American IndiansAre they making meaningful progress at last?

Winds of change are blowing through Indian

Country, improving prospects for many of

the nation’s 4.4 million Native Americans.

The number of tribes managing their own

affairs has increased dramatically, and an urban Indian middle

class is quietly taking root. The booming revenues of many Indian-

owned casinos seem the ultimate proof that Indians are overcom-

ing a history of mistreatment, poverty and exclusion. Yet most of

the gambling houses don’t rake in stratospheric revenues. And

despite statistical upticks in socioeconomic indicators, American

Indians are still poorer, more illness-prone and less likely to be

employed than their fellow citizens. Meanwhile, tribal governments

remain largely dependent on direct federal funding of basic services

— funding that Indian leaders and congressional supporters decry

as inadequate. But government officials say they are still providing

essential services despite budget cuts

I

N

S

I

D

E

THE ISSUES ......................363

BACKGROUND ..................368

CHRONOLOGY ..................371

CURRENT SITUATION ..........374

AT ISSUE ..........................377

OUTLOOK ........................378

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................382

THE NEXT STEP ................383

THISREPORT

Nicole Boswell, an American Indian high-schoolstudent in White Earth, Minn., dreams of being a

psychologist on her tribe’s reservation.

CQResearcherPublished by CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.

www.cqresearcher.com

CQ Researcher • April 28, 2006 • www.cqresearcher.comVolume 16, Number 16 • Pages 361-384

RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR

EXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD

362 CQ Researcher

THE ISSUES

363 • Is the federal govern-ment neglecting Indians?• Have casinos benefitedIndians?• Would money alonesolve Indians’ problems?

BACKGROUND

368 Conquered HomelandsEfforts against Native Ameri-cans began in the 1400s.

370 Forced AssimilationThe 19th-century policybroke up tribal lands.

370 TerminationThe post-war policy took1.6 million Indian acres.

370 ActivismThe American IndianMovement asserted itselfin the 1960s.

373 Self-DeterminationA 1975 law gave tribesmore autonomy.

CURRENT SITUATION

374 Self-GovernmentMany Indians advocatemore power for tribes.

375 Limits on GamblingOff-reservation landswould be affected.

376 Trust SettlementSuit alleges mismanage-ment of Indian funds.

378 Supreme Court RulingA 2005 tax decision mayhave wide impact.

OUTLOOK

378 Who Is an Indian?Most tribes define ancestryby the “blood quantum.”

SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS

364 Conditions on ReservationsImprovedThose with gaming did best.

365 Casino Revenues DoubledThe number of casinos alsoincreased.

371 ChronologyKey events since 1830.

372 Budget Cuts Target HealthClinicsIndian-run urban facilitiesface elimination.

373 Disease Toll HigherAmong IndiansIndians die at higher ratesthan the U.S. population.

376 Urban Indians: Invisibleand UnheardMost non-reservation Indiansare scattered in towns andcities.

377 At IssueShould tribes open casinoson newly acquired land?

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

381 For More InformationOrganizations to contact.

382 BibliographySelected sources used.

383 The Next StepAdditional articles.

383 Citing the CQ ResearcherSample bibliography formats.

AMERICAN INDIANS

Cover: Nicole Boswell, an Indian high-school student in White Earth, Minn., dreams of beinga psychologist on her tribe’s reservation. (AP Photo/Minnesota Public Radio, Dan Gunderson)

MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Colin

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost

STAFF WRITERS: Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel,Pamela M. Prah

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Rachel S. Cox,Sarah Glazer, David Hosansky,

Patrick Marshall, Tom Price

DESIGN/PRODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Melissa J. Hipolit

A Division ofCongressional Quarterly Inc.

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/PUBLISHER:John A. Jenkins

DIRECTOR, LIBRARY PUBLISHING: Kathryn C. Suárez

DIRECTOR, EDITORIAL OPERATIONS:Ann Davies

CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.

CHAIRMAN: Paul C. Tash

VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew P. Corty

PRESIDENT/EDITOR IN CHIEF: Robert W. Merry

Copyright © 2006 CQ Press, a division of Congres-

sional Quarterly Inc. (CQ). CQ reserves all copyright

and other rights herein, unless previously specified

in writing. No part of this publication may be re-

produced electronically or otherwise, without prior

written permission. Unauthorized reproduction or

transmission of CQ copyrighted material is a violation

of federal law carrying civil fines of up to $100,000.

CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid-

free paper. Published weekly, except March 24, July

7, July 14, Aug. 4, Aug. 11, Nov. 24, Dec. 22 and

Dec. 29, by CQ Press, a division of Congressional

Quarterly Inc. Annual full-service subscriptions for

institutions start at $667. For pricing, call 1-800-834-

9020, ext. 1906. To purchase a CQ Researcher re-

port in print or electronic format (PDF), visit

www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports

start at $10. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-

rights licensing are also available. Periodicals post-

age paid at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing

offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CQ

Researcher, 1255 22nd St., N.W., Suite 400, Washing-

ton, DC 20037.

April 28, 2006Volume 16, Number 16

CQResearcher

April 28, 2006 363Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

American Indians

THE ISSUESI t’s not a fancy gambling

palace, like some Indiancasinos, but the modest

operation run by the Win-nebago Tribe of Nebraska mayjust help the 2,300-membertribe hit the economic jackpot.

Using seed money fromthe casino, it has launched12 businesses, including aconstruction company and anInternet news service. Pro-jected 2006 revenues: $150million.

“It would be absolutelydumb for us to think thatgaming is the future,” saystribe member Lance Morgan,the 37-year-old Harvard LawSchool graduate who runs theholding company for thedozen businesses. “Gamingis just a means to an end —and it’s done wonders forour tribal economy.”

Indian casinos have re-vived a myth dating back tothe early-20th-century Okla-homa oil boom — that In-dians are rolling in dough. 1

While some of the 55 tribesthat operate big casinos in-deed are raking in big profits,the 331 federally recognizedtribes in the lower 48 states, on thewhole, endure soul-quenching povertyand despair.

Arizona’s 1.8-million-acre San CarlosApache Reservation is among the poor-est. The rural, isolated community ofabout 13,000 people not only faces dev-astating unemployment but also a dead-ly methemphetamine epidemic, tribalChairwoman Kathleen W. Kitcheyan,told the Senate Indian Affairs Commit-tee in April.

“We suffer from a poverty level of69 percent, which must be unimagin-

able to many people in this country,who would equate a situation such asthis to one found only in Third Worldcountries,” she said. Then, speakingof the drug-related death of one ofher own grandsons, she had to chokeback sobs.

“Our statistics are horrific,” says LionelR. Bordeaux, president of Sinte GleskaUniversity, on the Rosebud Sioux Reser-vation in South Dakota. “We’re at thebottom rung of the ladder in all areas,whether it’s education levels, economicachievement or political status.” 2

National statistics aren’tmuch better:• Indian unemployment on

reservations nationwide is49 percent — 10 times thenational rate. 3

• The on-reservation familypoverty rate in 2000 was37 percent — four timesthe national figure of 9percent. 4

• Nearly one in five Indiansage 25 or older in tribeswithout gambling opera-tions had less than a ninth-grade education. But evenmembers of tribes withgambling had a collegegraduation rate of only 16percent, about half the na-tional percentage. 5

• Death rates from alco-holism and tuberculosisamong Native Americansare at least 650 percenthigher than overall U.S.rates. 6

• Indian youths commit sui-cide at nearly triple therate of young people ingeneral. 7

• Indians on reservations, es-pecially in the resource-poor Upper Plains andWest, are the nation’sthird-largest group ofmethemphetamine users. 8

The immediate prognosis for thenation’s 4.4 million Native Ameri-cans is bleak, according to the Har-vard Project on American IndianEconomic Development. “If U.S. andon-reservation Indian per-capita in-come were to continue to grow attheir 1990s’ rates,” it said, “it wouldtake half a century for the tribes tocatch up.” 9

Nonetheless, there has been for-ward movement in Indian Country,though it is measured in modest steps.Among the marks of recent progress:

BY PETER KATEL

Get

ty I

mag

es/M

ario

Tam

a

Jerolyn Fink lives in grand style in the housing centerbuilt by Connecticut’s Mohegan Tribe using profits from

its successful Mohegan Sun casino. Thanks in part tobooming casinos, many tribes are making progress, but

American Indians still face daunting health andeconomic problems, and tribal leaders say

federal aid remains inadequate.

364 CQ Researcher

• Per-capita income rose 20 percenton reservations, to $7,942, (and 36percent in tribes with casinos, to$9,771), in contrast to an 11 per-cent overall U.S. growth rate. 10

• Unemployment has dropped byup to 5 percent on reservationsand in other predominantly Indi-an areas. 11

• Child poverty in non-gaming tribesdropped from 55 percent of thechild population to 44 percent

(but the Indian rate is still morethan double the 17 percent aver-age nationwide). 12

More than two centuries of courtdecisions, treaties and laws have cre-ated a complicated system of coexis-tence between tribes and the rest ofthe country. On one level, tribes aresovereign entities that enjoy a gov-ernment-to-government relationshipwith Washington. But the sovereigntyis qualified. In the words of an 1831

Supreme Court decision that is abedrock of Indian law, tribes are “do-mestic dependent nations.” 13

The blend of autonomy and de-pendence grows out of the Indians’reliance on Washington for sheer sur-vival, says Robert A. Williams Jr., alaw professor at the University of Ari-zona and a member of North Caroli-na’s Lumbee Tribe. “Indians insistedin their treaties that the Great WhiteFather protect us from these racial ma-niacs in the states — where racial dis-crimination was most developed —and guarantee us a right to education,a right to water, a territorial base, ahomeland,” he says. “Tribes sold anawful lot of land in return for a trustrelationship to keep the tribes going.”

Today, the practical meaning of therelationship with Washington is thatAmerican Indians on reservations, andto some extent those elsewhere, de-pend entirely or partly on federalfunding for health, education andother needs. Tribes with casinos andother businesses lessen their relianceon federal dollars.

Unlike other local governments, tribesdon’t have a tax base whose revenuesthey share with state governments.Federal spending on Indian programsof all kinds nationwide currentlyamounts to about $11 billion, JamesCason, associate deputy secretary of theInterior, told the Senate Indian AffairsCommittee in February.

But the abysmal conditions underwhich many American Indians livemake it all too clear that isn’t enough,Indians say. “This is always a discus-sion at our tribal leaders’ meetings,”says Cecilia Fire Thunder, president ofthe Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge,S.D. “The biggest job that tribal leadershave is to see that the governmentlives up to its responsibilities to ourpeople. It’s a battle that never ends.”

Indeed, a decades-old class-actionsuit alleges systematic mismanagementof billions of dollars in Indian-ownedassets by the Interior Department —

AMERICAN INDIANS

Conditions on Reservations Improved

Socioeconomic conditions improved more on reservations with gambling than on those without gaming during the 1990s, although non-gaming reservations also improved substantially, especially compared to the U.S. population. Some experts attribute the progress among non-gaming tribes to an increase in self-governance on many reservations.

* The reservation population of the Navajo Nation, which did not have gambling in the 1990s, was not included because it is so large (175,000 in 2000) that it tends to pull down Indian averages when it is included.

Source: Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt, “Cabazon, The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the Socioeconomic Consequences of American Indian Governmental Gaming: A Ten-Year Review, American Indians on Reservations: A Databook of Socioeconomic Change Between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses,” Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, January 2005

Socioeconomic Changes on Reservations, 1990-2000*(shown as a percentage or percentage points)

Non-Gaming Gaming U.S.

Real per-capita income +21.0% +36.0% +11.0%

Median household income +14.0% +35.0% +4.0%

Family poverty -6.9 -11.8 -0.8

Child poverty -8.1 -11.6 -1.7

Deep poverty -1.4 -3.4 -0.4

Public assistance +0.7 -1.6 +0.3

Unemployment -1.8 -4.8 -0.5

Labor force participation -1.6 +1.6 -1.3

Overcrowded homes -1.3 -0.1 +1.1

Homes lacking complete plumbing -4.6 -3.3 -0.1

Homes lacking complete kitchen +1.3 -0.6 +0.2

College graduates +1.7 +2.6 +4.2

High school or equivalency only -0.3 +1.8 -1.4

Less than 9th-grade education -5.5 -6.3 -2.8

April 28, 2006 365Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

a case that has prompted witheringcriticism of the department by the judge(see p. 375).

