Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Let me ask Mr. Carnes: As I understand from your testimony, is it your contention that Native American religious practitioners are treated differently by prison officials than practitioners of non-Native religions? Mr. CARNES. They most definitely are in many places. It is based a lot on the ignorance of the correction officers, security line officers, who have no understanding or ideas about our religious objects or things, because they may come into our cell during a shakedown or in the prison yard and come and handle our feather and play with these things-you know, make a lot of jokes or remarks they feel like. It is not hurting nobody. Well, you know, it creates a sense of anger or tension within the prison system, and there is already too much there anyway. Mr. RICHARDSON. Is it your view, Mr. Carnes, that giving access to Native American prisoners to their religious practices would make them better, law-abiding citizens when they are released? Mr. CARNES. Yes, only for those who have that sincere interest to participate. There may be a few who attend out of curiosity because they never had that opportunity. They may also be deeply affected and choose to pursue that way of life. Even these people who have never had this spirituality before they went to prison, they pick it up there, and they are going to need help when they get out. They need some post-assistance or a support group when they get out, which is one of the things I have been hoping to develop, this spiritual camp for people who are paroled or discharged from prison, because in a sense they are just like babies learning how to walk again, their spirituality. They need to be surrounded by these people, pray at the pipe, the sun dance, go to the stomp dance ceremonies, participate in all these other traditional ways. Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Carnes, what are you doing now profession-wise? Are you counseling? Mr. CARNES. Yes, I am trying to get back into the prisons in Oklahoma. I have had problems with some of the institutions because I was not very popular once we started a lawsuit, because I brought national attention to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. At the same time, the person who was the warden that started a policy had been confirmed as the director of the Department of Corrections the same week that I received the 1987 Õklahoma Human Rights Award for my efforts in trying to create an understanding about the religious rights of Native prisoners in Oklahoma, and, to my knowledge, I have been the only person in this country who has ever received such a distinguished award while I was incarcerated. Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, make sure you stay in touch with us, because we want to work with you as we move this legislation. Mr. Johnston, you related concerns about how one defines a traditional leader. Who do you think should make that determination? Mr. JOHNSTON. I think that is best left to the people, but that doesn't fit the criteria for what this wants to do. So many people say that they are a traditional person. Whatever that means to them is what it means. Every tribe has their own idea of what a traditional person is, and every individual has their own idea of what a traditional person is. The same thing with the spiritual person. The tribes recognize one or two, usually representing the tribe, but they don't even attempt to try to define whether each enrolled member is a traditional person or a spiritual person. Mr. RICHARDSON. I believe the provision in the Senate makes a definition of a traditional leader. Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true; they try to. Mr. RICHARDSON. Right. So your view is that we should basically leave that up to the tribes? Mr. JOHNSTON. I don't know how the other sacred sites that are off the reservation are going to be administered, but in relation to what I'm saying in regard to Pipestone, if you put that in control of any one tribe and I wouldn't really care which tribe it wasthen they would be in a position to define who was traditional and who should quarry stone in what they decide was the proper manner, and if they decide an individual who is enrolled somewhere but doesn't believe in the Lakota traditions, he may not be allowed to go in there. I don't know how anybody can define spirituality or traditionalism for any individual or group. That is really difficult. We have got a lot of our spiritual people today, like Mr. Carnes was saying, who have been in prison. We grew up in a time when being Indian was not the thing to be. We couldn't even find people at home that would talk about spiritualism or traditionalism. We had to go back to our grandfathers and hope that they were still alive and try to talk to them, and these same people are now listed as spiritual advisors for our tribes. Mr. RICHARDSON. You have raised an issue that we are going to have to grapple with very seriously. I think you make a very good point. Let me again thank panel number four. I, regrettably, have to run off. I think we have had a very good hearing-four panels, very excellent testimony, especially those that came from long distances. These hearings are very useful as we prepare our legislation. As everybody knows, we want to make sure our legislation has a good bipartisan focus. We want to work with the administration. We want to work with the tribes especially because we are very serious about making this very important piece of legislation law. So, with that, the hearing is adjourned, and we want to thank all the witnesses here today. [Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX MARCH 16, 1993 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS J. LONG, PRESIDENT NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA AND ROBERT BILLY WHITEHORSE, PRESIDENT NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH OF NAVAJOLAND, INC. SUBMITTED TO CONGRESSMAN RICHARDSON AND MEMBERS OF FOLLOWING AN OVERSITE HEARING ON THE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT ON MARCH 16, 1993 IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THE TRADITIONAL USE OF PEYOTE SUBMITTED ON March 26, 1993 |