Message #99: From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG To: "'Matthias Giessler'" Subject: SAA Government Affairs Update Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:45:15 EST From: Sherry Lerner SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS UPDATE Judith A. Bense, Chair, Government Affairs Committee Donald Forsyth Craib, Manager, Government Affairs, and Counsel During the past few weeks, there has been a lot of activity already on Capitol Hill in the 105th Congress that concerns archaeology. In order to bring you up to date on the SAA's most recent activity and the issues on Capitol Hill that are important to archaeology, we have put together a detailed summary for your information and distribution. The hottest issue lately is the proposed NAGPRA amendment in the Senate (S.110), which the leadership of the SAA has analyzed and written a letter of response. We have included the letter in this Update, and the seven page text of the proposed amendment and the SAA analysis is attached to this message as a separate file, the address of which is at the end of this message. This information has been put together from Donald Craib, the SAA leadership, and the Committee on Repatriation. Please feel free to distribute this information throughout your state networks, societies, councils, and professional networks. Just remember to communicate that this information comes from the SAA Government Affairs Program. Issues in this Update: - 105th Congress Overview - SAA's Legislative Agenda in 1997 - Congressman English (R-PA) participation in the annual meeting - Government Affairs Forum at the annual meeting - SAA's Response and Analysis of Inoye's NAGPRA amendment (S.110) THE 105th CONGRESS. With the swearing in of the 105th Congress, the Capitol promises to be a much more civil place than it was two years ago. The tentative legislative agenda for this session of the 105th Congress is slim and dispersed, held precariously together by remnants of failed proposals from the 104th Congress. The Speaker's ethical problems and continued divided government have curbed GOP aspirations and will test promises of bipartisanship. There will be a renewed effort to balance the budget, first by constitutional amendment and later with deficit-reducing legislation. Others items on Congress's plate early on in the session remain murky at this time. All of the talk about bipartisan cooperation has yielded little more than a tacit understanding that Republicans will give President Clinton the opportunity, and the political burden, of setting the year's legislative priorities. SAA's LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IN 1997. Several issues will dominate the attention of SAA's government affairs office during the first session of the 105th Congress: 1) proposed amendments to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; 2) FY'98 funding for federal archaeological programs and the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF); 3) reauthorization of the HPF; 4) reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); 5) amendments to the Antiquities Act; and 6) oversight of the National Historic Preservation Act. If you would like to learn more about any of these issues, please visit the government affairs page on SAAWeb. CONGRESSMAN ENGLISH TO PARTICIPATE THE ANNUAL METING: Congressman Phil English (R-Pa) to participate at SAA Annual Meeting! Congressman Phil English will attend SAA's 1997 Annual Meeting in Nashville and participate in the government affairs committee sponsored forum, Washington Politics and Archaeology, Friday morning, April 4. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FORUM AT THE ANNUAL MEETING: The forum is an opportunity for the membership to learn what happened in the 104th Congress and what's on the horizon for the 105th as it affects archaeology and historic preservation. A panel consisting of SAA president Bill Lipe, president-elect Vin Steponaitis, executive board member Donna Seifert, government affairs committee chair Judy Bense, government affairs manager Donald Craib, Preservation Action president Nellie Longsworth, as well as Congressman Phil English will provide brief summaries of current information, forecasts, and strategies for the 105th Congress. We encourage everyone to attend and participate in this unique event and also take the opportunity to meet Congressman English during his three day stay at the annual meeting. SAA LETTER OF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED NAGPRA AMENDMENT (S.110) February 14, 1997 The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Chairman Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Campbell: The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) wishes to take this opportunity to comment on a bill that was recently introduced by Senator Inouye and that falls within the jurisdiction of your committee. This bill is S. 110--proposed amendments to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). With over 6000 lay and professional members, SAA is the largest organization devoted to the study of the archaeology of the Americas. SAA supports Native American and Native Hawaiian rights with respect to