Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine is featuring Tribes in the Puget Sound area that have successfully captured export markets in China and elsewhere with a unique product: the massive Geoduck clam. This unusual natural resource has become highly profitable due to growing consumer demand in Asia, and effective management and marketing by coastal Tribes has created a flourishing multi-million dollar industry. 

Foster Pepper Native American Group attorneys Greg Guedel and Ron Whitener are quoted in the article, which discusses the treaties and court decisions that affirmed Tribes' rights to Geoducks and other marine resources in their traditional lands. After solidifying their legal rights, Tribes that harvest Geoducks implemented strong monitoring and environmental protection for key marine areas, helping ensure the vitality and sustainability of this industry. With Geoduck habitat confined to the Northwest coast and a small area in California, Puget Sound Tribes are shaping the growth of this beneficial industry from a dominant market position.

The National Indian Health Board and a consortium of Tribes and Tribal agencies have filed an amicus brief in the “Obamacare” lawsuit, where a federal judge in Florida ruled the federal government’s landmark healthcare reform unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed after President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is designed to provide health care coverage to all Americans.

The primary issue in the lawsuit, which is now on appeal, is whether the Constitution allows the federal government to require individual Americans to purchase health care insurance. Over two dozen states joined together to oppose the reform legislation, arguing that the federal government does not have the power to compel individuals to purchase health care insurance. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Florida, and the trial judge ruled the legislation unconstitutional. The matter is now being reviewed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Within the federal health care reform legislation, there are sections that provide significant benefits for Native American health care programs. The legislation permanently re-authorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which provides funding and administrative support for health care in Native communities throughout the country. In their amicus brief, Tribes have asserted that the portions of the health care legislation that impact Native Americans are constitutional and should be “severed” from any portions of the legislation that are ultimately determined to be unconstitutional. That would allow for funding and other improvements to Tribal health care to continue even if other portions of the new law are overturned.

Interestingly, the portions of the law applicable to Native American health care actually provide and exemption for Native Americans from the individual insurance purchase requirement – which is consistent with the goals of the states seeking to have the new laws overturned. This provides a potential opportunity for agreement between the states and Tribes, where all sides could concur on the validity of the sections that improve health care for Native communities.

Open Pit Coal Mine (Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse)

Chickaloon Native Village, a federally-recognized Athabascan Indian Tribal government in Alaska, filed a communication to the United Nations Independent Expert on the human right to water and sanitation, seeking help in stopping a new open-pit coal mine in the Village’s traditional territory.

Chickaloon Village’s submission asserts that the new mine proposed by the Usibelli Corporation would contaminate local drinking water sources as well as rivers, streams and groundwater that support salmon, moose and other animals and plants vital for subsistence, religious and cultural practices. The US Federal Government and the State of Alaska have, to date, not responded to Chickaloon’s firmly-stated opposition to the mine.

The visit to the US by the Independent Expert, Mrs. Catarina de Albuquerque, a Portuguese human rights expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, includes stops in Washington DC, Boston Massachusetts and Northern California, where she will meet with the Winnemem Wintu and other Indigenous representatives. Her US visit will end on March 2, 2011.

Mrs. De Albuquerque will meet with the US State Department and relevant Federal agencies as well organizations, communities and experts to receive information regarding the human right to water and sanitation and the federal and state policies and practices that affect this right. She is expected to make recommendations to the US government at the conclusion of her visit.

Explaining the reasons behind Chickaloon’s filing, Traditional Chief Gary Harrison stated: "International standards like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize our inherent sacred right to protect our water and keep it clean for the animals, fish and future generations of our Nation. Our right to water is the same as our right to life. We can’t sit back and allow our human right to water to be violated again".
 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requests proposals for Environmental Regulatory Enhancement. This RFP will the support the development, enforcement, and monitoring of tribal environmental quality and regulatory programs. $750K expected to be available, up to 5 awards anticipated. Responses due 4/1/11. For more info, contact Mark Allender at mark.allender@acf.hhs.gov or go to: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/view/HHS-2011-ACF-ANA-NR-0142. Refer to Sol# HHS-2011-ACF-ANA-NR-0142.

