suzan, I was writing myself here about

sacred sites. What do you—you know, to me there’s a question of

why a site is sacred, where a site can be sacred, who considers it

sacred, and if sites that are of other people should be universally

sacred. For instance, Indian people have a certain way of believing,

a religious way of believing. Other people have different ways,

maybe a Catholic or a Protestant or Jewish or somebody else. Do

you see a big umbrella for their religions to be also included as sacred sites?

Ms. HARJO. They already are. Their religions and their sacred

places, their churches, their places where things happened that are

important to their religions are already protected, and even on Federal lands there are Christian churches. There are other Christian

denominations and other religions that have edifices right on Federal lands and those are protected, and they have a way of going

into court if those protections fall through or if something happens

in violation of those promises.

The CHAIRMAN. I guess maybe I didn’t articulate it very well. I

was just thinking of myself of a church in Colorado. It was there

for years and years. It is in Durango, CO. It was there for years

and years, and they built a new church and sold that church, and

that church became a funeral home and then later became a restaurant and some other things. Indians don’t believe that way, I

know, but I was wondering what—well, never mind. That’s probably for another day. But there are certainly some differences of

how people believe what might be called sacred.

You talked about a cause of action. Who do you think would be

qualified to bring the cause of action? Would it be just any Indian

person or a tribe as a spokesman or who?

Ms. HARJO. I think the leadership of the traditional Native religions should have standing, the practitioners of certain ceremonies,

if they are individual or if they are not necessarily the tribe as a

whole, the nation as a whole. With the Cheyennes, for example,

you have certain ceremonies that are set aside for the different societies, so those societies, those components of the nation should
20

have standing. And in certain instances the Indian nation, itself,

should have standing. It all depends on what the violation is and

whose authority the sacred place falls under; whose responsibility

is it to keep it up, to maintain it, or to conduct ceremonies there.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. In some cases it would be the tribal council and in some cases maybe the traditional people or—— Ms. HARJO. That’s right.

The CHAIRMAN. If we talk about trying to protect an area, it is

very complicated. Tribal land is easy, but State land, county land

is much more difficult, I think, than either tribal or Federal land.

There’s an awful lot of interaction that needs to take place that

doesn’t now, in my view, and not nearly enough consultation. But

you spoke of a coalition that’s preparing legislation for this committee to consider in the weeks to come. When do you think that’s

going to be available?

Ms. HARJO. The only thing that we have prepared at this point

are the essential elements and the objectionable elements that are

detailed in my written testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the Rahall bill you were talking about?

Ms. HARJO. That’s the Rahall bill that doesn’t meet that criteria.

And so our legislation that we would propose would be along those

lines, would include all of those ingredients and would not include

the things that we find so objectionable, like definition of the sacred. That’s intrusive and limiting.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; well, if you would, I’d like you to work with

our staff and maybe we can frame up something that I can introduce as a Senate bill. There is no Senate counterpart, I don’t believe, to the Rahall bill if I’m not mistaken, so there might be

something we can do.

Ms. HARJO. It would be wonderful to do something that truly had

some teeth to it and fulfilled, after 25 years, the promise of the

American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me try and do that with your help. It leads

to another thing, and I will go on to Ms. White Face. I remember

some years ago when Senator Bill Bradley was here—and the reason I mentioned this is because you mentioned the number of votes

that your current Senator won by, who is a very, very good friend

of mine. Both of them are, in fact. Just a few hundred votes, very

close, and that speaks to the positive activism with Indian tribes,

and I’m delighted to see they are active, very frankly. But I remember when Bill Bradley was here he introduced a bill that would

have returned a good portion of the Black Hills, as you remember.

I thought that bill really had some merits.

I was up in South Dakota and attended an Indian function about

it, and I found that the Indian people were very, very supportive

of that, but at that time nobody from the South Dakota delegation

would support it, and I think the reason was the South Dakota delegation historically, the ones I’ve known, have I think done a very

fine job for Indian people, but the political reality is you can’t do

anything for them if you get thrown out of office. So there are some

things there they want to do because it is the right thing to do, but

you know that if you do you may not be around to help them at

all the next time, so you end up with one of these, ‘‘Is a half a loaf

better than no loaf,’’ and that is in the eyes of the beholder.
21

But I remember very clearly, it was a bill I did support, and we

just couldn’t get any support from South Dakota at the time. The

ranchers, the white community saw, and a lot of people are so

against that that there just wasn’t enough movement, so I guess

we have to get more Indians registered or something in South Dakota because it’s still a long way away from seeing that happen.