Government officials insist that, de-spite orders to cut spending, they’vebeen able to keep providing essen-tial services. Charles Grim, director ofthe Indian Health Service, told the In-dian Affairs Committee, “In a deficit-reduction year, it’s a very strong bud-get and one that does keep pace withinflationary and population-growthincreases.”

In any event, from the tribes’ pointof view, they lack the political mus-cle to force major increases. “The bigproblem is the Indians are about 1percent of the national population,”says Joseph Kalt, co-director of theHarvard Project. “The voice is so tiny.”

Faced with that grim political real-ity, Indians are trying to make betteruse of scarce federal dollars througha federally sponsored “self-governance”movement. Leaders of the movementsay tribes can deliver higher-qualityservices more efficiently when theycontrol their own budgets. Tradition-ally, federal agencies operate pro-grams on reservations, such as lawenforcement or medical services.

But since the 1990s, dozens of tribeshave stepped up control of their ownaffairs both by building their own busi-nesses and by signing self-governance“compacts” with the federal government.Compacts provide tribes with largechunks of money, or block grants, ratherthan individual grants for each service.Then, with minimal federal oversight,the tribes develop their own budgetsand run all or most services.

The self-governance trend gatheredsteam during the same time that In-dian-owned casinos began booming.For many tribes, the gambling busi-ness provided a revenue stream thatdidn’t flow from Washington.

According to economist Alan Meister,228 tribes in 30 states operated 367 high-stakes bingo halls or casinos in 2004,earning an estimated $19.6 billion. 14

The gambling houses operate underthe 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act(IGRA), which was made possible bya U.S. Supreme Court ruling uphold-ing tribes’ rights to govern their ownactivities. 15 A handful of tribes aredoing so well that $80 million from sixtribes in 2000-2003 helped fuel the scan-dal surrounding one-time Washingtonsuper-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whoseclients were among the most success-ful casino tribes. 16

If the Abramoff scandal contributedto the notion of widespread Indian wealth,one reason may be the misimpressionthat tribes don’t pay taxes on their gam-bling earnings. In fact, under the IGRA,federal, state and local governments tookin $6.3 billion in gambling-generated taxrevenues in 2004, with 67 percent goingto the federal government. In addition,tribes paid out some $889 million in 2004to state and local governments in orderto get gambling operations approved. 17

The spread of casinos has prompt-ed some cities and counties, alongwith citizens’ groups and even somecasino-operating tribes, to resist casino-expansion plans.

The opposition to expansion is an-other reason tribal entrepreneur Mor-gan doesn’t think gaming is a goodlong-range bet for Indians’ future. Hisvision involves full tribal control ofthe Indians’ main asset — their land.He argues for ending the “trust sta-tus” under which tribes can’t buy orsell reservation property — a relic of19th-century protection against rapa-cious state governments.

Indian Country needs a better busi-ness climate, Morgan says, and theavailability of land as collateral for in-vestments would be a big step in thatdirection. “America has a wonderfuleconomic system, probably the bestin the world, but the reservation tendsto be an economic black hole.”

As Indians seek to improve theirlives, here are some of the issuesbeing debated:

Is the federal government neglect-ing Native Americans?

There is wide agreement that thefederal government bears overwhelm-ing responsibility for Indians’ welfare,but U.S. and tribal officials disagreeover the adequacy of the aid Indiansreceive. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chair-man of the Senate Indian Affairs Com-mittee, and Vice Chairman Byron L.Dorgan, D-N.D., have been leading thefight for more aid to Indians. “We havea full-blown crisis . . . particularly deal-ing with children and elderly, with re-spect to housing, education and healthcare,” Dorgan told the committee onFeb. 14. He characterized administra-tion proposals as nothing more than“nibbling around the edges on theseissues . . . making a few adjustmentshere or there.’ ”

Administration officials respondthat given the severe federal deficit,they are focusing on protecting vital

Revenues From Casinos Almost Doubled

Revenue from Indian gaming operations nearly doubled to $19.4 billion from 2000-2004. The number of Indian casinos increased from 311 to 367 during the period.

Source: Indian Gaming Commission

Indian Gaming Revenues(2000-2004)

0

5

10

15

$20

20042003200220012000

Revenue(in $ billions)

$10.9$12.8

$14.7

$16.8

$19.4

366 CQ Researcher

programs. “As wewent through and pri-oritized our budget,we basically lookedat all of the programsthat were secondaryand tertiary programs,and they were thefirst ones on theblock to give trade-offs for our core pro-grams in maintainingthe integrity of those,”Interior’s Cason toldthe committee.

For Indians on iso-lated reservations,says Bordeaux of theRosebud S ioux ,there’s little alterna-tive to federal money.He compares tribes’present circumstancesto those after thebuffalo had been killed off, and anArmy general told the Indians to eatbeef, which made them sick. “Thegeneral told them, ‘Either that, or youeat the grass on which you stand.’”

But David B. Vickers, president ofUpstate Citizens for Equality, in UnionSprings, N.Y., which opposes Indianland claims and casino applications, ar-gues that accusations of federal neglectare inaccurate and skirt the real prob-lem. The central issue is that the con-stitutional system is based on individ-ual rights, not tribal rights, he says.“Indians are major recipients of wel-fare now. They’re eligible. They don’tneed a tribe or leader; all they haveto do is apply like anybody else.”

Pat Ragsdale, director of the Bureauof Indian Affairs (BIA), acknowledgesthat Dorgan’s and McCain’s criticismsecho a 2003 U.S. Commission on CivilRights report, which also called under-funding of Indian aid a crisis. “The gov-ernment is failing to live up to its trustresponsibility to Native peoples,” thecommission concluded. “Efforts to bringNative Americans up to the standards

of other Americans have failed in partbecause of a lack of sustained funding.The failure manifests itself in massiveand escalating unmet needs.” 18

“Nobody in this government dis-putes the report, in general,” saysRagsdale, a Cherokee. “Some of ourtribal communities are in real criticalshape, and others are prospering.”

The commission found, for example,that in 2003 the Indian Health Serviceappropriation amounted to $2,533 percapita — below even the $3,803 percapita appropriated for federal prisoners.

Concern over funding for Indian pro-grams in 2007 centers largely on healthand education. Although 90 percent ofIndian students attend state-operatedpublic schools, their schools get fed-eral aid because tribes don’t pay prop-erty taxes, which typically fund publicschools. The remaining 10 percent ofIndian students attend schools operat-ed by the BIA or by tribes themselvesunder BIA contracts.

“There is not a congressman or sen-ator who would send his own childrenor grandchildren to our schools,” said

Ryan Wilson, presidentof the National IndianEducation Association,citing “crumbling build-ings and outdated struc-tures with lead in thepipes and mold on thewalls.” 19

Cason told the Indi-an Affairs Committee theadministration is propos-ing a $49 million cut,from $157.4 million to$108.1 million, in schoolconstruction and repairin 2007. He also said thatonly 10 of 37 dilapidat-ed schools funded forreplacement by 2006have been completed,with another 19 sched-uled to finish in 2007.Likewise, he said the de-partment is also behind

on 45 school improvement projects.McCain questioned whether BIA

schools and public schools with largeIndian enrollments would be able tomeet the requirements set by the na-tional No Child Left Behind Law. 20

Yes, replied Darla Marburger, deputyassistant secretary of Education forpolicy. “For the first time, we’ll beproviding money to . . . take a lookat how students are achieving in waysthat they can tailor their programs tobetter meet the needs of students.”Overall, the Department of Educationwould spend about $1 billion on In-dian education under the administra-tion’s proposed budget for 2007, or$6 million less than in 2006.

McCain and Dorgan are also amongthose concerned about administrationplans to eliminate the Indian HealthService’s $32.7 million urban program,which this year made medical andcounseling services available to some430,000 off-reservation Indians at 41medical facilities in cities around thenation. (See Sidebar, p. 372.) The ad-ministration argues that the services were

AMERICAN INDIANS

Controversial Whiteclay, Neb., sells millions of cans of beer annually toresidents of the nearby Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

Alcohol abuse and unemployment continue to plague the American Indian community.

AP P

hoto

/William

Lau

er

April 28, 2006 367Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

available through other programs, butMcCain and Dorgan noted that “noevaluation or evidence has been pro-vided to support this contention.” 21

Indian Health Service spokesmanThomas Sweeney, a member of theCitizen Potawatomi Nation of Okla-homa, says only 72,703 Indians usedurban health centers in 2004 and thatexpansion of another federal programwould pick up the slack. 22

In Seattle, elimination of the urbanprogram would cut $4 million fromthe city’s Indian Health Board budget,says Executive Director Ralph Forquera.“Why pick on a $33 million appro-priation?” he asks. In his skepticalview, the proposal reflects another “un-spoken” termination program. You takea sub-population — urban Indians —and eliminate funding, then [you tar-get] tribes under 1,000 members, andthere are a lot of them. Little by lit-tle, you pick apart the system.”

The IHS’s Grim told the Senatecommittee on Feb. 14 the cuts weredesigned to protect funding that “canbe used most effectively to improvethe health status of American Indianand Alaskan Native people.”

Have casinos benefited Indians?Over the past two decades, Indian

casinos have become powerful eco-nomic engines for many tribaleconomies. But the enthusiasm for casi-nos is not unanimous.

“If you’re looking at casinos in termsof how they’ve actually raised the sta-tus of Indian people, they’ve been anabysmal failure,” says Ted Jojola, a pro-fessor of planning at the University ofNew Mexico and a member of IsletaPueblo, near Albuquerque. “But in termsof augmenting the original federal trust-responsibility areas — education, health,tribal government — they’ve been aspectacular success. Successful gamingtribes have ploughed the money eitherinto diversifying their economies orthey’ve augmented funds that wouldhave come to them anyway.”

Tribes with casinos near big pop-ulation centers are flourishing. TheCoushatta Tribe’s casino near LakeCharles, La., generates $300 million ayear, enough to provide about $40,000to every member. 23 And the fabledFoxwoods Resort Casino south of Nor-wich, Conn., operated by the Mashan-tucket Pequot Tribe, together withConnecticut’s other big casino, the Mo-hegan Tribe’s Mohegan Sun, grossed$2.2 billion just from gambling in2004. 24

There are only about 830 Coushattas,so their benefits also include free healthcare, education and favorable terms onhome purchases. 25 The once pover-ty-stricken Mashantuckets have creat-ed Connecticut’s most extensive wel-fare-to-work program, open to bothtribe members and non-members. In1997-2000, the program helped 150welfare recipients find jobs. 26

Most tribes don’t enjoy success onthat scale. Among the nation’s 367 In-dian gambling operations, only 15grossed $250 million or more in 2004(another 40 earned $100 million to$250 million); 94 earned less than $3million and 57 earned $3 million to$10 million. 27

“We have a small casino that pro-vides close to $3 million to the tribalnation as a whole,” says Bordeaux, onthe Rosebud Sioux Reservation. Therevenue has been channeled into thetribe’s Head Start program, an emer-gency home-repair fund and otherprojects. W. Ron Allen, chairman ofthe Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Se-quim, Wash., says his tribe’s small casi-no has raised living standards so muchthat some two-dozen students a yeargo to college, instead of one or two.

Efforts to open additional casinosare creating conflicts between tribesthat operate competing casinos, aswell as with some of their non-Indianneighbors. Convicted lobbyist Abramoff,for example, was paid millions of dol-lars by tribes seeking to block othertribal casinos. 28

Some non-Indian communities alsooppose casino expansion. “We firmlybelieve a large, generally unregulatedcasino will fundamentally change thecharacter of our community forever,”said Liz Thomas, a member of TaxPayers of Michigan Against Casinos,which opposes a casino planned bythe Pokagon Band of Potawotami In-dians Tribe in the Lake Michigan townof New Buffalo, where Taylor and herhusband operate a small resort.

“People are OK with Donald Trumpmaking millions of dollars individually,”says Joseph Podlasek, executive direc-tor of the American Indian Center ofChicago, “but if a race of people is try-ing to become self-sufficient, now that’snot respectable.”

Nevertheless, some American Indi-ans have mixed feelings about thecasino route to economic development.“I don’t think anyone would havepicked casinos” for that purpose, saysthe University of Arizona’s Williams.“Am I ambivalent about it? Absolutely.But I’m not ambivalent about a newfire station, or Kevlar vests for tribalpolice fighting meth gangs.”

“There’s no question that some ofthe money has been used for worth-while purposes,” concedes Guy Clark,a Corrales, N.M., dentist who chairsthe National Coalition Against Legal-ized Gambling. But, he adds, “If youdo a cost-benefit analysis, the cost ismuch greater than the benefit.” Restau-rants and other businesses, for exam-ple, lose customers who often gam-ble away their extra money.