Safe Tribal Waters

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requests proposals for Support to the National Tribal Water Council. Through this RFP, EPA seeks projects to conduct, coordinate, and promote the acceleration of research, studies, training, and demonstration projects that will support the participation of the National Tribal Water Council and tribes to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution to waters, and protect drinking water in Indian Country. $880K expected to be available, up to 1 award anticipated. Responses due 4/11/11. For more info, contact Felicia Wright at wright.felicia@epa.gov or go to: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/tribal/. Refer to Sol# EPA-OW-IO-11-01.

Robert Anderson, associate professor of law at the University of Washington and Director of the University’s Native American Law Center, will be the Oneida Nation Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School for the next five years.

“I am delighted that Bob has accepted our invitation,” said Dean Martha Minow. “He will bring so much to HLS: his strong knowledge of the law, his extensive and significant practice experience both in government and in the private sector, and his ability to create and run the Native American Law Center at the UW, which includes a leading clinical component.”

Nationally renowned for his expertise in Native American legal issues and for his excellence in teaching, Anderson has taught federal Indian law, advanced courses and seminars in Indian law, public land law, property law, and water law at the University of Washington since 2001. He will retain his position at the University of Washington while teaching at Harvard.

“It’s a tremendous honor for me to join the Harvard law faculty as a visiting professor,” said Anderson. “I am most pleased that Harvard Law School recognizes the importance of the study of federal Indian law and I look forward to being part of this great university.”

Anderson is a co-author and a member of the Executive Editorial Board of Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, as well as a new casebook in the field, American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary. He has published a number of law review articles in the field, including most recently, a forthcoming article on water rights in the California Law Review; “Alaska Native Rights, Statehood and Unfinished Business,” 43 Tulsa Law Review 17 (2007); “Indian Water Rights and the Federal Trust Responsibility,” 46 Natural Resources Law Journal 399 (2006); and “Indian Water Rights: Litigation and Settlements,” 42 Tulsa Law Review 23 (2006).

An enrolled member of the Bois Forte Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Anderson serves as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and as an appellate judge in the Northwest Intertribal Court of Appeals. He holds a B.A. from Bemidji State University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School.

(Localnewsdigest.com)

With President Obama’s recent signing of the Cobell lawsuit settlement approval legislation, the 15+ year legal effort to secure financial compensation for Native Americans in the courts finally reached conclusion. That landmark event is, however, more of a “beginning” than the end of the work to deliver long-overdue compensation to hundreds of thousands of Native Americans throughout the country.

The Cobell settlement law will ultimately provide $3.4 Billion in cash payments to Native Americans who have ownership rights in one or both of two categories:

Payments for Individual Money Accounts: Congress has allocated $1.4 Billion to compensate Native Americans who hold government issued Individual Money Accounts, which were supposed to receive deposits from the federal government from sources such as lease revenues from oil drilling on Tribal land. People who hold Individual Money Accounts will receive varying sums of money from the settlement, depending on the determination of how much money the government should have allocated to a person’s account over the years.

Payments for Land Shares: Congress has allocated $2 Billion to buy back the “fractionated” land shares held by many Native Americans, which have often resulted in dozens of people being owners of a small percentage of a piece of land that previously belonged to their Tribe. People who hold these ownership shares in land will have the option to sell them back to the government, which will then turn the land back over to the Tribe to be placed in trust. The amount of money the government will pay for a given share of land ownership has not yet been determined.

For Native Americans who will be eligible to receive compensation under one or both of these ownership rights, it is important to think ahead about personal financial planning. It is a tragic historical fact that generations of Native Americans were denied the information and services they deserved to help take care of their families’ finances. Today, few people realize that estate planning for Native Americans is subject to a special federal law known as the American Indian Probate Reform Act, or “AIPRA”. This law sets out specific requirements and procedures that only apply to Native Americans, and which must be followed in order to ensure that assets held by Native Americans can pass to the next generation the way a person intends.

Without an AIPRA-compliant estate plan, your money or trust lands may not pass to your descendants in the manner and proportions you desire, or may not pass to your descendents at all. The only way to be sure that your interests in trust lands end up being inherited by the people you want, particularly if you have small or fractionated interests in land or other assets, is to have a will that meets the requirements of AIPRA.