Maybe it never will because the State would probably oppose it,

too.

You mentioned Bear Butte and the shooting range, too, and you

note that the South Dakota State Preservation Office informed the

city of Sturgis and the developer about the need to consult with the

tribes. How, in that case, since it was done partly through HUD

money, as I understand it, did you know of anybody or did you oppose the grant before it went, that CDBG grant?

Ms. WHITE FACE. No; we didn’t even hear about it.

The CHAIRMAN. You didn’t know about it beforehand, so now you

are going to go to court; is that correct?

Ms. WHITE FACE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In a lawsuit. What is the city of Sturgis or the

State of South Dakota—are they in an adversarial position in this

lawsuit?

Ms. WHITE FACE. No; the plaintiffs in it are Secretary Mel Martinez, Housing and Urban Development, the State of—not the State

of South Dakota, but the Black Hills Council of Local Governments.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. They were the agency that drafted the HUD

application, and it was signed by former Governor Bill Janklow,

who is now Congressman Bill Janklow. The lawsuit is also against

the city of Sturgis and then the Sturgis Industrial Expansion Corporation, which is the group of the developers, and then the Black

Hills Sportsman Complex, which is the actual shooting range,

itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. So they are all named together as defendants.

The United States tried to be excluded as a defendant, stating because of HUD regulations on CDBG, that they handed over their

responsibility to the State of South Dakota. It was the State Historic Preservation Officer in letters who wrote and kept saying they

needed to consult with the tribes and it never happened, and then

all of the sudden——

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of those letters or any other

notices?

Ms. WHITE FACE. We have.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you turn copies of those in to the committee?

Ms. WHITE FACE. Yes; I will.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Good. By the way, we did invite HUD to

appear here today. We thought we might ask them some of these

questions or you might give us some to ask them, but they declined

to appear because of the pending litigation.

You spoke of a buffer zone. If we had a buffer zone, 5-mile buffer

zone, for instance, around Bear Butte—you spoke at length about

Bear Butte, as Steve Brady did—where would you see the funds

coming from to buy that buffer zone, since a lot of that is private
22

land? And who would we get the State of South Dakota to declare

their part of that land a buffer zone. Not so easy, huh?

Ms. WHITE FACE. No; not so easy, but something has to be done.

Something definitely has to be done. I have not had time to research it, but I also know that there was some HUD CDBG money

used to fund a wastewater treatment facility adjacent to Bear

Butte.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. I have not had time at all to research—— The CHAIRMAN. It raises some very complicated questions.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. For instance, what would take place within the

buffer zone and who would decide who could do what within that

buffer zone.

Ms. WHITE FACE. If it was—my Cheyenne ally sitting here—if it

was up to us——

The CHAIRMAN. Kick him under the table. Maybe he’s got some

answers.

Ms. WHITE FACE. From my opinion, and I’m sure that the rest

of the defenders would agree with me, is that we would rather see

this buffer zone and all of Bear Butte be created to be restored as

a complete total wilderness area with no development at all. There

are, you know, the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks currently

has a small buffalo herd right there at the base of Bear Butte.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. I know I hear the local stories about the local

private—I’ll call them ‘‘owners,’’ because, you know, we still stay

this is our treaty land.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. About the local people who stop the Cheyenne

people from going on the north side of the mountain. All of the development has been—not all the development, I will say the development on the mountain by the State has been on the south side.

The CHAIRMAN. That’s the part the State owns.

Ms. WHITE FACE. And the State now has what they call the Bear

Butte Forum, where we meet or I’ve met this year with the Forum

and we give recommendations to the State Game, Fish, and Parks

Commission. They recommended that the road going up the side of

the mountain and the parking lot up on the side be removed. Senator Johnson earlier remarked about how people drive up there,

tourists. They drive up there and then they watch as people are

praying. This happened to me way back in 1980.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. It is so appalling. It is so disrupting. It is so

disrespectful.

The CHAIRMAN. Years ago I saw stationary field glasses up there,

you know. You put the quarter in and watch the Indians pray.

Ms. WHITE FACE. The quarter. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those still there? I haven’t been up there for

a number of years.

