<\/p>\r\nThe following is the text of a September 17, 2018, letter from Sen. Lisa Murkowski<\/a> (R-Alaska) to President Fawn Sharp<\/a> of the National Congress of American Indians<\/a>. A copy was also sent to NCAI’s executive committee<\/a> of tribal leadership.<\/em>\r\n <\/p>\r\nSeptember 17, 2020 <\/p>\r\nPresident Fawn Sharp <\/p>\r\nRe: Tribal Unity and Alaska \r\n <\/p>\r\nDear President Sharp,\r\n <\/p>\r\nThe National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has long served a critical role for\r\nAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives. For over seven decades, the organization has carried out\r\nthe mandate of its constitution to secure the rights for and improve the well-being of Native\r\nAmericans. NCAI has consistently worked with both the legislative and executive branches of\r\ngovernment to enlighten the public and policy makers toward a better understanding of Indian\r\npeople, to preserve rights under Indian treatics and agreements, and to promote the common\r\nwelfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives.\r\n <\/p>\r\nYour organization, and the forum it provides for tribal leaders to forge consensus, has been\r\npivotal to advancing a unified Native policy agenda. It is for this reason I feel compelled to bring\r\nto your attention expressions of divisiveness, which have undermined the organization\u2019s\r\neffectiveness in delivering on NCAI\u2019s mission and critical role in representing the interests of all\r\nNative Americans.\r\n <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\nHistory has shown that NCAI played an important role in working with ANB and ANS to\r\npreserve Alaska Native rights to claim land as Congress considered Alaska statehood bills in the\r\n1940s and 1950s. Versions of the statehood bills included a provision jeopardizing the future rights\r\n \fof Alaska Natives to lay claims to traditional homelands. Fortunately, NCAI was stalwart in\r\nstanding with ANB and ANS to ensure the statehood bill that passed in 1958 did not imperil future\r\nclaims.\u2019 Later, ANB and ANS, with the support of NCAI, defeated the efforts of politicians who\r\nsought to repeal the 1936 Alaska Reorganization Act and considered Indian land confiscation\r\nbills. These and many other episodes are a great testament to unified Native advocacy.\r\n <\/p>\r\nYears after those early struggles, in 1971, Congress finally resolved Native land claims\r\nthrough the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANCSA is but one layer in the multi-\r\nfaceted fabric of Alaska Native governance and representation. In addition to Alaska Native\r\ncorporations (ANCs), that fabric includes federally recognized tribes and inter- and intra-tribal\r\nconsortia that deliver self-determination and self-governance programs at scale. This structure\r\ndiffers significantly from that of the lower 48 tribes. Post enactment of ANCSA, NCAI continued\r\nto attempt to ensure Alaska\u2019s tribal priorities were included in advocacy efforts, including\r\nsubsistence issues, violence against women, ICWA, suicide and behavioral health, PL 280, and\r\nmany others.\r\n <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\nWith a country already so divided along political lines, I am deeply alarmed that these\r\nactions threaten the long-standing non-partisan nature of Native issues, where members of\r\nCongress and Presidents on both sides of the aisle have worked to uphold the federal trust\r\nresponsibility and protect Indian treaty and sovereign rights. For your consideration, I offer the\r\nfollowing as examples of recent actions by NCAI that have stoked, instead of allayed, division\r\nwithin the Native community.\r\n <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\nIf NCAI had acted with restraint and awaited verified information, it would have been more\r\nfitting to its role as a consensus builder. I was disappointed that NCAI made no effort to\r\ncommunicate with the Alaska delegation to understand our perspective or to promote\r\nunderstanding before issuing their April 11, 2020 letter urging Treasury to exclude ANCs. I was\r\nsaddened that the organization instead acted on anxious speculation, before the actual allocation\r\nmethodology was released, perpetuating the myth that this was somehow a power play by ANCs\r\nand heightening animosity toward Alaska Native institutions that many non-Alaskan tribal leaders\r\nknow little about.\r\n <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\nHolding shares in an ANC does not conflict someone out of serving Indian Country. NCAI\r\nitself proves this case. Numerous Alaska Native leaders over the years have served on the board\r\nand in the organization as tribal leaders who also sometimes happened to be shareholders in their\r\nvillage or regional corporation. As an organization committed to seeking unity and common\r\nground among Native people, NCAI should avoid any implication that Alaska Natives have to\r\nseparate themselves from their birthright as ANCSA shareholders to serve or be considered Native.\r\nThese implications serve to pit Alaska Natives against themselves, each other, and the broader\r\nIndian community.\r\n <\/p>\r\nANCs were created as a matter of Federal Indian policy, rooted in Congress\u2019s vision for\r\nNative self-determination and are profoundly different than a publicly traded company. Outside of\r\nthe Metlakatla Indian Reservation, many Alaska Natives who may be both tribal members and\r\nANC shareholders are connected to the stewardship of their Native homelands through their ANCs\r\nas landowners. No matter your view of this arrangement compared to the reservation structure, it\r\nis what Congress created for Alaska Natives.\r\n <\/p>\r\nAdditionally, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, some\r\nANCs have authorized 638 contracts and compacts for decades to deliver governmental services \fto Alaska Native people, serving tens of thousands of eligible Natives in the State. Alaska Native\r\nleaders have built some of the most effective 638 and self-governance, service delivery institutions\r\nin the nation. As I said after Judge Mehta\u2019s decision in June confirming ANCs as eligible for the\r\nCRF, this is not a major change in federal Indian law \u2014 it is about ensuring an adequate response\r\nto the public health crisis in Alaska. By seeking to exclude ANCs from the CRF, tens of thousands\r\nof Alaska Native people would be deprived of any assistance from the tribal set-aside due to those\r\nunique situations where there is no tribe to administer the assistance to them.\r\n <\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\nI am very aware of the important distinction between ANCs and the sovereign tribal\r\ngovernments\u2019 role in tribal enrollment, tribal courts, and other aspects of the power, authority, and\r\nright of a people to govern themselves. I am also cognizant of the need for improvements to\r\nANCSA and to clarify Alaska tribal territorial jurisdiction. Last year for example, I introduced the\r\nAlaska Tribal Public Safety Empowerment Act to address gaps in the jurisdiction of Alaska tribes\r\ndue to the lack of Indian country in Alaska. I continue to be in strong support of empowering tribal\r\ngovernments but am frustrated that what should have been a shared success in the fight for Native\r\npeople to be able to respond to the pandemic has spawned such division.\r\n <\/p>\r\nIt is critical we move beyond misunderstandings to a place of mutual respect. We need a\r\nrestoration of the previously effective working relationship NCAI maintained for decades. The\r\npandemic has highlighted all the more the need for improving and addressing longstanding health\r\nand economic disparities affecting all Native people. As we come back together, I look forward to\r\nworking with you in the future on a cooperative basis to address the grave issues facing American\r\nIndians and Alaska Natives.\r\n <\/p>\r\nSincerely,\r\n <\/p>\r\n\r\nLisa Murkowski <\/p>\r\nCC: NCAI Executive Committee\r\n
\r\nNational Congress of American Indians
\r\n 1516 P St. NW
\r\nWashington, DC 20005\r\n
\r\nUnited States Senator\r\n