Even some Indian leaders whosetribes profit from casinos raise cautionflags, especially about per-capita pay-ments. For Nebraska’s Winnebagos,payments amount to just a few hun-dred dollars, says CEO Morgan. Whatbothers him are dividends “that arejust big enough that you don’t haveto work or get educated — say,$20,000 to $40,000.”

But there’s no denying the impactcasinos can have. At a January public

368 CQ Researcher

hearing on the Oneida Indian Nation’sattempt to put 17,000 acres of upstateNew York land into tax-free “trust” sta-tus, hundreds of the 4,500 employeesof the tribe’s Turning Stone Resort andCasino, near Utica, showed up in sup-port. “When I was a kid, people workedfor General Motors, General Electric, Car-rier and Oneida Ltd.,” said casino HumanResources Director Mark Mancini. “Today,people work for the Oneida Indian Na-tion and their enterprises.” 29

For tribes that can’t build indepen-dent economies any other way, casinosare appealing. The 225,000-memberNavajo Nation, the biggest U.S. tribe,twice rejected gaming before finallyapproving it in 2004. 30 “We need thatinfusion of jobs and revenue, and peo-ple realize that,” said Duane Yazzie,president of the Navajos’ Shiprock,N.M., chapter. 31

But the Navajos face stiff competitionfrom dozens of casinos already in op-eration near the vast Navajo reservation,which spreads across parts of Arizona,New Mexico and Utah and is larger thanthe state of West Virginia.

Would money alone solve Ameri-can Indians’ problems?

No one in Indian Country (or onCapitol Hill) denies the importance offederal funding to American Indians’future, but some Indians say it isn’tthe only answer.

“We are largely on our own becauseof limited financial assistance from thefederal government,” said Joseph A.Garcia, president of the National Con-gress of American Indians, in his recent“State of Indian Nations” speech. 32

Fifty-two tribal officials and Indianprogram directors expressed similarsentiments in March before the HouseAppropriations Subcommittee on theInterior. Pleading their case beforelawmakers who routinely considerbillion-dollar weapons systems andother big projects, the tribal leaderssounded like small-town county com-missioners as they urged lawmakers

to increase or restore small but vitalgrants for basic health, education andwelfare services.

“In our ICWA [Indian Child WelfareAct] program, currently we have abudget of $79,000 a year,” said HaroldFrazier, chairman of the Cheyenne RiverSioux, in South Dakota. “We receiveover 1,300 requests for assistance an-nually from 11 states and eight coun-ties in South Dakota. We cannot givethe type of attention to these requeststhat they deserve. Therefore, we arerequesting $558,000.”

To university President Bordeaux,federal funding is vital because hisdesolate reservation has few other op-tions for economic survival. “What’smissing is money,” he says.

Money is crucial to improving In-dians’ health, says Dr. JoycelynDorscher, director of the Center ofAmerican Indian and Minority Healthat the University of Minnesota-Duluth.Especially costly are programs to com-bat diabetes and other chronic dis-eases, says Dorscher, a Chippewa.While health programs have to becarefully designed to fit Indian cultur-al patterns, she says, “Everything comesdown to time or money in the grandscheme of things.”

But with funding from Washingtonnever certain from year to year, saysthe Harvard Project’s Kalt, “The keyto economic development has not beenfederal funding” but rather “tribes’ abil-ity to run their own affairs.”

For tribes without self-governmentcompacts, growing demands for ser-vices and shrinking funding from Wash-ington make keeping the dollars flow-ing the highest priority. “We’re alwaysafraid of more cutbacks,” says OglalaSioux President Fire Thunder.

But an Indian education leaderwith decades of federal budgetary ne-gotiations acknowledges that problemsgo beyond funding shortfalls. “If youask students why they dropped out,they say, ‘I don’t see a future for my-self,’ ” says David Beaulieu, director

of Arizona State University’s Centerfor Indian Education. “Educators needto tie the purposes of schooling tothe broad-based purposes of society.We’re more successful when we tieeducation to the meaning of life.”

The University of Arizona’s Williamssays a tribe’s success and failure maybe tied more to the way its govern-ment is organized than to how muchfunding it gets.

Williams says the first priority oftribes still using old-style constitutionsshould be reorganization, because theyfeature a weak executive elected by atribal council. “That’s what the BIA wasused to,” he explains. “It could playoff factions and families, and the eco-nomic system would be based on pa-tronage and taking care of your ownfamily.” Under such a system, he adds,“there’s not going to be any long-termstrategic planning going on.” 33

Yet other needs exist as well, saysthe American Indian Center’s Podlasek.“It’s so difficult for us to find a placeto do a traditional ceremony,” he says.“We had a traditional healer in townlast month, and he wanted to build asweat lodge. We actually had to go toIndiana. Doing it in the city wasn’teven an option.”

BACKGROUNDConquered Homelands

R elations between Indian and non-Indian civilizations in the Americ-

as began with the Spanish Conquista-dors’ explorations of the 1500s, followedby the French and British. By turns thethree powers alternated policies of en-slavement, peaceful coexistence and all-out warfare against the Indians. 34

By 1830, with the Europeans largelygone, white settlers moved westwardinto Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.

AMERICAN INDIANS

April 28, 2006 369Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Unwilling to share therich frontier land, theypushed the Indiansout. President AndrewJackson backed thestrategy, and Congressenacted it into the In-dian Removal Act of1830, which called formoving the region’sfive big tribes into theOklahoma Territory.

If the law didn’tmake clear where In-dians stood with thegovernment, the treat-ment of Mississippi’sChoctaws providedchilling evidence.Under a separatetreaty, Choctaws whorefused to head forOklahoma could re-main at home, be-come citizens and re-ceive land. In practice,none of that was al-lowed, and Indianswho stayed in Mis-sissippi lived margin-al existences.

Georgia simplifiedthe claiming of Chero-kee lands by effec-tively ending Cherokee self-rule. The so-called “Georgia Guard” reinforced thepoint by beating and jailing Indians.Jackson encouraged Georgia’s actions,and when Indians protested, he said hecouldn’t interfere. The lawsuit filed bythe Cherokees eventually reached theSupreme Court.

Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1831majority opinion, Cherokee Nation v.Georgia, would cast a long shadowover Indians’ rights, along with twoother decisions, issued in 1823 and1832. “Almost all Indian policy is theprogeny of the conflicting views ofJackson and Marshall,” wrote W. DaleMason, a political scientist at the Uni-versity of New Mexico. 35

In concluding that the court couldn’tstop Georgia’s actions, Marshall definedthe relationship between Indians and theU.S. government. While Marshall wrotethat Indians didn’t constitute a foreignstate, he noted that they owned the landthey occupied until they made a “vol-untary cession.” Marshall concluded thevarious tribes were “domestic dependentnations.” In practical terms, “Their rela-tions to the United States resembles thatof a ward to his guardian.” 36

Having rejected the Cherokees’ ar-gument, the University of Arizona’sWilliams writes, the court “providedno effective judicial remedy for Indiantribes to protect their basic humanrights to property, self-government, and

cultural survival underU.S. law.” 37

Along with the Chero-kee case, the other twoopinions that make up theso-called Marshall Trilogyare Johnson v. M’Intosh(also known as Johnsonv. McIntosh), and Worces-ter v. State of Georgia. 38

In Johnson, Marshallwrote that the Europeanempires that “discovered”America became its own-ers and had “an exclu-sive right to extinguishthe Indian title of occu-pancy, either by purchaseor by conquest. The tribesof Indians inhabiting thiscountry were fierce sav-ages. . . . To leave themin possession of theircountry was to leave thecountry a wilderness.” 39

However, Marshallused the 1832 Worcesteropinion to define the lim-its of state authority overIndian tribes, holding thatthe newcomers couldn’tsimply eject Indians.

“The Cherokee nation. . . is a distinct commu-

nity occupying its own territory . . . inwhich the laws of Georgia can haveno force,” Marshall wrote. Georgia’s con-viction and sentencing of a missionaryfor not swearing allegiance to the state“interferes forcibly with the relations es-tablished between the United States andthe Cherokee nation.” 40 That is, thefederal government — not states —held the reins of power over tribes.

According to legend, Jackson re-marked: “John Marshall has made hisdecision — now let him enforce it.”Between Jackson’s disregard of theSupreme Court and white settlers’ latermanipulation of the legal system tovacate Indian lands, the end result wasthe dispossession of Indian lands.

A National Indian Gaming Association advertisement touts the benefits oftribal gaming operations to American Indian communities. Some 228

tribes in 30 states operated 367 high-stakes bingo halls or casinos in 2004.

Nat

ional

India

n G

amin

g A

ssoci

atio

n

370 CQ Researcher

Forced Assimilation

T he expulsions of the Native Amer-icans continued in the Western ter-

ritories — especially after the Civil War.“I instructed Captain Barry, if possibleto exterminate the whole village,” Lt.Col. George Green wrote of his partic-ipation in an 1869 campaign against theWhite Mountain Apaches in Arizona andNew Mexico. “There seems to be nosettled policy, but a general policy tokill them wherever found.” 41

Some military men and civiliansdidn’t go along. But whether by bruteforce or by persuasion, Indians werepushed off lands that non-Indians want-ed. One strategy was to settle the In-dians on reservations guarded by mil-itary posts. The strategy grew into ageneral policy for segregating Indianson these remote tracts.

Even after the Indians were herdedonto lands that no one else wanted,the government didn’t respect reserva-tion boundaries. They were reconfig-ured as soon as non-Indians saw some-thing valuable, such as mineral wealth.

The strategy of elastic reservationboundaries led to the belief — or ra-tionalization — that reservations servedno useful purposes for Indians them-selves. That doctrine led to a policy en-shrined in an 1887 law to convert reser-vations to individual landholdings.Well-meaning advocates of the plan sawit as a way to inculcate notions of pri-vate property and Euro-American cul-ture in general.

All tribal land was to be divided into160-acre allotments, one for each Indi-an household. The parcels wouldn’t be-come individual property, though, for25 years.

Indian consent wasn’t required. Insome cases, government agents triedpersuading Indians to join in; in oth-ers, the divvying-up proceeded evenwith many Indians opposed. In Ari-zona, however, the government backedoff from breaking up the lands of the

long-settled Hopis, who resisted at-tempts to break up their territory. Thevast Navajo Nation in Arizona, Utahand New Mexico was also left intact.

While widely reviled, the “forced as-similation” policy left a benign legacy forthe affected Indians: the grant of citi-zenship. Beyond that, the era’s Indianswere restricted to unproductive lands,and with little means of support manyfell prey to alcoholism and disease.

The bleak period ended with Pres-ident Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his firstterm he appointed a defender of In-dian culture, John Collier, as commis-sioner of Indian affairs. Collier pushedfor the Indian Reorganization Act of1934, which ended the allotment pro-gram, financed purchases of new In-dian lands and authorized the organi-zation of tribal governments thatenjoyed control over revenues.

Termination

A fter World War II, a new, anti-Indian mood swept Washington,

partly in response to pressure from stateswhere non-Indians eyed Indian land.

Collier resigned in 1945 after yearsof conflict over what critics called hisantagonism to missionaries proselytiz-ing among the Indians and his sym-pathies toward the tribes. The 1950appointment of Dillon S. Myer — freshfrom supervising the wartime intern-ment of Japanese-Americans — clear-ly reflected the new attitude. Myershowed little interest in what Indiansthemselves thought of the new policyof shrinking tribal land holdings. “I re-alize that it will not be possible alwaysto obtain Indian cooperation. . . . Wemust proceed, even though [this] maybe lacking.” 42

Congress hadn’t authorized a sweep-ing repeal of earlier policy. But the in-troduction of dozens of bills in the late1940s to sell Indian land or liquidatesome reservation holdings entirely showedwhich way the winds were blowing. And

in 1953, a House Concurrent Resolutiondeclared Congress’ policy to be endingIndians’ “status as wards of the UnitedStates, and to grant them all of the rightsand privileges pertaining to American cit-izenship.” A separate law granted statejurisdiction over Indian reservations infive Midwestern and Western states andextended the same authority to otherstates that wanted to claim it. 43

The following year, Congress “termi-nated” formal recognition and territorialsovereignty of six tribes. Four years later,after public opposition began building(spurred in part by religious organiza-tions), Congress abandoned termination.In the meantime, however, Indians hadlost 1.6 million acres.