Ms. WHITE FACE. No; they took those out.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are gone.

Ms. WHITE FACE. And they are going to be taking out that upper

parking lot and the upper road.
23

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Ms. WHITE FACE. They will be taking that out this fall. People

are still allowed to hike up there. The development—I mean, if you

are up on top of that mountain you can hear things from miles and

miles away.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Now, there is a new, recent drag strip that was

built. This just started in operation just a couple of weeks ago.

There are two drag strips. If you have ever been around a car racing drag strip——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I have.

Ms. WHITE FACE [continuing]. You can hear that miles and miles

away. And in August, when a lot of our Ham bleciya, our vision

quests are supposed to be happening, that’s when the motorcycle

rally happens there.

The CHAIRMAN. I started the drag races at Mile High Drag Strip

in Colorado last year and I couldn’t hear for 4 days afterwards.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. I know they are noisy.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. On the other hand, you have additional problems

in South Dakota because it relies heavily on tourism.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Yes; tourism.

The CHAIRMAN. Not only the Black Hills, but Mount Rushmore

and Crazy Horse, these other places get huge numbers of people

that help the economy and the Indian economy. Indian people have

jobs in those places and booths and so on. It is a tough thing to

balance.

Ms. WHITE FACE. You know, for us the whole Black Hills are sacred.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know.

Ms. WHITE FACE. Bear Butte, itself—if you can imagine Bear

Butte as a small mountain, that is sacred.

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve been there.

Ms. WHITE FACE. The whole Black Hills for us are sacred. It has

been mentioned about the lack of consultation. There are many

things going on in the Black Hills where we are not consulted at

all. The Forest Service doesn’t consult us. Most Federal agencies do

not consult us about what is going on. Anything in the Black Hills,

and now the environmental destruction is so tremendous. I know

Home State Gold Mine, which caused everything that happened

within our treaty territory to happen, is trying to make it into an

underground science laboratory because they have taken out all the

gold now. It is no longer economically feasible for them to dig out

any more gold on that mine. They just cut off the pumps last week

so that all the water is starting now to drain into that mine, but

what nobody is thinking about is what is that going to do to the

aquifers, underground aquifers. How many toxins are going to be

leaching down into the underground aquifers? Has anybody consulted the tribes about another way to handle it?

You know, there’s cause and effect. We have been around for a

long time, 11,000 years in the Black Hills is a whole lot longer than

a little over 100 for the non-Indian people.
24

The CHAIRMAN. This committee has always stressed the importance of consultation with all the Federal agencies that we have

some jurisdiction over. Sometimes you have to ask how much consultation is enough.

I note with interest that Department of the Interior Joint Tribal

Task Force on Trust Reform met in one form or another 45 times

in 11 months, 45 times, and yet some tribes are saying, ‘‘You didn’t

consult with us enough.’’ And we mentioned that the unveiling of

the monument at the battlefield will be next week. That bill we

passed 14 years ago, I think, or 16 years ago, and tribes were totally in support of that. Everyone of them endorsed it of the northern plains. Yet I understand that there is at least one group trying

to seek an injunction right now to prevent the unveiling. The thing

is already built. So all Indian people don’t think exactly with the

same mind when you talk about consultation or how much we need

to do. Somewhere along the line I guess you’ve got to say, ‘‘Well,

we’ve got to move ahead or nothing happens.’’ But I certainly support consultation with tribes.

Let me go to Mr. Preston. First let me ask you, I’m trying to get

a fix on where the Highlands—what is it near? Let’s say from—you

mentioned the Medicine Lake Caldera. Is that in the same area

where the very famous Modoc Lava Beds where Captain Jack made

his last—— Mr. PRESTON. Yes, Yes; as a matter of fact it is the same general

area.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay.

Mr. PRESTON. If you’re familiar with northern California—— The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PRESTON. It is kind of placed between Shasta and Last

Mountains.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PRESTON. It is way up in the northeastern portion of the

State.

The CHAIRMAN. The leases that you opposed were renewed by the

Clinton administration after the issuance of the 1996 Executive

order on sacred sites protection. This is 7 years later. If I understand you correctly, you don’t have any legal options left. Is that—

did I hear your statement correctly?