Creating an estate plan that complies with AIPRA will help you:

• Ensure your intended heirs are eligible to receive your interests in trust lands;
• Prepare a will that conveys your interests the way YOU want them to pass;
• Avoid the default provisions of AIPRA, such as transfers to single heirs and/or forced sales.

The first step for all Native Americans who seek to receive a payment under the Cobell settlement is to collect all of the information and documentation possible regarding your family’s ownership in Tribal lands and Individual Money Accounts. This information will be crucial in proving eligibility for payments. Even before the payments are issued, it makes sense to begin the financial planning that will ensure the money received is properly held for the family’s benefit. To discuss financial and estate planning and how to ensure your family’s plan will be compliant with AIPRA, you can contact Foster Pepper’s Native American Legal Services attorneys Duncan Connelly or Greg Guedel, via email through the links on their names or by phone at 206.447.4400.

The President has announced a change to the United States’ status as the sole holdout in supporting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:

“And as you know, in April we announced that we were reviewing our position on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this Declaration.”

The President’s remarks came during the close of the second Tribal Nations Conference held by the White House. His full statement on the Declaration and other Tribal issues can be viewed HERE.

While the statement declares a change in US policy, there will be much practical work required to implement the provisions of the Declaration and assess its impact on relations between the federal government and Tribal communities.

The International Code Council is mounting an effort to create an amendment to Section 408(d) of the Tribal Self Government Act of 2010, HR4347, that has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. The purpose is to help preserve the sovereign right of Tribes to establish building codes that best serve their infrastructure development needs, rather than having these codes dictated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Currently, HR 4347 Section 408(d)(1) provides:

"d) Codes and Standards- In carrying out a construction project under this title, an Indian tribe shall--
(1) adhere to applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal building codes, architectural and engineering standards, and applicable Federal guidelines regarding design, space, and operational standards, appropriate for the particular project…"

This language assumes that the codes and standards adopted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are the same as, or consistent with, the codes and standards adopted by the Tribes, or by the jurisdictions in which Tribal construction projects are taking place. This is not always the case, as the BIA has adopted a building code (NFPA 5000) that is not currently in use by Tribes. If the BIA requires compliance with this code, which is inconsistent in certain areas with the International Building Code used by many Tribes, it could cause significant delays and increase the Tribe’s design and engineering costs.

The language the ICC is recommending to amend H.R. 4347 is as follows, to be added at the end of the first sentence of Sec 408 (d)(1):

"Where the applicable Federal guidelines or building code conflict with the building code adopted by the Tribe, the Tribal code shall be adhered to."

The adoption of by Tribes of civil codes for building projects and other activities is an important measure for the preservation of sovereignty. Federal agencies will more readily seek to impose their authority on Tribal activities if a Tribe does not have its own regulations in place to govern that activity. More information on this legislative effort regarding Tribal building codes is available from the ICC’s website.
 

Today I have signed into law H.R. 4783, the "Claims Resolution Act of 2010." This Act, among other things, provides funding and statutory authorities for the settlement agreements reached in the Cobell lawsuit, brought by Native Americans; the Pigford II lawsuit, brought by African American farmers; and four separate water rights suits, brought by Native American tribes. While I am pleased that this Act reflects important progress, much work remains to be done to address other claims of past discrimination made by women and Hispanic farmers against the Department of Agriculture as well as to address needs of tribal communities.

I am also pleased that the Act includes authorities proposed by my Administration concerning Unemployment Compensation program integrity, to expand the ability of the Federal Government to recover from individual income tax overpayments certain Unemployment Compensation debts that are due to an individual's failure to report earnings. My Administration has been working to protect taxpayer funds through improved recovery of improper Federal payments, and the additional authorities in this Act will assist in that effort. In order to ensure that the intent and effect of these program integrity provisions are realized, my Administration is working with the Congress to correct an inadvertent technical drafting error in section 801(a)(3)(C), so that the provision can be implemented as intended.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 8, 2010.

