[Senate Report 108-310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 638
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-310
======================================================================
_______
TO ACKNOWLEDGE A LONG HISTORY OF OFFICIAL DEPREDATIONS AND ILLCONCEIVED
POLICIES BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REGARDING INDIAN TRIBES AND
OFFER AN APOLOGY TO ALL NATIVE PEOPLES ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
July 15, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S.J. Res. 37]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 37) to acknowledge a long history
of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the
United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an
apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the
joint resolution (as amended) do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of S.J. Res. 37 is to acknowledge a long
history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by
the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer
an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States
Government.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Prior to the establishment of the United States, British
and Spanish colonies established early relationships with
Indian tribes through negotiated treaties. These treaties
served as agreements between two sovereign governments and
considered supreme law of the land.
After establishment of the United States constitution, the
new U.S. government continued relations with Indian tribes by
assuming the role of establishing treaties with tribes. Federal
policy on relations with Indian tribes was also established in
the U.S. Constitution through the Commerce Clause,\1\
legislation in the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1790,\2\ and
by United States Supreme Court cases such as Johnson v.
McIntosh,\3\ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,\4\ and Worcester v.
Georgia,\5\ on which is built the doctrine of the Federal trust
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Article 1, Section 8, also known as the Commerce Clause, states
that ``The Congress shall have the power to . . . [t]o regulate
Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with
the Indian tribes.''
\2\ 1 Stat. Sec. 137 (1790); see also 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177. The
Indian Non-Intercourse Act prohibited all Indian land transactions that
did not have Federal government approval. This policy, though
reaffirmed and refined, continues to be current policy.
\3\ 21 U.S.C. Sec. 543 (1823).
\4\ 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1831).
\5\ 31 U.S.C. Sec. 515 (1832).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the earliest days of the Republic, there existed a
sentiment that honorable dealings and peaceful coexistence were
preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, Congress in 1787 provided in
the Northwest Ordinance that ``[t]he utmost good faith shall
always be observed toward the Indians.'' S.J. Res. 37
recognizes past dealings, both good and bad, between the United
States Government and Indian tribes and that there were many
treaties made between the Federal and Indian tribal
governments.
However, the young Republic had a nearly unquenchable
demand for land as immigrants entered our country and settlers
spread west into lands traditionally occupied and used by
Native peoples. Too often the United States Government did not
uphold its responsibilities provided in its covenants with the
Indian tribes and, as a result, Indian lands were taken away
from tribes, relationships were strained, and distrust became
the hallmark of the Federal-tribal relationship.
The relationship was further strained by the promulgation
of several Federal policy initiatives set forth by the United
States Congress through passage of the General Allotment Act of
1887, \6\ also referred to as the Dawes Act, and legislation
that called for the termination of the Federal-tribal
relationship. These policies were meant to encourage
assimilation of Indian people into mainstream America. The
policies were disastrous in that they further deteriorated the
Indian land base, eroded tribal cultures, and did nothing to
improve the political, economic and social conditions of Indian
tribes or Native people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 24 Stat. 388, codified as amended by 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 331-
334, 339, 341, 342, 348, 349, 354 and 381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, there is a recognized need by those of
goodwill for some type of reconciliation. However, before
reconciliation, there must be an acknowledgment of past
misdeeds and repentance. S.J. Res. 37 is intended to be the
first step toward healing the wounds that have prevented the
United States Government and Indian tribes from striking a
positive, forward-looking relationship that will endure for
decades to come.
The resolution is meant to provide the foundation for a new
era of positive relations between the United States Government
and Indian tribes and intended to help heal the divisions in
our land and reconcile all Americans as one people, with one
destiny.
The resolution acknowledges and honors the importance of
Native Peoples to our land and our country--in the past and in
the present day--and offers an official apology to the Native
peoples for the official depredations and ill-conceived
policies of the United States Government regarding Indian
tribes.
Significantly, S.J. Res. 37 is not intended to fuel any
continuing controversies, or engender or support any litigation
or claims by or against the United States and Indian tribes. It
is both the sponsors' intention and the Committee's
understanding that S.J. Res. 37 does not, and should not be
construed to, authorize or support any claim against the United
States nor should it serve as evidence to support in any way a
claim against the United States. In this regard, S.J. Res. 37,
or any part of the resolution, is not intended for use as
evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 in any
proceeding or proffered as applicable law to govern any
judicial proceeding.
At the same time, it is both the sponsors' intention and
the Committee's understanding that S.J. Res. 37 does not
authorize or serve as a settlement of any claim against the
United States by an Indian tribe or tribes.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S.J. Res. 37 was introduced by Senator Brownback on May 6,
2004, for himself and for Senators Campbell and Senator Inouye.
Senators Akaka, Daschle and Dodd were later added as additional
cosponsors. On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Indian Affairs
considered the resolution and ordered the resolution, in the
form of a substitute amendment, reported to the Senate with
favorable recommendation that it pass.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in open business
session on June 23, 2004, by a unanimous voice vote of a quorum
present, considered the resolution and ordered the resolution,
in the form of a substitute amendment, reported to the Senate
with favorable recommendation that it pass.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONCERNS
The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of
this measure has been requested but was not received at the
time the report was filed.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
There have been no executive communications received on
this legislation.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S.J. Res. 37. The resolution is not a regulatory
measure in the sense of imposing Government-established
standards or significant economic responsibilities on private
individuals and businesses. No personal information would be
collected in administering the program. Therefore, there would
be no impact on personal privacy. Little, if any, additional
paperwork would result from the enactment of S.J. Res. 37.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by S.J. Res. 37, as ordered
reported.