affiliated ancestral human remains and cultural items, and worked closely with Native American groups and members of Congress to obtain passage of the current version of NAGPRA. SAA agrees that clarification of certain components of NAGPRA is desirable. SAA believes, however, that S. 110 as currently written is much more than a clarification, and that the four individual changes proposed by S. 110 need to be considered separately. We have detailed our arguments in an attachment to this letter; a brief summary appears below. The first changeS.110 Section 1(a)requires written consent by lineal descendants or appropriate tribes before the excavation of human remains on federal land. As currently worded, this amendment has the potential to transform NAGPRA into a major tool that could be used by tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or other groups to stop many kinds of economic development or land management activities on Federal land. In order to understand why this is so, one must recognize that virtually all archaeological excavation of Native American graves on Federal land is done in the context of construction or land management activities that will destroy or damage the graves. These archaeological excavations are a direct consequence of the way in which the National Historic Preservation Act is applied when archaeological sites are impacted by Federal agency activities or by economic development projects done under federal permit. We believe that such a change would not be good public policy and that the backlash resulting from project stoppage would harm the broader interests of native peoples and of historic preservation. SAA recommends withdrawing this proposed change. The second change1(b)requires that when there are inadvertent discoveries of human remains or cultural items on Federal land that appropriate tribes are notified in a timely way. It also makes clear that, once made, inadvertent discoveries are to be treated in the same manner as intentional excavations, with respect to ownership, removal, and consultation with tribes. SAA strongly supports the proposed changes (with minor rewording) as appropriate clarifications of NAGPRAšs intent. The third change1(c)extends the responsibilities of the NAGPRA Review Committee by asking it to compile an inventory of funerary objects associated with culturally inidentifiable human remains and by asking it to include these funerary objects in their recommendations concerning the disposition of culturally unidentifiable remains. SAA believes this is a significant extension of the NAGPRA through a paragraph in the law whose interpretation is already contested. SAA believes that the Review Committee already has before it a tremendous amount of important work and recommends a substitute amendment that would eliminate the amended paragraph [Section 8(c)(5)] from NAGPRA. The fourth changealso labeled 1(c), but presumably, 1(d)directs the Secretary of the Interior to use NAGPRA penalties for further enforcement of NAGPRA, permits payment of rewards for information relating to NAGPRA enforcement, and allows payment of restitution to aggrieved parties rather than the collection of penalties. SAA strongly supports the proposed changes in order to enhance the enforcement of NAGPRA, but suggests a minor rewording of one paragraph. Finally, SAA is concerned that Section 3 (Ownership) of NAGPRA does not, in two respects, weigh the interests of the affected parties in what we see as appropriate ways. (1) SAA believes that when the scientific value (ability to contribute information about the past) of a set of remains or objects is great, the public interests in the past should outweigh the concerns of a modern tribe that lacks clear cultural affiliation with the remains in question. (2) SAA supports the central principle that underlies much of NAGPRA: the closeness of cultural relationship should transcend contemporary property rights in determining the disposition of human remains and cultural items. However, Section 3 is inconsistent with that principle when it gives contemporary tribal land ownership priority over cultural affiliation. This results in NAGPRA assigning ownership over human remains that are indisputably the recent ancestors of one tribe to a different tribe, just because the latter tribe now controls the land on which the remains were found. SAA asks that when hearings are held, the committee take testimony on these additional concerns as a part of its consideration of amendments to NAGPRA. SAA believes S. 110 has important implications that need to be further understood before it is considered by the Senate. We therefore recommend the changes outlined here and suggest that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs convene a hearing to take testimony from Federal agencies, state historic preservation officers, private businesses operating on public lands, archaeological organizations, and Native American and Native Hawaiian groups. SAA would be pleased to consult with you on draft language that would avoid the problems it sees with the present version. SAA thanks you for your attention and looks forward to your response. Sincerely, William D. Lipe, Ph. D., President