Eric Eberhard, Distinguished Indian Law Practitioner in Residence at the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy, has published an 862-page treatise on the principles and issues involved in Tribal trust lands. The treatise was produced in conjunction with the University’s law conference entitled “Perspectives on Tribal Land Acquisitions in 2010: A Call to Action”, and provides in-depth discussions of the legal background and current developments of Tribes’ quest to preserve and protect their traditional lands.

The treatise can be downloaded HERE, and CD copies can be obtained by contacting the Seattle University Center for Indian Law and Policy.

Professor Eberhard also serves as Vice-Chair of the American Bar Association’s Native American Concerns Committee, and is leading the organizational effort to create a new academic law journal focused exclusively on legal issues affecting Native Americans.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced an historic agreement to settle a decade-long class action lawsuit known as Keepseagle v. Vilsack, wherein Native American farmers and ranchers alleged discrimination in the USDA's farm loan program dating back to 1981.

Under the agreement, the USDA will pay $680 million in damages to thousands of Native American farmers and ranchers and forgive up to $80 million worth of outstanding farm loan debt. The settlement also initiates new programs to improve USDA's farm loan services for Native Americans. Those initiatives include the creation of a Native American Farmer and Rancher Council, where top USDA officials and Native American advocates will collaborate to make USDA's programs more accessible for Native Americans farmers and ranchers, as well as enhanced delivery of technical assistance to Native American borrowers, the creation of sub-offices on tribal lands, a systematic review of the farm loan program rules to improve accessibility to Native Americans and other measures designed to improve the provision of farm loan services to Native Americans.

The Keepseagle lawsuit alleged that Native American farmers and ranchers were denied the same opportunities as white farmers to obtain low-interest rate loans from USDA. Congress has charged the USDA with serving as the "lender of last resort" for family farmers who can't obtain credit from commercial banks. According to an expert report prepared by a former USDA economist, Native Americans suffered actual economic losses amounting to $776 million between 1981 and 2007 as a result of receiving less than their fair share of credit opportunities from the USDA.

Lead plaintiffs Marilyn and George Keepseagle, ranchers in Fort Yates, N.D.,said "We have been waiting nearly three decades for this day to come. This settlement will help thousands of Native Americans who are still farming and ranching. But more important, through this settlement we will leave to our children and grandchildren a farm loan system far more responsive to our community than the system we inherited from our parents."

The settlement has three major components:
1) Payment of $680 million in damages to class members for the economic losses they suffered due to the denial of loans or loan servicing by the USDA.

2) The USDA will forgive up to $80 million in debt currently held by class members who succeed in obtaining damages. Once the Court gives preliminary approval to the agreement, the USDA will establish a moratorium on foreclosures, debt accelerations and debt offsets not already referred to the Treasury Department. The moratorium will last until the debt relief process has concluded and class members' debt has been forgiven. After the debt relief is provided, USDA will engage in a round of loan servicing for all class members who are delinquent on any outstanding USDA farm loan debt.

3) Changes to USDA's farm loan program to improve the delivery and responsiveness to Native American farmers and ranchers, including through the creation of the Native American Farmer and Rancher Council, a new federal advisory committee. The new Council will have 15 members, 11 of whom will be Native Americans or represent Native American interests and four of whom will be top USDA officials. Members will meet at least twice a year for the next five years to discuss how to make USDA's programs more accessible for Native Americans farmers and ranchers, including changes to Farm Service Administration (FSA) regulations and internal guidance. The Council will report its recommendations directly to senior USDA officials.

In addition to the Council, the USDA will: 1) create 10 to 15 USDA regional sub-offices that will provide education and technical assistance to Native American farmers and ranchers and their advocates; 2) undertake a systematic review of its farm loan policies to determine how its regulations and policies can be reformed to better assist Native American farmers and ranchers; 3) create a customer guide on applying for credit from the USDA; 4) create the Office of the Ombudsperson to address concerns of all socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers; and, 5) regularly collect and report data on how well Native Americans fare under USDA's farm loan programs.
 