At the same time, though, the feder-al government maintained an associatedpolicy — relocation. The BIA persuad-ed Indians to move to cities — Chica-go, Denver and Los Angeles were themain destinations — and opened job-placement and housing-aid programs. TheBIA placed Indians far from their reser-vations to keep them from returning. By1970, the BIA estimated that 40 percentof all Indians lived in cities, of whichone-third had been relocated by the bu-reau; the rest moved on their own. 44

Activism

S tarting in the late 1960s, the windsof change blowing through Amer-

ican society were felt as deeply in In-dian Country as anywhere. Two booksplayed a crucial role. In 1969, VineDeloria Jr., member of a renownedfamily of Indian intellectuals from Ok-lahoma, published his landmark his-tory, Custer Died For Your Sins, whichportrayed American history from theIndians’ viewpoint. The followingyear, Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart atWounded Knee described the settlingof the West also from an Indian pointof view. The books astonished manynon-Indians. Among young Indians,

AMERICAN INDIANS

Continued on p. 373

April 28, 2006 371Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Chronology1800s United Statesexpands westward, pushing In-dians off most of their originallands, sometimes creating newreservations for them.

1830President Andrew Jackson signs theIndian Removal Act, forcing theCherokees to move from Georgiato Oklahoma.

1832Supreme Court issues the last ofthree decisions defining Indians’ legalstatus as wards of the government.

1871Congress makes its treaties withtribes easier to alter, enabling non-Indians to take Indian lands whennatural resources are discovered.

Dec. 29, 1890U.S. soldiers massacre at least 150Plains Indians, mostly women andchildren, at Wounded Knee, S.D.

•

1900-1950sCongress and the executivebranch undertake major shifts inIndian policy, first strengtheningtribal governments then trying toforce cultural assimilation.

1924Indians are granted U.S. citizenship.

1934Indian Reorganization Act authorizesexpansion of reservations andstrengthening of tribal governments.

1953Congress endorses full assimilationof Indians into American society,including “relocation” from reser-vations to cities.

1960s-1980sIn the radical spirit of the era,Native Americans demand re-spect for their traditions andan end to discrimination; feder-al government concedes morepower to tribal governments,allows gambling on tribal lands.

1969American Indian Movement (AIM)seizes Alcatraz Island in San Fran-cisco Bay to dramatize claims ofinjustice.

July 7, 1970President Richard M. Nixon vowssupport for Indian self-government.

Feb. 27, 1973AIM members occupy the town ofWounded Knee on the Pine Ridge,S.D., Sioux Reservation, for twomonths; two Indians die and anFBI agent is wounded.

1988Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allowstribes to operate casinos underagreements with states.

•

1990s Indian-ownedcasinos boom; tribal govern-ments push to expand self-ruleand reduce Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA) supervision.

1994President Bill Clinton signs law mak-ing experimental self-governancecompacts permanent.

March 27, 1996U.S. Supreme Court rules statescan’t be forced to negotiate casinocompacts, thus encouraging tribesto make revenue-sharing deals withstates as the price of approval.

June 10, 1996Elouise Cobell, a member of theBlackfeet Tribe in Montana,charges Interior Department mis-management of Indian trust fundscheated Indians out of billions ofdollars. The case is still pending.

Nov. 3, 1998California voters uphold tribes’ rightsto run casinos; state Supreme Courtlater invalidates the provision, but itis revived by a 1999 compact be-tween the tribes and the state.

•

2000s Indian advo-cates decry low funding levels,and sovereignty battles contin-ue; lobbying scandal spotlightsIndian gambling profits.

2000Tribal Self-Governance Demonstra-tion Project becomes permanent.

2003U.S. Commission on Civil Rightscalls underfunding for Indians acrisis, saying federal governmentspends less for Indian health carethan for any other group, includ-ing prison inmates.

Feb. 22, 2004Washington Post reports on Wash-ington lobbyist Jack Abramoff’sdeals with casino tribes.

March 29, 2005U.S. Supreme Court blocks taxexemptions for Oneida Nation ofNew York on newly purchasedland simply because it onceowned the property.

April 5, 2006Tribal and BIA officials testify inCongress that methamphetamineaddiction is ravaging reservations.

372 CQ Researcher

AMERICAN INDIANS

When Lita Pepion, a health consultant and a mem-ber of the Blackfeet Nation, learned that her 22-year-old-niece had been struggling with heroin abuse,

she urged her to seek treatment at the local Urban Indian Clin-ic in Billings, Mont.

But the young woman had so much trouble getting an ap-pointment that she gave up. Only recently, says Pepion, didshe overcome her addiction on her own.

The clinic is one of 34 federally funded, Indian-controlled clin-ics that contract with the Indian Health Service (IHS) to serveurban Indians. But President Bush’s 2007 budget would kill the$33-million program, eliminatingmost of the clinics’ funding.

Indians in cities will still beable to get health care throughseveral providers, including thefederal Health Centers program,says Office of Management andBudget spokesman RichardWalker. The proposed budgetwould increase funding for thecenters by nearly $2 billion,IHS Director Charles W. Grimtold the Senate Indian AffairsCommittee on Feb. 14, 2006. 1

But Joycelyn Dorscher, presi-dent of the Association of Amer-ican Indian Physicians, says theIHS clinics do a great job and that, “It’s very important that peo-ple from diverse backgrounds have physicians like themselves.”

Others, however, including Pepion, say the clinics are poor-ly managed and lack direction. Ralph Forquera, director of theSeattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute, says that while theclinics “have made great strides medically, a lack of resourceshas resulted in services from unqualified professionals.” In ad-dition, he says, “we have not been as successful in dealingwith lifestyle changes and mental health problems.”

Many Indian health experts oppose the cuts because Indiansin both urban areas and on reservations have more health prob-lems than the general population, including 126 percent morechronic liver disease and cirrhosis, 54 percent more diabetes and178 percent more alcohol-related deaths. 2

Indian health specialists blame the Indians’ higher diseaserates on history, lifestyle and genetics — not just on poverty.“You don’t see exactly the same things happening to other poorminority groups,” says Dorscher, a North Dakota Chippewa, so“there’s something different” going on among Indians.

In the view of Donna Keeler, executive director of the SouthDakota Urban Indian Health program and an Eastern Shoshone,historical trauma affects the physical wellness of patients in herstate’s three urban Indian clinics.

Susette Schwartz, CEO of the Hunter Urban Indian Clinic in

Wichita, Kan., agrees. She attributes Indians’ high rates of mentalhealth and alcohol/substance abuse to their long history of gov-ernment maltreatment. Many Indian children in the 19th and early20th centuries, she points out, were taken from their parents andsent to government boarding schools where speaking native lan-guages was prohibited. “Taking away the culture and languageyears ago,” says Schwartz, as well as the government’s role in“taking their children and sterilizing their women” in the 1970s,all contributed to Indians’ behavioral health issues.

Keeler also believes Indians’ low incomes cause their unhealthylifestyles. Many eat high-fat, high-starch foods because they are

cheaper, Pepion says. Growing upon a reservation, she recalls, “Wedidn’t eat a lot of vegetables be-cause we couldn’t afford them.”

Opponents of the funding cutsfor urban Indian health centers alsocite a recent letter to President Bushfrom Daniel R. Hawkins Jr., vicepresident for federal, state and localgovernment for the National Associ-ation of Community Health Centers.He said the urban Indian clinics andcommunity health centers are com-plementary, not duplicative.

While Pepion does not believefunding should be cut entirely, sheconcedes that alternative health-care

services are often “better equipped than the urban Indian clin-ics.” And if American Indians want to assimilate into the largersociety, they can’t have everything culturally separate, she adds.“The only way that I was able to assimilate into an urban soci-ety was to make myself do those things that were uncomfortablefor me,” she says.

But Schwartz believes a great benefit of the urban clinics aretheir Indian employees, “who are culturally competent and sensi-tive and incorporate Native American-specific cultural ideas.” Be-cause of their history of cultural abuse, it takes a long time for Na-tive Americans to trust non-Indian health providers, says Schwartz.“They’re not just going to go to a health center down the road.”

Dorscher and Schwartz also say the budget cuts could leadto more urban Indians ending up in costly emergency roomsbecause of their reluctance to trust the community health cen-ters. “Ultimately, it would become more expensive to cut theprevention and primary care programs than it would be tomaintain them,” Dorscher says.

— Melissa J. Hipolit

1 Prepared testimony of Director of Indian Health Service Dr. Charles W.Grim before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Feb. 14, 2006.2 Urban Indian Health Institute, “The Health Status of Urban American Indiansand Alaska Natives,” March 16, 2004, p. v.

Budget Cuts Target Health Clinics

Native Americans in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah,demonstrate on April 21, 2006, against the elimination

of funding for Urban Indian Health Clinics.

AP P

hoto

/Sa

lt L

ake

Tri

bu

ne

April 28, 2006 373Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

the volumes reflected and spurred ona growing political activism.

It was in this climate that the newlyformed American Indian Movement(AIM) took over Alcatraz Island, theformer federal prison site in San Fran-cisco Bay (where rebellious Indianshad been held during the IndianWars), to publicize demands to honortreaties and respect Native Americans’dignity. The takeover lasted from Nov.20, 1969, to June 11, 1971, when U.S.marshals removed the occupiers. 45

A second AIM-government con-frontation took the form of a one-week takeover of BIA headquarters inWashington in November 1972 by some500 AIM members protesting whatthey called broken treaty obligations.Protesters charged that government ser-vices to Indians were inadequate ingeneral, with urban Indians neglectedvirtually completely.

Another protest occurred on Feb. 27,1973, when 200 AIM members occupiedthe village of Wounded Knee on theOglala Sioux’s Pine Ridge Reservation inSouth Dakota. U.S. soldiers had massa-cred at least 150 Indians at WoundedKnee in 1890. AIM was protesting whatit called the corrupt tribal government.And a weak, involuntary manslaughtercharge against a non-Indian who had al-legedly killed an Indian near the reser-vation had renewed Indian anger at dis-criminatory treatment by police and judges.

The occupation soon turned into afull-blown siege, with the reservationsurrounded by troops and federal law-enforcement officers. During severalfirefights two AIM members were killed,and an FBI agent was wounded. Theoccupation ended on May 8, 1973.

Self-Determination

A mid the surging Indian activism,the federal government was try-

ing to make up for the past by en-couraging tribal self-determination. 46

In 1975, Congress passed the Indi-an Self-Determination and EducationAssistance Act, which channeled fed-eral contracts and grants directly totribes, reducing the BIA role and ef-fectively putting Indian communitiesin direct charge of schools, health,housing and other programs.

And to assure Indians that the eraof sudden reversals in federal policy

had ended, the House in 1988 passeda resolution reaffirming the “constitu-tionally recognized government-to-government relationship with Indiantribes.” Separate legislation set up a“self-governance demonstration pro-ject” in which eligible tribes wouldsign “compacts” to run their own gov-ernments with block grants from thefederal government. 47

Continued from p. 370

Disease Toll Higher Among Indians

American Indians served by the Indian Health Service (IHS) — mainly low-income or uninsured — die at substantially higher rates than the general population from liver disease, diabetes, tuberculosis, pneumonia and influenza as well as from homicide, suicide and injuries. However, Indians’ death rates from Alzheimer’s disease or breast cancer are lower.

* Living in areas served by the IHS

Source: “Indian Health Service: Health Care Services Are Not Always Available to Native Americans,” Government Accountability Office, August 2005

Background image: Canyon de Chelly, Navajo Nation, Arizona (Navajo Tourism)

Health Status of American Indians *Compared to General Population

(deaths per 100,000 population)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Alzheimer’s disease

Breast cancer

Cervical cancer

Chronic liver disease/cirrhosis

Diabetes mellitus

Homicide

Pneumonia, influenza

Suicide

Tuberculosis

Unintentional injuries

Number of deaths per 100,000 population

Native Americans in IHS areas (1999-2001)

U.S. general population (2000)

10.218

17.626.9

3.82.8

40.69.6

1710.6

77.725.2

11.46.1

33.623.7

1.90.3

88.935.5

374 CQ Researcher

By 1993, 28 tribeshad negotiated com-pacts with the Inte-rior Department. Andin 1994, President BillClinton signed legis-lation that made self-governance a per-manent option.

For the generalpublic, the meaningof newly strengthenedIndian sovereigntycould be summed upwith one word: casi-nos. In 1988, Con-gress enacted legisla-tion regulating tribalgaming operations.That move followeda Supreme Court rul-ing (California v.Cabazon) that authorized tribes to rungambling operations. But tribes couldnot offer a form of gambling specifi-cally barred by the state.