Mr. PRESTON. We are pursuing other legal options in terms of

litigation against the rulings that we have yet to go, but I want to

comment on your consultation question because that is kind of at

the heart of our quandary. We have had some consultations recently, but meaningful consultations with an outcome are different

than the many checkoffs that you might have described. Those happen, you know, frequently.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PRESTON. It’s a telephone call, it’s a meeting that is ill-prepared or ill-announced.

The CHAIRMAN. It’s tomorrow morning and you already can’t be

there because you have some other plan.

Mr. PRESTON. In our case, I was granted what I feel was an

honor. I was able to meet with Kathleen Clark and Dale Bosworth

one on one over these issues, and we did. Unfortunately, at the end

of the meeting, after we presented all of our compelling evidence
25

and all of our support, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ruled in our favor, all the State historical people ruled in our

favor. Every step that according to the current regulations outlined

we took, and it came out in our favor, but after that consultation

Kathleen described it as a clash of cultures, whereas the Native

American culture is that of the land. When you described other religions, you know, ours is associated with the land, not necessarily

a building. And the clash of cultures she described was that the

other culture is a capitalistic culture, and that is ‘‘rake as much

cash as you can out of any opportunity.’’ The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PRESTON. And that’s where the two collide, you know. When

we think today of what next step in the litigation that we are proposing, I think that position is exactly the same position, you know,

how do we get into a court of law so that these issues can be discussed so that this decision to reverse the previous well-supported,

well-documented position that the Native American culture was

[native word.] How could that be reversed? What value equation

did they come across that said now it is different and now it can

be set aside? What value did they put on our culture?

You know, you can talk all day long and you can mitigate all day

long, but some of these questions have to be answered.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. PRESTON. They are at the root of the inability to—— The CHAIRMAN. In your view, is dual use of what might be called

a sacred site possible? I’m thinking out in your part of the country,

at least up around Sacramento, a little further up in the foothills,

there’s a place called Grinding Rocks.

Mr. PRESTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It was the ancestral home of the Miwoks, the

Foothill Miwoks. There’s a State park there now. Now, I don’t

know for sure, because I’ve never asked the Miwoks, but I would

assume that, since there’s a ceremonial ground there and so on,

that it was considered at least quasi-sacred if not really sacred, but

it is also dual use because it is obvious as a State park. Is that possible in your belief?

Mr. PRESTON. Yes; and I think that we exercise that today, that

the dual use in terms of recreation or access by the public has been

something that we have begrudgingly embraced over the years.

There are park sites along the Medicine Lake, itself. There are

some surface roads that are maintained by the BLM and the Forest

Service. But what we’re talking about here is full-fledged geothermal power development.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. That’s not compatible.

Mr. PRESTON. It’s going to impact the aquifer, the water, the

trees, you know, the—everything you can think. This place is so

gorgeous and it has been our sacred site forever, you know, and

then you come in and you start plowing, digging it up, and it is

going to contaminate it forever.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. PRESTON. That’s the situation. It’s not really a dual use

issue. It is a destruction issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; preservation may have some dual use, but

not if it is totally changed.
26

Mr. PRESTON. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Steve, thank you for coming all the way down

from Lame Deer. You noted two cases, first, the Sand Creek Massacre site, and second, the Little Big Horn, changing the name of

it, and the memorial at the Little Big Horn. I was very happy to

be involved in both of those, as you know. Some of them are not

so easy. That Sand Creek site, which is not completely done yet,

as you know, took 20 years of my life to get that thing changed.

I just tell you that so that you know that when you have a large

body, 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, or so on, nothing gets

done without an awful lot of input, but it does if you have enough

perseverance, if you want to stick to it long enough, it does get

done. Both of those cases were difficult, but I think one of the reasons that took long, too, was because we wanted to make sure that

tribes were involved as much as they wanted to be in the consultation process.

Along that effort, you mentioned the use of peyote. There are

now in Native American ceremonies—it doesn’t happen with the

Cheyenne much because they are very strict, I know, but it does

with some tribes. I happen to live with the Southern Utes, and I

know it does there. Some tribes, non-Indians can participate in Native American ceremonies, in Native American Church, as an example. I’ve even seen non-Indians involved in sun dance with some

tribes, which rather surprised me. It’s rather phenomenal. I guess

you have to balance this thing about religious freedom. If I want

to be a Catholic or a Protestant or something else, I guess I can

be. Anybody can be. But some Indian people take offensive to that.

What is your feeling about that?