San Francisco Peaks, Arizona (Al Hikes)

The legal battle over whether fake snow can be sprayed by a ski resort in Arizona’s 12,000-foot-high San Francisco Peaks has a new venue: the Flagstaff City Council. Tribal elders, U.S. senators, federal judges and senior Obama Administration officials all have weighed in on the controversy of artificially applying frozen water to land where the Hopi, Navajo and 11 other tribes trace their origins. Many Native Americans believe it is sacrilege for skiers and snowboarders to use the area for recreation, and more so for the ski resort owners to tamper with the natural surroundings. The Arizona Snowbowl resort says it's just trying to run a business.

The Snowbowl ski area is located on 777 acres in the Coconino National Forest. Tribes have been battling the resort since the 1970s. For the second time in 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court last year refused to hear their case, and now the matter will be reviewed by the Flagstaff City Council. Local officials are to vote on whether to pump potable recycled water to the resort to make snow. It's unclear whether this will be acceptable to the Tribes, who were infuriated by a previous plan to use treated sewer water.

"This mountain is where life began; it created us," says Rex Tilousi, a leader of the Havasupai tribe. Native Americans journey to the peaks to collect herbs for traditional healing and worship deities they believe dwell there. Dumping artificial snow there, says Mr. Tilousi, is "like bombing a church."

For the operators of Snowbowl, artificial snow is necessary to ensre a steady ski season, which is the basis for hundreds of local jobs. "If you don't have snowmaking, the question is not if you will go out of business; it's when you will go out of business," says Eric Borowsky, the resort's owner. "We only occupy 1% of the peaks. Can't we share this?"

After years of environmental review detailed in a 600-page report, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, which oversees the federal land that the resort sits on, approved the artificial snow plan in 2005.  If the new plan to use potable water goes through, the federal government may contribute funds to off set the cost increase compared to the use of treated sewage. Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl sent a letter in March condemning "the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize snowmaking at Arizona Snowbowl." At the same time, they called on the government to grant Snowbowl permission to start its expansion "immediately."

You can complete this needs assessment survey online HERE, or through the NRC4Tribes website: www.NRC4Tribes.org.  Please note that the deadline to complete the NRC4Tribes TA Needs Assessment has been extended to September 7th.

We encourage you to submit your comments and forward this survey to anyone in your community who has an interest in child and family services for Native communities, including:

* Tribal leaders
* Tribal child welfare staff
* Tribal law enforcement personnel
* Tribal court personnel, health service agency staff
* Tribal community program staff
* Tribal families involved in the child welfare system
* Tribal foster parents, kinship providers, youth, community members,
* Anyone interested in Tribal child welfare services

For more information concerning the NRC4Tribes and/or the NRC4Tribes TA needs assessment, please see www.NRC4Tribes.org.
 

Federal Judge Richard Roberts has dismissed a lawsuit filed by 20 descendants of legendary Apache leader Geronimo to recover partial remains they allege were stolen by the Skull and Bones Society at Yale University.  Skull and Bones is famous for well-connected members such as both Presidents Bush, and the society's lore claims that the organization possesses Geronimo's skull.

The lawsuit alleged that Geronimo's remains were stolen in 1918 from his burial plot at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where he died in 1909.  The decision to dismiss was based in part on the Judge's finding that the law under which the plaintiffs sought to recover the remains only applied to Native artifacts that were improperly appropriated after 1990. 

Questions posed by the Department include:

Are there any specific additional types of projects or activities beyond those allowed for State and local governments for which Indian tribal governments should be authorized (or not authorized) to use qualified tax-exempt private activity bonds (i.e., in which private business ownership, leasing, or other private business use of the bond-financed projects would be permitted) in light of their special needs or unique circumstances?

Should the limitation on use of Tribal Economic Development Bonds to finance projects that are located outside of Indian reservations be modified to address special needs or unique circumstances of Indian tribal governments?

Should consideration be given to changing the law permanently to authorize Indian tribal governments to use qualified tax-exempt private activity bonds for the same types of projects and activities as are allowed for State and local governments?

Many Tribes and their partners have chafed over the past decade as the IRS introduced, largely on a retroactive basis through its audit program, new requirements that prohibited Tribes from issuing debt on a tax-exempt basis (e.g. there could be no commercial aspects of a bond-financed project and a tribe would need to prove that numerous state and local governments had been financing similar improvements with bonds over long periods of time).