The law set up three categories ofgambling operations: Class I, traditionalIndian games, controlled exclusivelyby tribes; Class II, including bingo,lotto, pull tabs and some card games,which are allowed on tribal lands instates that allow the games elsewhere;and Class III, which takes in casinogames such as slot machines, rouletteand blackjack, which can be offeredonly under agreements with state gov-ernments that set out the size andtypes of the proposed casinos.

Limits that the Indian Gaming Regu-latory Act put on Indian sovereigntywere tightened further by a 1996 SupremeCourt decision that the Seminole Tribecouldn’t sue Florida to force negotiationof a casino compact. The decision es-sentially forced tribes nationwide to makerevenue-sharing deals with states in re-turn for approval of casinos. 48

Meanwhile, particularily on reser-vations from Minnesota to the PacificNorthwest, a plague of methampheta-mine addiction and manufacturing is

leaving a trail of death and shatteredlives. By 2002, Darrell Hillaire, chair-man of the Lummi Nation, nearBellingham, Wash., said that membersconvicted of dealing meth would beexpelled from the tribe. 49

But the Lummis couldn’t stop thespread of the scourge on other reserva-tions. National Congress of American In-dians President Garcia said early in 2006:“Methamphetamine is a poison takingIndian lives, destroying Indian families,and razing entire communities.” 50

CURRENTSITUATION

Self-Government

S ome Indian leaders are advocat-ing more power for tribal gov-

ernments as the best way to improvethe quality of life on reservations.

Under the Tribal Self-GovernanceDemonstration Project, made perma-

nent in 1994, tribes canreplace program-by-pro-gram grants by enteringinto “compacts” with thefederal government,under which they receivea single grant for a va-riety of services. Some231 tribes and AlaskanNative villages have com-pacts to administer a totalof about $341 million inprograms. Of the Indiancommunities now livingunder compacts, 72 arein the lower 48 states. 51

Under a set of sepa-rate compacts, the Indi-an Health Service hasturned over clinics, hos-pitals and health pro-grams to some 300

tribes and Alaskan villages, 70 of themnon-Alaskan tribes.

The self-governance model has provedespecially appropriate in Alaska, wherethe majority of the native population of120,000 is concentrated in 229 villages,many of them remote, and compact insize, hence well-suited to managingtheir own affairs, experts say.

Another advantage of Alaska villagesis the experience they acquired throughthe 1971 Alaska Native Claims SettlementAct, which granted a total of $962 mil-lion to Alaska natives born on or beforeDec. 18, 1971, in exchange for givingup their claims to millions of acres ofland. Villages formed regional corpora-tions to manage the assets. In addition,all Alaska residents receive an annualdividend ($946 in 2005) from natural-resource royalty income. 52

“The emergence of tribal authorityis unprecedented in Indian Country’shistory,” says Allen, of the JamestownS’Klallam Tribe, one of the originatorsof the self-governance model. “Why nottake the resources you have availableand use them as efficiently as you can— more efficiently than currentlybeing administered?” 53

AMERICAN INDIANS

Native American children and adults in the Chicago area keep intouch with their cultural roots at the American Indian Center. About two-thirds of the nation’s Indians live in urban areas.

Am

eric

an I

ndia

n C

ente

r/W

arre

n P

erls

tein

April 28, 2006 375Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

But the poorer and more populoustribes of the Great Plains and theSouthwest have turned down the self-governance model. “They can’t affordto do it,” says Michael LaPointe, chiefof staff to President Rodney Bordeauxof the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “When youhave a lot of poverty and not a lot ofeconomic activity to generate tribal re-sources to supplement the unfundedmandates, it becomes impossible.”

In contrast with the JamestonS’Klallam’s tiny membership of 585people, there are some 24,000 peopleon the Rosebud Siouxs’ million-acrereservation. The tribe does operatelaw enforcement, ambulances and otherservices under contracts with the gov-ernment. But it can’t afford to do anymore, LaPointe says.

A combined effect of the gamblingboom and the growing adoption of theself-governance model is that much ofthe tension has gone out of the tradi-tionally strained relationship betweenthe BIA and tribes. “BIA people aregetting pushed out as decision-makers,”Kalt says. Some strains remain, to besure. Allen says he senses a growingreluctance by the BIA to let go of tribes.“They use the argument that that theBIA doesn’t have the money [for blockgrants],” he says.

BIA Director Ragsdale acknowledgesthat tougher financial-accounting re-quirements sparked by a lawsuit overInterior Department handling of Indi-an trust funds are slowing the com-pact-approval process. (See “Trust Set-tlement” below.) But, he adds, “We’renot trying to hinder self-governance.”

Limits on Gambling

S everal legislative efforts to limitIndian gaming are pending. Sepa-

rate bills by Sen. McCain and HouseResources Committee Chairman RichardPombo, R-Calif., would restrict tribes’ability to acquire new land for casinosin more favorable locations.

More proposals are in the pipeline.Jemez Pueblo of New Mexico wantsto build a casino near the town ofAnthony, though the pueblo is 300miles away. 54

In eastern Oregon, the Warm SpringsTribe is proposing an off-reservationcasino at the Columbia River Gorge.And in Washington state, the Cowlitzand Mohegan tribes are planning anoff-reservation casino near Portland. 55

The process has been dubbed “reser-vation shopping.”

Under the Indian Gaming Regula-tory Act of 1988, a tribe can acquireoff-reservation land for casinos whenit is:

• granted as part of a land claimsettlement;

• granted to a newly recognizedtribe as its reservation;

• restored to a tribe whose tribalrecognition is also restored; or

• granted to a recognized tribe thathad no reservation when the acttook effect.

The most hotly debated exemptionallows the secretary of the Interior togrant an off-reservation acquisitionthat benefits the tribe without harm-ing the community near the proposedcasino location. Both Pombo and Mc-Cain would repeal the loophole cre-ated by this so-called “two-part test.”Under Pombo’s bill, tribes acquiringland under the other exemptions wouldhave to have solid historic and recentties to the property. Communities,state governors and state legislatureswould have to approve the establish-ment of new casinos, and tribes wouldreimburse communities for the effectsof casinos on transportation, law en-forcement and other public services.

McCain’s bill would impose fewerrestrictions than Pombo’s. But McCainwould give the National Indian Gam-ing Commission final say over all con-tracts with outside suppliers of goodsand services.

The bill would also ensure the com-mission’s control over big-time gam-

bling — a concern that arose from a2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Ap-peals for the District of Columbia thatlimited the agency’s jurisdiction overa Colorado tribe. The commission hasbeen worrying that applying that de-cision nationwide would eliminatefederal supervision of casinos.

McCain told a March 8 Senate In-dian Affairs Committee hearing that thetwo-part test “is fostering opposition toall Indian gaming.” 56

If the senator had been aiming tosoften tribal opposition to his bill, hedidn’t make much headway. “We be-lieve that it grows out of anecdotal, anti-Indian press reports on Indian gaming,the overblown issue of off-reservationgaming, and a ‘pin-the-blame-on-the-victim’ reaction to the Abramoff scan-dal,” Ron His Horse Is Thunder, chair-man of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribeof North Dakota and South Dakota, toldthe committee. He argued that the billwould amount to unconstitutional med-dling with Indian sovereignty.

But the idea of restricting “reservation-shopping” appeals to tribes facing com-petition from other tribes. Cheryle A.Kennedy, chairwoman of the Confed-erated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Com-munity of Oregon, said her tribe’s Spir-it Mountain Casino could be hurt bythe Warm Springs Tribes’ proposedproject or by the Cowlitz and Moheganproject. 57

Pombo’s bill would require the ap-proval of new casinos by tribes thatalready have gambling houses up andrunning within 75 miles of a proposednew one.

The House Resources Committeeheard another view from Indian Coun-try at an April 5 hearing. Jacquie Davis-Van Huss, tribal secretary of the NorthFork Rancheria of the Mono Indians ofCalifornia, said Pombo’s approvalclause would doom her tribe’s plans.“This provision is anti-competitive,” shetestified. “It effectively provides the powerto veto another tribe’s gaming projectsimply to protect market share.”

376 CQ Researcher

AMERICAN INDIANS

Trust Settlement

M cCain ’s committee is alsograppling with efforts to set-

tle a decade-old lawsuit that has ex-posed longstanding federal mis-management of trust funds. In 1999,U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberthsaid evidence showed “fiscal and

governmental irresponsibility in itspurest form.” 58

The alternative to settlement, McCainand Dorgan told the Budget Committee,

Continued on p. 378

Two-thirds of the nation’s 4.4 million American Indianslive in towns and cities, but they’re hard to find. 1 “In-dians who move into metropolitan areas are scattered;

they’re not in a centralized geographical area,” says New Mex-ico Secretary of Labor Conroy Chino. “You don’t have that co-hesive community where there’s a sense of culture and lan-guage, as in Chinatown or Koreatown in Los Angeles.”

Chino’s interest is professional as well as personal. In hisformer career as a television journalist in Albuquerque, Chino,a member of the Acoma Pueblo, wrote an independent doc-umentary about urban Indians. His subjects range from a city-loving San Franciscan who vacations in Hawaii to city-dwellerswho return to their reservations every vacation they get. Theirlives diverge sharply from what University of Arizona anthro-pologist Susan Lobo calls a “presumption that everything Indianis rural and long, long ago.” 2

Indian society began urbanizing in 1951, when the Bureauof Indian Affairs (BIA) started urging reservation dwellers tomove to cities where — it was hoped — they would blendinto the American “melting pot” and find more economic op-portunity and a better standard of living. 3

But many found the urban environment oppressive and thegovernment assistance less generous than promised. About100,000 Indians were relocated between 1951 and 1973, whenthe program wound down; unable to fit in, many fell into al-coholism and despair. 4

Still, a small, urban Indian middle class has developed overtime, partly because the BIA began systematically hiring Indiansin its offices. Indians keep such a low profile, however, that theCensus Bureau has a hard time finding them. Lobo, who con-sulted for the bureau in 1990, recalls that the agency’s policy atthe time was to register any household where no one answeredthe door as being in the same ethnic group as the neighbors.That strategy worked with urban ethnic groups who tended tocluster together, Lobo says, but not with Native Americans be-cause theirs was a “dispersed population.”

By the 2000 census that problem was resolved, but anoth-er one cropped up. “American Indians are ingenious at keep-ing expenses down — by couch-surfing, for instance,” Lobosays. “There’s a floating population that doesn’t get countedbecause they weren’t living in a standard residence.”

But other urban Indians live conventional, middle-class lives,sometimes even while technically living on Indian land. “I amhighly educated, a professor in the university, and my gainfulemployment is in the city of Albuquerque,” says Ted Jojola, a

professor of planning at the University of New Mexico (and amember of the Census Bureau’s advisory committee on Indi-an population). “My community [Isleta Pueblo] is seven min-utes south of Albuquerque. The reservation has become anurban amenity to me.”

Some might see a home on Indian land near the city as arefuge from discrimination. “There have been years where youcouldn’t reveal you were native if you wanted to get a job,”says Joseph Podlasek, executive director of the American In-dian Center of Chicago.

Joycelyn Dorscher, president of the Association of AmericanIndian Physicians, recalls a painful experience several years agowhen she rushed her 6-year-old daughter to a hospital emer-gency room in Minneapolis-St. Paul, suspecting appendicitis. Theyoung intern assigned to the case saw an Indian single motherwith a sick child and apparently assumed that the daughter wassuffering from neglect. “She told me if I didn’t sit down and shutup, my daughter would go into the [child-protective] system,” re-calls Dorscher, who at the time was a third-year medical student.

Even Chino, whose mainstream credentials include an M.A. fromPrinceton, feels alienated at times from non-Indian city dwellers.He notes that Albuquerque officials ignored Indians’ objections toa statue honoring Juan de Oñate, the 16th-century conqueror whoestablished Spanish rule in what is now New Mexico. “Though na-tive people protested and tried to show why this is not a goodidea,” Chino says, “the city went ahead and funded it.” 5

In the long run, Chino hopes a growing presence of Indianprofessionals — “we’re not all silversmiths, or weavers” — willcreate more acceptance of urban Indians and more aid to com-bat high Indian dropout rates and other problems. “While peo-ple like having Indians in New Mexico and like visitors to get afeel for the last bastion of native culture,” he says, “they’re notdoing that much for the urban Indian community, though we’repaying taxes, too.”