Mr. BRADY. Well, needless to say, it is very controversial. There

are some very specific distinct procedures and practices. And,

again, like with the Native American Church, it goes from tribe to

tribe. I think, you know, the tribe that allows it I think it’s probably up to them and how they do things, and when it comes to

ceremonies like sun dance and things like that, that in and of itself

is very controversial in Indian country.

With the Cheyenne, there are certain things that we think we

have to do. Some of it is language specific, depending upon the part

of the ceremony and things like that, where there is a need to

know and speak, be fluent in Cheyenne language. Things like that

are essential. Again, it depends on the part of the ceremony.

Although I haven’t seen white people in Cheyenne sun dance, I

think it happens with other tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. It does. Well, I appreciate that. I really have no

further questions. I usually jot so many notes down to myself when

I’m listening to testimony, sometimes I’ve got to go back through

them a little bit. But if I have more, I will submit them in writing

for you.

This is an oversight hearing, as you know, to try to give us a little more information if we do try to move some legislation, but I

know several of you have come a long way and I certainly do appreciate your being here.

With that, thank you. We’ll keep the record open, in fact, for 1

month in this case. If you have additional comments or something

you want to be included in the record, please submit that.
27

Thank you. The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

(29)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important oversight hearing on Native

American sacred places. I would also like to thank Charmaine White Face, the Coordinator of the Defenders of the Black Hills organization, for being here today. Thank

you for your work in protecting Bear Butte, South Dakota.

Bear Butte is a place of deep religious significance to the Lakota people, in addition to dozens of other tribes. With the help of Federal dollars, the Black Hills

Sportsman’s Complex, a shooting range, has been proposed at a site 41⁄2 miles north

of Bear Butte. While tribes understand the need for economic development in this

area, tribes feel that they were not consulted in the process as mandated by existing

federal law. As such, along with seven tribes, the Defenders of the Black Hills, in

February 2003, filed suit in U.S. District Court to halt construction on the Sportsman’s Complex. The court issued an injunction halting construction pending the outcome of the litigation. Although Judge Schrier has postponed the start of the trial,

my office is anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case. Because the litigation is

ongoing, I think it would be premature to offer detailed remarks on the case. I will

say, however, that I understand the concerns of the many different tribes here

today. The many people coming to Bear Butte to pray should be able to do so peacefully and without being disturbed.

Bear Butte reflects other situations in which tribes are working to protect sacred

places. In May 2002, a construction crew uncovered human remains near the Missouri River at North Point Recreation Area, near the location where nearly 300

Yankton Sioux grave sights had been discovered in December 1999. Therefore, it

was reasonable to expect that the remains discovered in May 2002 were also those

of the Yankton Sioux. Even though Federal agencies must consult with tribal officials, some remains were removed without the knowledge or permission of the

Yankton Sioux. At the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing last July, I

urged Federal agencies to be sensitive in protecting sacred Native American sites

by following existing laws such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Perhaps, as lawmakers, we need to do more than just urge the agencies to follow

the law. I would welcome comments on Representative Rahall’s bill, H.R. 2419, the

Native American Sacred Lands Act. At this juncture, no similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. I am hopeful this hearing will give this committee guidance

on how to proceed.

In closing, I would like to thank Charmaine and the others here today for the

work that they are doing to protect sacred sites. This is an extremely important

issue and we must work hard to assure that cultural protection laws are adhered

to by everyone.
30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the protection of Native

American sacred places. I believe we would all agree that there exists a need to do

everything possible to preserve the cultural and spiritual landmarks of our Nation’s

first Americans. For too many years, sacred Native sites have been seized without

due process and without consultation of the indigenous peoples who cherish them.

I have supported and will continue to support efforts to protect Native American

sacred sites. In my home State of Oregon we have a unique opportunity to provide

such protection. Over one-half the land in my State is managed by the Federal Government. As such, many sacred sites are located on land that will perpetually remain in public ownership as forests and grasslands. Federal agencies in Oregon

have made great strides in working with the tribes to identify cultural sites and to

recognize them in the land management process. The Willamette National Forest

has an excellent working relationship with the Grand Ronde Tribe, as does the

Umpqua National Forest with the Cow Creek Tribe. These National Forests and

tribes are working together to find the optimal balance of protecting sacred sites

with the need to generate revenue for rural economics and schools.