Comments can include real-life examples of projects that Tribes had to forego (or finance on a more expensive taxable basis) because the current tax laws prohibited tax-exempt financing. It may also be helpful to identify frustrations Tribes have encountered trying to use TEDBs, and debunk the myth that tribes are mainly focused on casinos.

For more information regarding how to help influence the Treasury Department to improve its Tribal bond program, contact Foster Pepper’s Jeff Nave.
 

The long-awaited amendments to the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 have been completed and passed by both the House and Senate, and President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law shortly. The new law enacts numerous changes to the rules, process, and funding for the administration of justice in Tribal communities, and it specifically --

Increases the maximum authorized criminal sentence in a Tribal Court to three years, if the defendant has or is provided an attorney and other federal criminal procedure rules are followed.

Replaces the Division of Law Enforcement Services in the Department of the Interior with the Office of Justice Services in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and sets forth duties including - (1) communicating with tribal leaders, tribal community and victims' advocates, trial justice officials, and residents of Indian land on a regular basis regarding public safety and justice concerns; (2) providing technical assistance and training to tribal law enforcement officials for gaining access to crime information databases; (3) collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on crimes in Indian country on an annual basis; (4) sharing with the Department of Justice crime data received from tribal law enforcement agencies on a tribe-by-tribe basis; and (5) submitting to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs a spending report on tribal public safety and justice programs and a report on technical assistance and training provided to tribal law enforcement and corrections agencies.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to submit to Congress a long-term plan to address incarceration in Indian country.

Authorizes BIA law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests in Indian country based on probable cause for misdemeanor offenses involving controlled substances, firearms, assaults, or liquor trafficking.

Expands requirements for reporting by federal law enforcement officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorneys to Indian tribes on decisions not to investigate or prosecute alleged violations of federal criminal law in Indian country.

Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on investigations and prosecutions in Indian country that were terminated or declined.

Authorizes the Attorney General to appoint tribal prosecutors and other qualified attorneys to assist in prosecuting federal crimes committed in Indian country. Requires each United States Attorney whose district includes Indian country to appoint at least one assistant United States Attorney to serve as a tribal liaison for specified purposes, including coordinating the prosecution of federal crimes that occur in Indian country, combating child abuse and domestic and sexual violence against Indians, and providing technical assistance and training on evidence gathering techniques.

Establishes in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys the position of Native American Issues Coordinator, to coordinate with United States Attorneys in prosecuting crimes in Indian country.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) establish a prescription drug monitoring program at the health care facilities of the Indian Health Service, tribal health care facilities, and urban Indian health care facilities; and (2) report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on such program.

Directs the Attorney General, in conjunction with the HHS Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, to: (1) conduct an assessment of the capacity of federal and tribal agencies to carry out data collection and analysis relating to prescription drug abuse in Indian communities; (2) provide training to Indian health care providers and other Indian tribal officials to promote awareness and prevention of such abuse and strategies for improving agency responses to addressing it; and (3) report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on prescription drug abuse prevention activities.

Native Lacrosse Players, Circa 1845

UPDATE: The State Department has now agreed to allow Iroquois players and team officials to travel under Iroquois Nation passports, which clears the way for the team's participation in the tournament.  The team still needs to catch a trans-Atlantic flight on Wednesday July 14th to compete in its first game on the 15th.

A thousand years ago, the Iroquois Nation invented the game of lacrosse. Yet despite having created the game and shared it with the world, the Iroquois may be kept out of this year’s World Championship for their sport due to U.S. visa problems.

Teams from 30 nations are scheduled to participate in the World Lacrosse Championships in England. In a positive example of international recognition of Native sovereignty, the Iroquois participate at every tournament as a sovereign nation. The problem this year is a dispute regarding the players’ passports. The 23 players have passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, a group of six Tribal nations stretching from upstate New York into Ontario, Canada. The U.S. government says it will let players back into the country only if they have U.S. passports. The British government, meanwhile, won't give the players entry visas if they cannot guarantee they'll be allowed to go home.

The team has been traveling on Iroquois passports for the past 20 years, and Iroquois passport-holders have been using them to go abroad since 1977, said Denise Waterman, a member of the team's board of directors. Within the last year, colleagues used their Iroquois passports to travel to Japan and Sweden, she said. In the past, U.S. immigration officials accepted the Iroquois passports when they obtained visas — including trips to Britain in 1985 and 1994, and in 2002 to Australia. The 2006 tournament was in Canada, and the team had no cross-border issues.