1 Urban Indians were 64 percent of the population in 2000, according to theU.S. Census Bureau. For background, see, “We the People: American Indiansand Alaska Natives in the United States,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, p. 14,www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/censr-28.pdf.2 “Looking Toward Home,” Native American Public Telecommunications,2003, www.visionmaker.org.3 Donald L. Fixico, The Urban Indian Experience in America (2000), pp. 9-11.4 Ibid., pp. 22-25.5 Oñate is especially disliked at Acoma, Chino’s birthplace, where the con-queror had the feet of some two-dozen Acoma men cut off in 1599 after Span-ish soldiers were killed there. For background, see Wren Propp, “A Giant ofAmbivalence,” Albuquerque Journal, Jan. 25, 2004, p. A1; Brenda Norrell, “Pueb-los Decry War Criminal,” Indian Country Today, June 25, 2004.

Urban Indians: Invisible and Unheard

no

April 28, 2006 377Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

At Issue:Should tribes open casinos on newly acquired land?Yes

yesERNEST L. STEVENS, JR.CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMINGASSOCIATION

FROM STATEMENT BEFORE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ONRESOURCES, NOV. 9, 2005

i ndian gaming is the Native American success story. Wherethere were no jobs, now there are 553,000 jobs. Where ourpeople had only an eighth-grade education on average,

tribal governments are building schools and funding collegescholarships. Where the United States and boarding schoolssought to suppress our languages, tribal schools are now teach-ing their native language. Where our people suffer epidemic di-abetes, heart disease and premature death, our tribes are build-ing hospitals, health clinics and wellness centers.

Historically, the United States signed treaties guaranteeingIndian lands as permanent homes, and then a few years later,went to war to take our lands. This left our people to live inpoverty, often on desolate lands, while others mined for goldor pumped oil from the lands that were taken from us.

Indian gaming is an exercise of our inherent right to self-government. Today, for over 60 percent of Indian tribes in thelower 48 states, Indian gaming offers new hope and a chancefor a better life for our children.

Too many lands were taken from Indian tribes, leavingsome tribes landless or with no useful lands. To take accountof historical mistreatment, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act(IGRA), provided several exceptions to the rule that Indiantribes should conduct Indian gaming on lands held on Oct.17, 1988.

Accordingly, land is restored to an Indian tribe in trust sta-tus when the tribe is restored to federal recognition. For fed-erally recognized tribes that did not have reservation land onthe date IGRA was enacted, land is put into trust. Or, a tribemay apply to the secretary of the Interior. The secretary con-sults with state and local officials and nearby Indian tribes todetermine whether an acquisition of land in trust for gamingwould be in the tribe’s “best interest” and “not detrimental tothe surrounding community.”

Now, legislation would require “newly recognized, re-stored, or landless tribes” to apply to have land taken intrust through a five-part process. Subjecting tribes to this newand cumbersome process discounts the fact that the UnitedStates mistreated these tribes by ignoring and neglectingthem, taking all of their lands or allowing their lands to bestolen by others.

We believe that Congress should restore these tribes to aportion of their historical lands and that these lands should beheld on the same basis as other Indian lands.No

STATE REP. FULTON SHEEN, R-PLAINWELLMICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FROM STATEMENT TO U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, APRIL 5, 2006

t he rampant proliferation of tribal gaming is runningroughshod over states’ rights and local control and is jeop-ardizing everything from my own neighborhood to — as

the Jack Abramoff scandal has demonstrated — the very integri-ty of our federal political system.

In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act(IGRA) in an effort to control the development of NativeAmerican casinos and, in particular, to make sure that the stateshad a meaningful role in the development of any casinoswithin their borders. At that time, Native American gamblingaccounted for less than 1 percent of the nation’s gamblingindustry, grossing approximately $100 million in revenue.

Since that time, the Native American casino business hasexploded into an $18.5 billion industry that controls 25 percentof gaming industry revenue. Despite this unbridled growth,IGRA and the land-in-trust process remain basically unchanged.

When Congress originally enacted IGRA, the general rulewas that casino gambling would not take place on newly ac-quired trust land. I believe Congress passed this general ruleto prevent precisely what we see happening: a mad andlargely unregulated land rush pushed by casino developerseager to cash in on a profitable revenue stream that is notburdened by the same tax rates or regulations that other busi-nesses have to incur. “Reservation shopping” is an activity thatmust be stopped. And that is just one component of the fulllegislative overhaul that is needed.

IGRA and its associated land-in-trust process is broken, opento manipulation by special interests and in desperate need ofimmediate reform. It has unfairly and inappropriately fostered anindustry that creates enormous wealth for a few select individu-als and Las Vegas interests at the expense of taxpaying families,small businesses, manufacturing jobs and local governments.

Our research shows that while local and state governmentsreceive some revenue-sharing percentages from tribal gaming,the dollars pale in comparison to the overall new costs togovernment and social-service agencies from increased infra-structure demands, traffic, bankruptcies, crime, divorce andgeneral gambling-related ills.

I do not think this is what Congress had in mind. Some-where along the way, the good intentions of Congress havebeen hijacked, and it is time for this body to reassert controlover this process. It is imperative that Congress take swift anddecisive steps today to get its arms around this issue beforemore jobs are lost and more families are put at risk.

378 CQ Researcher

AMERICAN INDIANS

is for the case to drag on through thecourts. Congressional resolution of theconflict could also spare the InteriorDepartment further grief from Lamberth.In a February ruling, he said Interior’srefusal to make payments owed to In-dians was “an obscenity that harkensback to the darkest days of UnitedStates-Indian relations.” 59

Five months later, Lamberth suggestedthat Congress, not the courts, may bethe proper setting for the conflict. “In-terior’s unremitting neglect and mis-management of the Indian trust has leftit in such a shambles that recovery mayprove impossible.” 60

The court case has its roots in the1887 policy of allotting land to Indi-ans in an effort to break up reserva-tions. Since then, the Interior Depart-ment has been responsible formanaging payments made to land-holders, which later included tribes,for mining and other natural-resourceextraction on Indian-owned land.

But for decades, Indians weren’t re-ceiving what they were owed. OnJune 10, 1996, Elouise Cobell, an or-ganizer of the Blackfeet National Bank,the first Indian-owned national bankon a reservation, sued the Interior De-partment charging that she and all othertrust fee recipients had been cheatedfor decades out of money that Interi-or was responsible for managing.“Lands and resources — in many casesthe only source of income for someof our nation’s poorest and most vul-nerable citizens — have been grosslymismanaged,” Cobell told the IndianAffairs Committee on March 1.

The mismanagement is beyond dis-pute, said John Bickerman, who wasappointed to broker a settlement. Es-sentially, Bickerman told the SenateIndian Affairs Committee on March 28,“Money was not collected; money wasnot properly deposited; and moneywas not properly disbursed.”

As of 2005, Interior is responsiblefor trust payments involving 126,079

tracts of land owned by 223,245 indi-viduals — or, 2.3 million “ownershipinterests” on some 12 million acres,Cason and Ross Swimmer, a specialtrustee, told the committee.

Bickerman said a settlement amountof $27.5 billion proposed by the Indianplaintiffs was “without foundation.” Butthe Interior Department proposed a set-tlement of $500 million based on “arbi-trary and false assumptions,” he added.Both sides agree that some $13 billionshould have been paid to individualIndians over the life of the trust, butthey disagree over how much wasactually paid.

Supreme Court Ruling

P owerful repercussions are expect-ed from the Supreme Court’s latest

decision in a centuries-long string of rul-ings involving competing claims to landby Indians and non-Indians.

In 2005, the high court said theOneida Indian Nation of New Yorkcould not quit paying taxes on 10 parcelsof land it owns north of Utica. 61

After buying the parcels in 1997and 1998, the tribe refused to payproperty taxes, arguing that the landwas former tribal property now re-stored to tribal ownership, and there-by tax-exempt. 62

The court, in an opinion written byRuth Bader Ginsburg, concluded thatthough the tribe used to own the land,the property right was too old to re-vive. “Rekindling the embers of sover-eignty that long ago grew cold” is outof the question, Ginsburg wrote. Sheinvoked the legal doctrine of “laches,”in which a party who waits too longto assert his rights loses them. 63

Lawyers on both sides of Indian lawcases expect the case to affect lower-court rulings throughout the country. “Thecourt has opened the cookie jar,”Williams of the University of Arizona ar-gues. “Does laches only apply to claimsof sovereignty over reacquired land? If a

decision favoring Indians is going to in-convenience too many white people, thenlaches applies — I swear that’s what itsays.” Tribes litigating fishing rights, waterrights and other assets are likely to suf-fer in court as a result, he argues.

In fact, only three months after thehigh court decision, the 2nd U.S. Cir-cuit Court of Appeals in New York in-voked laches in rejecting a claim bythe Cayuga Tribe. Vickers of UpstateCitizens for Equality says that if the2nd Circuit “thinks that laches forbidsthe Cayugas from making a claim be-cause the Supreme Court said so, you’regoing to find other courts saying so.”

In Washington, Alexandra Page, anattorney with the Indian Law ResourceCenter, agrees. “There are tribes in theWest who have boundary disputes ontheir reservations; there are water-lawcases where you’ve got people look-ing back at what happened years ago,so the Supreme Court decision couldhave significant practical impact. Thedanger is that those with an interest inlimiting Indian rights will do everythingthey can to expand the decision anduse it in other circumstances.”

OUTLOOKWho Is an Indian?

I f advocates of Indian self-governanceare correct, the number of tribes run-

ning their own affairs with minimal fed-eral supervision will keep on growing.“The requests for workshops are com-ing in steadily,” says Cyndi Holmes, self-governance coordinator of the JamestownS’Klallam Tribe.

Others say that growth, now at a rateof about three tribes a year, may benearing its upper limit. “When you lookat the options for tribes to do self-gov-ernance, economics really drives whetherthey can,” says LaPointe of the Rosebud

Continued from p. 376

April 28, 2006 379Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Sioux, whose tribal gov-ernment doesn’t expectto adopt the model inthe foreseeable future.

But the longstandingproblems of rural andisolated reservations arenot the only dimensionof Indian life. Peoplestereotypically viewedas tied to the land havebecome increasinglyurban over the pastseveral decades, and thev i ew f rom Ind i anCountry is that the trendwill continue.

That doesn’t meanreservations will emptyout or lose their cultur-al importance. “Urban In-dian is not a lifelonglabel,” says Susan Lobo,an anthropologist at theUniversity of Arizona. “In-dian people, like every-one else, can movearound. They’re stillAmerican Indians.”

For Indians, as for all other peoples,moving around leads to intermarriage.Matthew Snipp, a Stanford University so-ciologist who is half Cherokee and halfOklahoma Choctaw, notes that Indianshave long married within and outsideIndian society. But the consequences ofintermarriage are different for Indiansthan for, say, Jews or Italians.

The Indian place in American so-ciety grows out of the government-to-government relationship betweenWashington and tribes. And mosttribes define their members by what’sknown as the “blood quantum” —their degree of tribal ancestry.

“I look at it as you’re kind of USDA-approved,” says Podlasek of the Amer-ican Indian Center. “Why is no otherrace measured that way?”

Podlasek is especially sensitive to theissue. His father was Polish-American,and his mother was Ojibway. His own

wife is Indian, but from another tribe.“My kids can be on the tribal rolls, buttheir kids won’t be able to enroll, un-less they went back to my tribe or totheir mother’s tribe to marry — de-pending on what their partners’ bloodquantum is. In generations, you couldsay that, by government standards,there are no more native people.”

Snipp traces the blood-quantum pol-icy to a 1932 decision by the Indian Af-fairs Commission, which voted to makeone-quarter descent the minimum stan-dard. The commissioners were concerned,Snipp says, reading from the commis-sion’s report, that thousands of people“more white than Indian” were receiv-ing “shares in tribal estates and otherbenefits.” Tribes are no longer boundby that decision, but the requirement —originally inserted at BIA insistence —remains in many tribal constitutions.

On the Indian side, concern over

collective survival is histor-ically well-founded. Histo-rian Elizabeth Shoemaker ofthe University of Connecti-cut at Storrs calculated thatthe Indian population ofwhat is now the continen-tal United States plummet-ed from a top estimate of5.5 million in 1492 to amere 237,000 in 1900. In-dian life expectancy didn’tbegin to rise significantlyuntil after 1940. 64

Now, Indians are worry-ing about the survival of In-dian civilization at a time whenIndians’ physical survival hasnever been more assured.