In one case, I have found that the best way to achieve that balance is to return

a portion of a National Forest to a tribe. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos,

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw is the only tribe in Oregon that has not been granted

any substantial land base by the Federal Government. In legislation that I recently

introduced, the tribes have identified an area of the Siuslaw National Forest with

a high concentration of cultural sites, as well as a great potential for generating revenue from forest health and management activities. The legislation, which will be

reviewed by this committee, allows the tribes to manage the land for those purposes—rather than for the complex and often contradictory purposes of Federal forest regulations.

Federal agencies also need to be talking to each other. In southern Oregon, the

BLM and Forest Service are not working off the same page with regard to a proposed withdrawal of a cultural site—known as Huckleberry Patch—from mining development. Each agency has different responsibilities and as a result, misunderstanding has triumphed over good intentions.

I should also mention that logging and mining are not always the primary threats

to tribal cultural sites. Many tribes in Oregon have subsistence treaty rights—covering salmon harvest and berry gathering. Ironically, the lack of harvest on some of

Oregon’s Federal forests is preventing sunlight from reaching the forest floor. As a

result, huckleberry plants are not growing and producing fruit—thereby inhibiting

tribes from gathering berries for traditional uses.

Last, I would like to say that the effective management of cultural sites for Native

Americans will ultimately require a thorough mutual understanding of native and

non-native communities. Last summer, I visited Crater Lake National Park to participate in its Centennial Celebration. While the park has been enjoyed by tourists

for 100 years, the Klamath and Umpqua Tribes have revered the lake as a place

of spiritual power for thousands of years. The celebration incorporated both traditions—to the great benefit of all in attendance. But in a twist of irony, smoke from

a nearby wildfire on Forest Service land filled the caldera of the lake—making its

waters almost invisible to visitors.

I’m not sure what the message from the heavens was, but it had something to

do with having a balanced approach to Federal land management. I hope that the

Department of the Interior, as well as the Forest Service, continue to work with

tribes and local communities toward this end—since those are the people who know

that land the best.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss Native American sacred sites. As

you know, the Federal Government owns roughly 50 percent of the land in the State

of Wyoming. These Federal land management agencies—the U.S. Forest Service, the

National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife

Service—all have a tremendous responsibility of consulting with various groups, including tribes, in land management decisions. Many of these areas contain sites that

have a spiritual meaning for tribes throughout the West.

Throughout my time in Congress, I have always advocated for public involvement

in land management decision processes. Further, I have always supported the right

of Native American people to practice their religions. Tribal consultation and the

consideration of sacred sites is an important component in this process.
31

Federal land management agencies are required to consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis whenever plans, activities, decisions or proposed actions affect the integrity or access to such sites. Further, the agencies must accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Native American sacred sites to the extent

that is practicable, permitted by law, and consistent with essential agency functions.

Maintaining access and multiple use is a purpose of our public lands. While I certainly understand the need to protect sacred and ceremonial areas, this must be

done in a reasonable and responsible manner that is consistent with the purpose

of our public lands.

Federal agencies have a responsibility to provide for the protection of sacred sites

while allowing reasonable and responsible multiple use activities. These two goals

should be inclusive of each other and I support efforts that will allow us to achieve

both objectives. Including all interested parties is necessary for this to occur.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY KILE

I am Nancy Kile, my grandmother and grandfather met on a ranch near Pine

Ridge, SD. My grandfather a ranch hand, an Irishman from Omaha, NE, my grandmother a cook on that ranch, an Oglala Lakota Woman. My mother went to boarding school at Holy Rosary Mission, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Her family later moved to live in Crawford, NE, 3 miles from Fort Robinson.

I and my husband with our two children moved to Sturgis 16 years ago. Our oldest son graduated from Sturgis Brown High School, our daughter will graduate from

Sturgis Brown High School. Meade School district offered my children a respectful,

educational block in 7th grade, Lakota studies. Unfortunately adults in Meade county hold children to standards we are unwilling to keep ourselves.

Eight years ago I entered a treatment program to address my chemical dependence, my reliance on alcohol and street drugs was seriously damaging my relationships and life choices. Part of my program of recovery was to seek a spiritual understanding of God as I understood it to be. Within recovery I met a Native American

Elder, an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe who had been sober many

years and was willing to share her spiritual teachings. Inipi, Lakota ceremonial

songs and hearing the language of my grandmother spoken in prayer cleansed and

renewed my faith in self which helped me understand how truly simple and beautiful life is when you accept the gift of it, in the moment. Four years later I completed a spiritual commitment in hanbleciya at Bear Butte in Meade County, South

Dakota. These personal experiences are why I was first shocked, then outraged by

my local government and business people’s total disregard for so sacred a shrine as

Bear Butte. A rifle range only 4 miles north of the Mount Sinai of Indigenous cultures throughout the United States and Canada.