The new dispute can be traced to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which went into effect last year. The new rules require that Americans carry passports or new high-tech documents to cross the border. "Since they last traveled on their own passports, the requirements in terms of the kind of documents that are necessary to facilitate travel within and outside the hemisphere have changed," Crowley said. "We are trying to help them get the appropriate travel documents so they can travel to this tournament."

Iroquois team members born within U.S. borders have been offered U.S. passports, but the players refused. They see the documents as an attack on their identity, said Tonya Gonnella Frichner, a member of the Onondaga Nation who works with the team. "It's about sovereignty, citizenship and self-identification," said Frichner, who also is the North American regional representative to the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

One Iroquois player, Brett Bucktooth, said he would rather miss the tournament than travel under a U.S. passport: "That's the people we are, and that's our identity."

Today, the Iroquois team is ranked No. 4 by the Federation of International Lacrosse and represents the Haudenosaunee — an Iroquois Confederacy of the Oneida, Seneca, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cayuga and Onondaga nations.
 

The rules for the contracting program, created to assist minority-owned businesses and run by the U.S. Small Business Administration, are still being rewritten. One of the proposed requirements is for Native-owned companies to report annually on how the federal contracts are benefiting their shareholders.

The change that has already moved forward is an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill, which will prevent firms from receiving no-bid defense contracts worth more than $20 million unless a federal Contracting Officer provides a written justification that is then approved by the Department. Native-owned firms routinely obtain defense contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars through the no-bid process, but Native owners were not given a chance to comment on the amendment, which was inserted into the spending bill after the conclusion of public hearings. The Defense Department must create new regulations for the amendment, and the Department has agreed to host Tribal consultations before creating them.
 

“I am absolutely committed to moving forward with you and forging a new and better future together. It’s a commitment that’s deeper than our unique nation-to-nation relationship. It’s a commitment to getting this relationship right, so that you can be full partners in America’s economy, and so your children and grandchildren can have an equal shot at pursuing the American dream.” -- President Obama

 
During the White House Tribal Nations Conference in November 2009, President Obama met with leaders invited from all 564 federally recognized Tribes to forge a stronger relationship with Tribal governments. Acknowledging the history of marginalization of Native people, of promises broken and treaties violated, and of failed government solutions, President Obama called for a new and better future in which Tribal nations are full partners.

The President signed a memorandum at the conference directing Federal agencies to submit detailed plans of actions on how they intend to secure regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials for policy development. Agencies are currently in the process of implementing these plans. In the interim, the White House has released a Progress Report that provides details on the status of federal programs designed to address issues of concern for Tribal communities. The report can be accessed HERE.
 

Open Pit Uranium Mine, Wyoming

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has rejected the EPA’s claim that it has primary permitting authority over uranium mining on property near Tribal lands, limiting the federal government’s reach over this controversial mining in major uranium producing states – many of which are also home to Tribal communities.

The Court’s June 16, 2010 ruling in Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) v. EPA, et al., sides with industry arguments that the site of a particular uranium mine in New Mexico is not located on Tribal land because it falls outside the Navajo Nation’s boundaries. The EPA had argued for a broader standard which would allow it to regulate uranium mining anywhere that is considered “Indian Country” under federal law, even if the property was outside the defined boundaries of a Reservation. A result of the Court’s decision is that regulation of such mines will be left to state law, which is not consistent from state to state.

In its published opinion, the Court noted: “EPA argued . . . that we should cast our gaze beyond the particular land in question. In the Agency’s view, because some sufficiently significant (though unspecified) percentage of neighboring lands -- what EPA calls ‘the community of reference’ -- is Indian country, HRI’s land must be considered Indian country, too.” The Court stated that the EPA’s analysis presupposes “that every piece of land is part of some community of reference,” but the Court rejected that argument.

The ruling is particularly significant because it was issued by the court which oversees Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, all of which are important energy and mineral-producing states and which also have large regions of Tribal lands.