Even as these existentialworries trouble some Indianleaders, the living conditionsthat most Indians endurealso pose long-term concerns.

Conroy Chino, NewMexico’s Labor secretary anda member of Acoma Pueblo,says continuation of the ed-ucational disaster in Indian

Country is dooming young people tolive on the margins. “I’m out there at-tracting companies to come to NewMexico, and these kids aren’t going toqualify for those good jobs.”

Nevertheless, below most non-Indians’radar screen, the Indian professional classis growing. “When I got my Ph.D. in1973, I think I was the 15th in the coun-try,” says Beaulieu of Arizona State Uni-versity’s Center for Indian Education.“Now we have all kinds of Ph.D.s,teachers with certification, lawyers.” AndBeaulieu says he has seen the differ-ence that Indian professionals make inhis home state of Minnesota. “You’rebeginning to see an educated middleclass in the reservation community, andrealizing that they’re volunteering to per-form lots of services.”

In Albuquerque, the University ofNew Mexico’s Jojola commutes tocampus from Isleta Pueblo. Chairman

Harvard Law School graduate Lance Morgan, a member ofNebraska’s Winnebago Tribe, used seed money from his tribe’s

small casino to create several thriving businesses. He urges other tribes to use their casino profits to diversify.

“Gaming is just a means to an end,” he says.H

o-C

hunk, In

c.

380 CQ Researcher

AMERICAN INDIANS

of an advisory committee on Indiansto the U.S. Census Bureau, Jojola sharesconcerns about use of “blood quan-tum” as the sole determinant of Indi-an identity. “A lot of people are say-ing that language, culture and residenceshould also be considered,” he says.

That standard would implicitly rec-ognize what many Indians call the sin-gle biggest reason that American In-dians have outlasted the efforts of thosewho wanted to exterminate or to as-similate them. “In our spirituality weremain strong,” says Bordeaux of theRosebud Sioux. “That’s our godsendand our lifeline.”

Notes

1 For background, see “The Administration ofIndian Affairs,” Editorial Research Reports 1929(Vol. II), at CQ Researcher Plus Archive, CQElectronic Library, http://library.cqpress.com.2 For background see Phil Two Eagle, “RosebudSioux Tribe, Demographics,” March 25, 2003,www.rosebudsiouxtribe-nsn.gov/demographics.3 “American Indian Population and LaborForce Report 2003,” p. ii, Bureau of IndianAffairs, cited in John McCain, chairman, Sen-ate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron L. Dor-gan, vice chairman, letter to Senate BudgetCommittee, March 2, 2006, http://indian.sen-ate.gov/public/_files/Budget5.pdf.4 Jonathan B. Taylor and Joseph P. Kalt,“American Indians on Reservations: A Data-book of Socioeconomic Change Between the1990 and 2000 Censuses,” Harvard Project onAmerican Indian Economic Development, Jan-uary 2005, pp. 8-13; www.ksg.harvard.edu/

hpaied/pubs/pub_151.htm. These data ex-clude the Navajo Tribe, whose on-reserva-tion population of about 175,000 is 12 timesthat of the next-largest tribe, thus distortingcomparisons, Taylor and Kalt write.5 Ibid., p. 41.6 McCain and Dorgan, op. cit.7 “Injury Mortality Among American Indianand Alaska Native Youth, United States, 1989-1998,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Aug. 1, 2003, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pre-view/mmwrhtml/mm5230a2.htm#top.8 Robert McSwain, deputy director, Indian HealthService, testimony before Senate Indian AffairsCommittee, April 5, 2006.9 Ibid., p. xii.10 Taylor and Kalt, op. cit.11 Ibid., pp. 28-30.12 Ibid., pp. 22-24.13 The decision is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,30 U.S. 1 (1831), http://supreme.justia.com/us/30/1/case.html.14 Alan Meister, “Indian Gaming industry Re-port,” Analysis Group, 2006, p. 2. Publicly avail-able data can be obtained at, “Indian GamingFacts,” www.indiangaming.org/library/indian-gaming-facts; “Gaming Revenues, 2000-2004,”National Indian Gaming Commission,www.nigc.gov/TribalData/GamingRevenues20042000/tabid/549/Default.aspx.15 The ruling is California v. Cabazon Bandof Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987),http://supreme.justia.com/us/480/202/case.html.16 For background, see Susan Schmidt andJames V. Grimaldi, “The Rise and Steep Fall ofJack Abramoff,” The Washington Post, Dec. 29,2005, p. A1. On March 29, Abramoff was sen-tenced in Miami to 70 months in prison afterpleading to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracyto bribe public officials in charges growing outof a Florida business deal. He is cooperating

with the Justice Department in its Washington-based political-corruption investigation. For back-ground see Peter Katel, “Lobbying Boom,”CQ Researcher, July 22, 2005, pp. 613-636.17 Meister, op. cit., pp. 27-28. For additionalbackground, see John Cochran, “A Piece ofthe Action,” CQ Weekly, May 9, 2005, p. 1208.18 For background, see, “A Quiet Crisis: Fed-eral Funding and Unmet Needs in IndianCountry,” U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,July, 2003, pp. 32, 113. www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0731.pdf.19 Ryan Wilson, “State of Indian EducationAddress,” Feb. 13, 2006, www.niea.org/his-tory/SOIEAddress06.pdf.20 For background see, Barbara Mantel, “NoChild Left Behind,” CQ Researcher, May 27,2005, pp. 469-492.21 McCain and Dorgan, op. cit., pp. 14-15.22 According to the Health and Human ServicesDepartment’s budget proposal, recommendedfunding of $2 billion for the health centers wouldallow them to serve 150,000 Indian patients,among a total of 8.8 million patients. For back-ground, see “Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2007,”Department of Health and Human Services, p.26, www.hhs.gov/budget/07budget/2007Bud-getInBrief.pdf.23 Peter Whoriskey, “A Tribe Takes a GrimSatisfaction in Abramoff’s Fall,” The WashingtonPost, Jan. 7, 2006, p. A1.24 Meister, op. cit., p. 15.25 Whoriskey, op. cit.26 For background see Fred Carstensen, et al.,“The Economic Impact of the Mashantucket Pe-quot Tribal National Operations on Connecticut,”Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, Uni-versity of Connecticut, Nov. 28, 2000, pp. 1-3.27 “Gambling Revenues 2004-2000,” NationalIndian Gaming Commission, www.nigc.gov/TribalData/GamingRevenues20042000/tabid/549/Default.aspx.28 Schmidt and Grimaldi, op. cit.29 Alaina Potrikus, “2nd Land Hearing Packed,”The Post-Standard (Syracuse, N.Y.), Jan. 12,2006, p. B1.30 For background see “Profile of the NavajoNation,” Navajo Nation Council, www.navajonationcouncil.org/profile.31 Leslie Linthicum, “Navajos Cautious AboutOpening Casinos,” Albuquerque Journal, Dec.12, 2004, p. B1.32 For background, see “Fourth Annual Stateof Indian Nations,” Feb. 2, 2006, www.ncai.org/News_Archive.18.0.33 For background see Theodore H. Haas,The Indian and the Law (1949), p. 2;

About the AuthorPeter Katel is a CQ Researcher staff writer who previ-ously reported on Haiti and Latin America for Time andNewsweek and covered the Southwest for newspapersin New Mexico. He has received several journalismawards, including the Bartolomé Mitre Award for drugcoverage from the Inter-American Press Association. Heholds an A.B. in university studies from the Universityof New Mexico. His recent reports include “ImmigrationReform” and “Rebuilding New Orleans.”

April 28, 2006 381Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

thorpe.ou.edu/cohen/tribalgovtpam2pt1&2.htm#Tribal%20Power%20Today.34 Except where otherwise noted, material inthis section is drawn from Angie Debo, AHistory of the Indians of the United States(1970); see also, Mary H. Cooper, “NativeAmericans’ Future,” CQ Researcher, July 12,1996, pp. 603-621.35 W. Dale Mason, “Indian Gaming: Tribal Sov-ereignty and American Politics,” 2000, p. 13.36 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, op. cit., 30 U.S.1,http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0030_0001_ZO.html.37 Robert A. Williams Jr., Like a Loaded Weapon:the Rehnquist Court, Indians Rights, and the LegalHistory of Racism in America (2005), p. 63.38 Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823),www.Justia.us/us21543/case.html; Worcesterv. State of Ga., 31 U.S. 515 (1832), www.jus-tia.us/us/31/515/case.html.39 Johnson v. M’Intosh, op. cit.40 Worcester v. State of Ga., op. cit.41 Quoted in Debo, op. cit., pp. 219-220.42 Quoted in ibid., p. 303.43 The specified states were Wisconsin, Min-nesota (except Red Lake), Nebraska, Californiaand Oregon (except the land of several tribesat Warm Springs). For background, see Debo,op. cit., pp. 304-311.44 Cited in Debo, op. cit., p. 344.45 For background see Troy R. Johnson, TheOccupation of Alcatraz Island: Indian Self-Determination and the Rise of Indian Ac-tivism (1996).46 For background, see Mary H. Cooper, “Na-tive Americans’ Future,” CQ Researcher, July12, 1996, pp. 603-621.47 For background see “History of the Trib-al Self-Governance Initiative,” Self-GovernanceTribal Consortium, www.tribalselfgov.org/Red%20Book/SG_New_Partnership.asp.48 Cochran, op. cit.49 For background see Paul Shukovsky,“Lummi Leader’s Had It With Drugs, Sick ofSubstance Abuse Ravaging the Tribe,” Seat-tle Post-Intelligencer, March 16, 2002, p. A1.50 “Fourth Annual State of Indian Nations,”op. cit.51 Many Alaskan villages have joined collectivecompacts, so the total number of these agree-ments is 91.52 For background see Alexandra J. McClana-han, “Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act(ANCSA),” Cook Inlet Region Inc., http://litsite.alaska.edu/aktraditions/ancsa.html; “The Per-manent Fund Dividend,” Alaska PermanentFund Corporation, 2005, www.apfc.org/alas-

ka/dividendprgrm. cfm?s=4.53 For background see Eric Henson and JonathanB. Taylor, “Native America at the New Millen-nium,” Harvard Project on American Indian De-velopment, Native Nations Institute, First NationsDevelopment Institute, 2002, pp. 14-16,www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/pubs/pub_004.htm.54 Michael Coleman, “Jemez Casino Propos-al At Risk,” Albuquerque Journal, March 10,2006, p. A1; Jeff Jones, “AG Warns AgainstOff-Reservation Casino,” Albuquerque Jour-nal, June 18, 2005, p. A1.55 For background see testimony, “Off-Reser-vation Indian Gaming,” House Resources Com-mittee, Nov. 9, 2005, http://resourcescommit-tee.house.gov/archives/109/full/110905.htm.56 Jerry Reynolds, “Gaming regulatory act tolose its ‘two-part test,’ ” Indian Country Today,March 8, 2006.57 Testimony before House Resources Com-mittee, Nov. 9, 2005.

58 Matt Kelley, “Government asks for secrecyon its lawyers’ role in concealing documentshredding,” The Associated Press, Nov. 2, 2000.59 “Memorandum and Order,” Civil ActionNo. 96-1285 (RCL), Feb. 7, 2005, www.indi-antrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=PDFTypes.Home&PDFType_id=1&IsRecent=1.60 “Memorandum Opinion,” Civil Action 96-1285 (RCL), July 12, 2005, www.indi-antrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=PDFTypes.Home&PDFType_id=1&IsRecent=1.61 Glenn Coin, “Supreme Court: Oneidas TooLate; Sherrill Declares Victory, Wants Taxes,” ThePost-Standard (Syracuse), March 30, 2005, p. A1.62 Ibid.63 City of Sherrill, New York, v. Oneida IndianNation of New York, Supreme Court of the Unit-ed States, 544 U.S._(2005), pp. 1-2, 6, 14, 21.64 Elizabeth Shoemaker, American Indian Pop-ulation Recovery in the Twentieth Century(1999), pp. 1-13.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, 838 Hart Office Building, Washington,DC 20510; (202) 224-2251; http://indian.senate.gov/public. A valuable source of in-formation on developments affecting Indian Country.

Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, John F.Kennedy School of Government, 79 John F. Kennedy St., Cambridge, MA 02138;(617) 495-1480; www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied. Explores strategies for Indian ad-vancement.

Indian Health Service, The Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Ave., Suite 400,Rockville, MD 20852; (301) 443-1083; www.ihs.gov. One of the most importantfederal agencies in Indian Country; provides a wide variety of medical and ad-ministrative information.