Barely 25 years ago my mother’s Lakota people could not legally practice their

ancient ceremonies. Genocide, assimilation and fear acted out upon them, did not

stop my Lakota people from loving, learning, laughing, living, or praying in the way

our ancestors did. History is still happening, we are proof of it. Our brilliance as

human beings, and Indigenous peoples to these lands brought us through holocaust.

Concentration camps, boarding schools, forced marches, relocation, and termination,

in fact genocidal tactics have not exterminated us. Today we better understand and

remain learning about what has happened to us, we no longer need the numbness

of shock to survive. Furthermore, as a Native American I will not apologize for

using the United States laws and her constitution to further the healing and restorative justice that is due to my people.

As I become more involved in my local, State, and Federal Government I became

aware of what little regard there is for the spiritual inter-dependence we humans

share with our environment. Tourism, expansion corporations and developers are

marketing destruction of wilderness by using language like ‘‘Black Hill’s

newest wonder’’, ‘‘Hell canyon bridge to be a tourist attraction in itself’’. Bressler

billboards are involved in litigation within South Dakota for surreptitiously using

railroad easements to place huge signs that mar the landscape in Meade County.

210 limestone mine permits were granted in the southern Black Hills, limestone is

used in concrete, 15–17 feet of limestone scraped off the top of the earth.

City governments lend their names to gap financing and community development

block grants that shuffle moneys to business interests that don’t have attention for the balanced overall community perspective. Forest Service wants to ‘‘interface’’ with forests so they can, enable development at the expense of taxpayer dollars. My awareness of these issues prompted me to take a seat on the newly formed

Meade County Natural Resource Committee, who’s purpose is to be an advisory
32

board to Meade County Commissioners. As we are in beginning stages, our goal is

to write a land use plan. Meade County’s history, culture and traditions are to be

taken into consideration so that we can use this committee and land use plan as

a basis to sustain economic viability within the boundaries of Meade County.

This seat requires my informal education on land use, I am given recommended

reading on land use terms and recent history regarding land within the 1851 and

1868 Fort Laramie Treaty boundary. While I am doing this, the misconception in

Meade County’s popular belief with reference to how Native Americans value land

becomes clear. Historically and contemporarily this stereotyping has allowed paternalistic government and it’s entities who took stewardship of Indigenous

lands a highbrowed rational for the continued destruction of tribal holdings under

the guise of management. Key components to my study of cultural resources and

land use differ on two basic, yet complicated perspectives:

(1) The dominant culture appears to separate currency, monetary value from the

land. Indigenous people value the land, we are the land. Our culture, language and

lifestyles are and never were separate from it, so the idea of one person, or a few

people selling the land is disrespectful to our children, their future, our ancestors

and our past.

(2) Historical exclusion; it is unacceptable to leave our history out of how the dominant society and culture views land use and sustainable development. Consultation

at inception with Tribal Governments is lawfully mandatory, consultation with Spiritual Leaders with regard to land use that effects Sacred Sites is lawfully mandatory. As Native Americans we are asking that government entities clarify consultation with Tribes, because it appears to mean, ‘‘we invite you to come to a low level

meeting, we tell you what we are going to do, we suffer to listen to your opinions,

expect accolades because we tolerated your perspective by the invitation alone, then,

we do what we want’’.

In conclusion, I think many of my neighbors sitting on the Meade County Natural

Resource Committee can find common ground with the Native American perspective. I think we have more in common than we are different, I also grew up on a

ranch/farm in western Nebraska. Native Americans and ranching/farming interests

want to be heard.

I contend that people are the most important natural resource of Meade County.

We are sustainable, we are renewable but we must be willing to change. Change

is also what history taught my Lakota people. We’we accepted the best of

what has been forced upon us, will the dominant culture accept the best of what

we have to offer? Our ancient contracts within relationship, kinship and balance

with our Grandmother Earth. Senator Campbell please help us protect our sacred

sites.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103

Æ