4.R 31/3:103-7/PT. 1-2 AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS P138-66 OVERSIGHT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON EFFECTIVENESS OF P.L. 95-346-THE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS 68-194 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC Serial No. 103-7, Part I Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources Natural POUMVERSITY JONSSON U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1993 STANF JUN 1993 CIS RECORD ONLY: LIBRARY OF GOVT DOCUMENTS Jerry Flute, field director, Association on American Indian Affairs Hon. James S. Hena, chairman, All Indian Pueblo Council, Albuquer- Additional material submitted for the record from: Santa Clara Indian Pueblo, Espanola, NM: Letter to Chairman Richard- son from Hon. Walter Dasheno, Governor, dated March 9, 1993 Native American Church of Navaholand, Inc., AZ: Prepared statements of Lorenzo Max, Board of Directors, and Mike Kiyaani, spiritual leader EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC LAW 95-346—THE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1978 (AIRFA) TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC. The committee met at 9:45 a.m. in room 1324 of the Longworth House Office Building, the Hon. Bill Richardson presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON Mr. RICHARDSON. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today we're conducting an oversight hearing on the Effectiveness of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. In 1978, Congress enacted the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in an effort to address the problems many Native Americans face in exercising their right to practice their religion. During the debate, Chairman Udall expressed his concern that the Act lacked teeth, and to the chagrin of many Native American religious leaders and practitioners, that quote has been repeated consistently in reference to the Act. Fourteen years of implementation of this legislation and two Supreme Court cases have brought us to this day. In 1988, the Supreme Court in the Lyng case held that this legislation did not confer a cause of action to Indians for the protection of religious sites for Federal land management decisions and, therefore, could not be used by Indians to challenge such decisions. In 1990, the Supreme Court further frustrated Native Americans in the case of Smith when it, in essence, threw out the longstanding practice of courts that, in order for the government to restrict an individual's right to religious practice, the government had to show it had an overriding "compelling interest" to do so. This is the first of two hearings the Subcommittee will hold on the effectiveness of this legislation. This morning we will hear from several tribal and religious leaders on their experiences and views of how to better protect Native Americans in their right to freely exercise their religious practices. And it's a great pleasure for me to recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. Thomas. STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (1) |