National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, 100 Maryland Ave., N.E., Room311, Washington, DC 20002; (800) 664-2680; www.ncalg.org. Provides anti-gamblingmaterial that touches on tribe-owned operations.

National Indian Education Association, 110 Maryland Ave., N.E., Suite 104,Washington, DC 20002; (202) 544-7290; www.niea.org/welcome. Primary organizationand lobbying voice for Indian educators.

National Indian Gaming Association, 224 Second St., S.E., Washington, DC20003; (202) 546-7711; www.indiangaming.org. Trade association and lobbyingarm of the tribal casino industry.

Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal Consortium, 1768 IowaBusiness Center, Bellingham, WA 98229; (360) 752-2270; www.tribalselfgov.org. Orga-nizational hub of Indian self-governance movement; provides a wide variety of newsand data.

Upstate Citizens for Equality, P.O. Box 24, Union Springs, NY 13160; http://upstate-citizens.org. Opposes tribal land-claim litigation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

382 CQ Researcher

Books

Alexie, Sherman, The Toughest Indian in the World, GrovePress, 2000.In a short-story collection, an author and screenwriter draws

on his own background as a Spokane/Coeur d’Alene Indianto describe reservation and urban Indian life in loving butunsentimental detail.

Debo, Angie, A History of the Indians of the UnitedStates, University of Oklahoma Press, 1970.A pioneering historian and champion of Indian rights pro-

vides one of the leading narrative histories of the first fivecenturies of Indian and non-Indian coexistence and conflict.

Deloria, Vine Jr., Custer Died For Your Sins: An IndianManifesto, University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.First published in 1969, this angry book gave many non-

Indians a look at how the United States appeared throughIndians’ eyes and spurred many young Native Americans intopolitical activism.

Mason, W. Dale, Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty andAmerican Politics, University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.A University of New Mexico political scientist provides the

essential background on the birth and early explosive growthof Indian-owned gambling operations.

Williams, Robert A., Like a Loaded Weapon: The Rehn-quist Court, Indians Rights, and the Legal History ofRacism in America, University of Minnesota Press, 2005.A professor of law and American Indian Studies at the Uni-

versity of Arizona and tribal appeals court judge delivers adetailed and angry analysis of the history of U.S. court de-cisions affecting Indians.

Articles

Bartlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele, “Playing thePolitical Slots; How Indian Casino Interests Have Learnedthe Art of Buying Influence in Washington,” Time, Dec.23, 2002, p. 52.In a prescient article that preceded the Jack Abramoff lob-

bying scandal, veteran investigative journalists examine thepolitical effects of some tribes’ newfound wealth.

Harden, Blaine, “Walking the Land with Pride Again; ARevolution in Indian Country Spawns Wealth andOptimism,” The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2004, p. A1.Improved conditions in many sectors of Indian America have

spawned a change in outlook, despite remaining hardships.

Morgan, Lance, “Ending the Curse of Trust Land,”Indian Country Today, March 18, 2005, www.indian-country.com/content.cfm?id=1096410559.A lawyer and pioneering tribal entrepreneur lays out his vi-

sion of a revamped legal-political system in which Indianswould own their tribal land outright, with federal supervisionended.

Robbins, Ted, “Tribal cultures, nutrition clash on frybread,” “All Things Considered,” National Public Radio,Oct. 26, 2005, transcript available at www.npr.org/tem-plates/story/story.php?storyId=4975889.Indian health educators have tried to lower Native Americans’

consumption of a beloved but medically disastrous treat.

Thompson, Ginger, “As a Sculpture Takes Shape in NewMexico, Opposition Takes Shape in the U.S.,” The NewYork Times, Jan. 17, 2002, p. A12.Indian outrage has clashed with Latino pride over a stat-

ue celebrating the ruthless Spanish conqueror of present-dayNew Mexico.

Wagner, Dennis, “Tribes Across Country Confront Horrorsof Meth,” The Arizona Republic, March 31, 2006, p. A1.Methamphetamine use and manufacturing have become the

scourge of Indian Country.

Reports and Studies

“Indian Health Service: Health Care Services Are Not Al-ways Available to Native Americans,” Government Ac-countability Office, August 2005.Congress’ investigative arm concludes that financial short-

falls combined with dismal reservation conditions, includingscarce transportation, are stunting medical care for manyAmerican Indians.

“Strengthening the Circle: Interior Indian Affairs Highlights,2001-2004,” Department of the Interior (undated).The Bush administration sums up its first term’s accom-

plishments in Indian Country.

Cornell, Stephen, et al., “Seizing the Future: Why SomeNative Nations Do and Others Don’t,” Native Nations In-stitute, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, Uni-versity of Arizona, Harvard Project on American IndianEconomic Development, John F. Kennedy School of Gov-ernment, Harvard University, 2005.The authors argue that the key to development lies in a

tribe’s redefinition of itself from object of government at-tention to independent power.

Selected Sources

Bibliography

April 28, 2006 383Available online: www.cqresearcher.com

Drug Smuggling on Reservations

Kershaw, Sarah, “Through Indian Lands, Drugs’ Shad-owy Trail,” The New York Times, Feb. 19, 2006, p. 1.Law-enforcement officials say Indian reservations have be-

come a critical link in the drug trade, as criminal organizationshave found havens in the wide-open and isolated Indian lands.

Riley, Michael, “Porous Border Stokes a Crucible of Painand Smuggling on Tribal Land,” The Denver Post, June6, 2004, p. A1.The Tohono O’odham Nation reservation, west of Tucson, has

become a major corridor for smuggling drugs from Mexico, pro-viding easy, fast money to residents who have nothing.

Indian Education

Dell’Angela, Tracy, “Dakota Indians Say Kids Trapped in‘School-to-Prison’ Pipeline,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 29,2005, p. C1.Indian students in South Dakota’s Winner School District

are punished at disproportionate rates and are leaving thedistrict in large numbers, causing many civil-rights activiststo declare the district is racist in disciplining tribal children.

Mapes, Lynda V., “Indian Elders Help Write Lessons ThatReflect Culture, Spur Reading,” Chicago Tribune, Jan. 6,2005, p. 10.Administrators and teachers at Chinook Elementary School

in Auburn, Wash., have used a supplemental curriculumbased on content recommended by Indian elders to improvechildren’s reading scores.

Silverman, Julia, “Indian Teachers Sought,” The Philadel-phia Inquirer, April 2, 2003, p. A8.Universities across the West are starting to recruit and train

American Indian teachers and place them at schools withlarge native populations, hoping to lower the high dropoutrates and raise test scores.

Walker, Cheryl, “Charter School Helps Indian Students Suc-ceed,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 23, 2005, p. NI6.Michelle Parada and Mary Ann Donohue founded the All

Tribe American Indian Charter School to foster an environ-ment for Indians to gain self-confidence and graduate fromhigh school.

Methamphetamine

McKosato, Harlan, “Reservations Are Targets of Meth,More,” The Santa Fe New Mexican, Feb. 19, 2006, p. F1.The former host of the nationwide radio show, “Native

America Calling,” compares methamphetamine use on reser-vations to crack cocaine use in the inner city.

Murr, Andrew, “A New Menace on the Rez,” Newsweek,Sept. 27, 2004, p. 30.Meth is becoming the drug of choice on Indian reservations

because drug networks believe there are fewer police.

Riley, Michael, “A Mexican Drug Gang Infiltrates anAlcoholism-Riddled Wyoming Indian Reservation to Sella New Addiction,” The Denver Post, Nov. 6, 2005, p. A1.The Sinaloan Cowboys came to the Wind River Reservation

in Wyoming four years ago and have shifted many tribalmembers’ alcohol addiction to meth.

Tribal Sovereignty

Greenhouse, Linda, “Court Upholds Tribal Power It OnceDenied,” The New York Times, April 20, 2004, p. A12.The Supreme Court ruled that tribes now have the au-

thority to prosecute members of other tribes for crimes com-mitted on their reservations.

Hecox, Walter, and Rebecca Schild, “Western Tribes Re-capturing Control Over Their Lives,” The Denver Post,June 19, 2005, p. E1.Indian individuals and tribes are increasingly exercising their

sovereign authority in areas of culture and language, socialand political conditions and the environment, according tothe Colorado College State of the Rockies Project.

The Associated Press, “Gregoire, 2 Tribes Reach Agreementon Tax Collection,” The Seattle Times, Jan. 27, 2006, p. B5.Gov. Christine Gregoire, D-Wash., and two tribes agreed

that the state will continue to collect gas taxes on the tribes’reservations despite a recent District Court ruling that itwould infringe on their tribal sovereignty.

The Next Step:Additional Articles from Current Periodicals

CITING THE CQ RESEARCHER

Sample formats for citing these reports in a bibliography

include the ones listed below. Preferred styles and formats

vary, so please check with your instructor or professor.

MLA STYLEJost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher

16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.

APA STYLE

Jost, K. (2001, November 16). Rethinking the death penalty.

CQ Researcher, 11, 945-968.

CHICAGO STYLE

Jost, Kenneth. “Rethinking the Death Penalty.” CQ Researcher,

November 16, 2001, 945-968.

?Are you writing a paper?

Need backup for a debate?

Want to become an expert on an issue?

For 80 years, students have turned to the CQ Researcher for in-depth reporting on issues in the news. Reportson a full range of political and social issues are now available. Following is a selection of recent reports:

ACCESSThe CQ Researcher is available in print and online. For ac-cess, visit your library or www.cqresearcher.com.

STAY CURRENTTo receive notice of upcoming CQ Researcher reports, orlearn more about CQ Researcher products, subscribe to thefree e-mail newsletters, CQ Researcher Alert! and CQ ResearcherNews: www.cqpress.com/newsletters.

PURCHASETo purchase a CQ Researcher report in print or electronicformat (PDF), visit www.cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737.Single reports start at $10. Bulk purchase discounts andelectronic rights licensing are also available.

SUBSCRIBEA full-service CQ Researcher print subscription—including44 reports a year, monthly index updates, and a boundvolume—is $688 for academic and public libraries, $667for high school libraries, and $827 for media libraries.Add $25 for domestic postage.

The CQ Researcher Online offers a backfile from 1991 anda number of tools to simplify research. For pricinginformation, call 800-834-9020, ext. 1906, or e-maillibrarysales@cqpress.com.

Upcoming ReportsTransgender Issues, 5/5/06

Controlling the Internet, 5/12/06

Energy Conservation, 5/19/06

Teen Spending, 5/26/06

War on Drugs, 6/2/06

In-depth Reports on Issues in the News

Civil LibertiesRight to Die, 5/05Immigration Reform, 4/05Gays on Campus, 10/04

Crime/LawDomestic Violence, 1/06Death Penalty Controversies, 9/05Methamphetamines, 7/05Identity Theft, 6/05Marijuana Laws, 2/05Supreme Court’s Future, 1/05

EducationAcademic Freedom, 10/05Intelligent Design, 7/05No Child Left Behind, 5/05Gender and Learning, 5/05

EnvironmentNuclear Energy, 3/06Climate Change, 1/06Saving the Oceans, 11/05Endangered Species Act, 6/05Alternative Energy, 2/05

Health/SafetyRising Health Costs, 4/06Pension Crisis, 2/06Avian Flu Threat, 1/06Domestic Violence, 1/06Disaster Preparedness, 11/05Birth-Control Debate, 6/05Marijuana Laws, 2/05

International AffairsFuture of European Union, 10/05War in Iraq, 10/05

Social TrendsFuture of Feminism, 4/06Future of Newspapers, 1/06

Terrorism/DefensePort Security, 4/06Presidential Power, 2/06

YouthBullying, 2/05Teen Driving, 1/05Athletes and Drugs, 7/04

Understanding Constitutional Issues:

SELECTIONS FROM THE CQ RESEARCHER

June 2004 • 8 1/2 x 11 • Approx. 432 pages • Paperback • ISBN 1-56802-885-7 • $39.95

To Order: Call Toll-Free: 866.4CQ.PRESS (427.7737)Fax: 800.380.3810 • Web: www.cqpress.comE-mail: customerservice@cqpress.com

CQ Press, 1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20037

New!

Understanding Constitu- tional Issues focuses on four key themes — gov- ernmental powers and structure, security, lib- erty, and equality — to help students de- velop a deeper un- derstanding of the

relation between current events and

constitutional issues and principles. Integrating eighteen CQ

Researcher reports, Understanding Constitutional Issues makes important connections clear, such as those between civil liberties and security; and privacy and liberty.