Of the 222 who voted for the bill, 216 were Republicans and 6 were Democrats. Of the 205 who voted against, 182 were Democrats and 23 were Republicans.

Democrats voting Yes:

• Barrow (GA)
• Berkley (NV)
• Boren (OK)
• Matheson (UT)
• McIntyre (NC)
• Peterson (MN)

Republicans voting No:

• Amash (MI)
• Bartlett (MD)
• Bass (NH)
• Berg (ND)
• Biggert (IL)
• Broun (GA)
• Davis (KY)
• Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Dold (IL)
• Garrett (NJ)
• Gosar (AZ)
• Hanna (NY)
• Huelskamp (KS)
• LaTourette (OH)
• McClintock (CA)
• Meehan (PA)
• Paul (TX)
• Platts (PA)
• Poe (TX)
• Rivera (FL)
• Rohrabacher (CA)
• Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Wolf (VA)

Return to story on Violence Against Women Reauthorization in the House.

Funding to Keep Native American Communities Safe

Appropriations season has begun. Even though each chamber of Congress recognizes that it is very unlikely that its own appropriations bills will actually go through the whole congressional process and be signed by the president this year, each chamber is still working to finalize a set of bills outlining its spending priorities. When final spending decisions are made, probably in the “lame-duck” session after the elections, these appropriations bills will form a platform for negotiations between the two houses.

Last week, the first of twelve FY 2013 appropriations bills came to the floor of the House. The Commerce/Justice/Science (“CJS”) appropriations bill (H.R. 5326) funds the Departments of Commerce and Justice, various science agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and justice-related agencies, such as the Legal Services Corporation. The House considered dozens of amendments during debate on the measure.

Of particular interest in the CJS appropriations bill is funding to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Indian Country law enforcement programs, including:

The Senate is Spending More than the House. Why?
Almost all House appropriations bills will provide lower funding than Senate appropriations bills, because the House bills are based on the House-passed budget resolution, which limits total appropriations a level that is $19 billion less than the limit set in last summer’s Budget Control Act.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is relying on the total discretionary spending allowed for FY2013 in the Budget Control Act ($1.047 trillion). As a result, the Senate CJS appropriations bill generally sets higher levels for Indian Country law enforcement programs – a total of $81.5 million specifically for tribal programs in the Senate CJS bill (S. 3535) versus a total of $59.5 million in H.R. 5326. This wide gap between the Senate and House levels will make post-election negotiations all the more complicated.

Report Card: How the U.S. Treats Its Indigenous Peoples

Countries that sign a declaration like the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) customarily welcome visits from “reporters” or “rapporteurs” who travel in the country and speak with affected people. The rapporteur then submits a report on the nation’s progress toward compliance with the intentions expressed in the declaration. The U.S. has had a visit from United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, who met with Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian people in various places in the U.S. and with administration and State Department representatives. He was unable to arrange visits with members of Congress, however. A fairly comprehensive statement which he issued at the conclusion of his visit is available here. He is preparing a final report to the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding the U.S. endorsement of the UNDRIP in December 2010.

Violence Against (Some) Women Act -- Reauthorized in the House

Congress has now approved two versions of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

The Senate approved S. 1925 on April 26 with a strong bi-partisan vote of 68 – 31. That bill continued the various grant programs that have assisted in the prevention and prosecution of domestic and other violence against women since 1994. It also included provisions specifically recommended by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Judiciary Committee to

• Authorize tribal police to arrest and detain a person suspected of domestic violence, even if the person is not Native American,
• Permit tribal courts to exercise full civil jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, so that they can issue and enforce protection orders and other controls, even if the person impacted by the order is not Native American,
• Allow federal prosecutors to seek sentences similar to those that would be applied by nearby state laws, for certain kinds of serious assaults against Indian women in Indian country.

These specific provisions would help to create a greater sense of safety for Native women living on reservations, sometimes far from police support or legal help. In addition, the Senate bill included improvements that would enhance safety for immigrant women and prohibit discrimination against victims on the basis of sexual orientation.

The House approved its version – H.R. 4970 – on May 16. Among other differences, the House bill left out the jurisdictional clarifications for Indian country (as described above), as well as the protections for immigrant women and prohibitions against discrimination. There was substantial and rancorous debate on the House floor, much of it touching on the provisions that would protect Native women. But there was little in the debate that demonstrated an understanding – within either political party – of the particularly complex jurisdictional issues that get in the way of Native women seeking help to prevent domestic violence or to arrest a perpetrator.

For a description of these nearly insurmountable hurdles, see FCNL’s Winter 2010 Indian Report: “Part of the Problem.”

The White House issued a policy statement opposing the bill because of the omission and others.

The House vote was closer than the Senate vote; with a vote count of 222 - 205, the bill passed by a 51% margin. Of the 222 Yes votes, 216 were Republicans and 6 were Democrats. Of the 205 No votes, 182 were Democrats and 23 were Republicans. See a list of Democrats who voted "yes" and Republicans who voted "no."

To go forward, the bills will need to be considered in a conference committee to arrive at a single version that both houses can approve. Action: Write to your representative and senators. Urge their approval in conference committee of a version that addresses the jurisdictional quagmire in Indian Country. Refer them to the description of this quagmire in the Winter 2010 issue of FCNL’s Indian Report.

See more articles in the May 2012 NALU.

A Quest toEnd a Native American Epidemic

We reported in March that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Research and Analysis, had recently released a report showing that diabetes was becoming more prevalent among children in Indian Country, and that nearly 17 percent of Native Americans and Alaska natives have type 2 diabetes – the highest rate of any group in the nation. That month, the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) convened a meeting of tribal leaders and representatives to discuss reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, which will expire in FY 2013. This program is critically important to help Native communities control diabetes.

Since March, an emerging development may bring attention not just to controlling diabetes , but to finding out why it is so prevalent and so damaging among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Tribal Chairman Steve Cadue of the Kickapoo Nation is gathering interest within Native communities around the country in finding and addressing the cause for the high incidence of diabetes among Native peoples. He has set up a foundation called the “National American Indian Diabetes Foundation, Inc.” The foundation’s website, which will launch June 1, will have more information about the campaign.

Even More on Energy in Indian Country

The Department of Energy has released a draft policy on the purchase of electricity from tribally owned producers. The policy would give preference to tribes and tribal majority-owned businesses producing electricity from renewable resources, products and by-products. The Department of Energy will be consulting with interested tribes in two sessions later this month, in Oregon and New Mexico. More information is available on the Department's website.

Native American Legislative Update - May 2012

First Tribal National Park

The Oglala Sioux Tribe has partnered with Department of Interior and the National Park Service to establish the first tribal national park in the Badlands of South Dakota. Read more here.

American Indians Conserving Energy

The White House has recognized Harold "Gus" Frank, chair of the Forest County Potawatomi Community as a "Champion of Change," for his leadership in helping the community to conserve energy, promote the use of renewable energy, and reduce the community's carbon foot print in other ways. Read more here.

Upcoming Senate Hearings

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has scheduled oversight hearings on government to government relations (May 17) and on services for Native American veterans (May 24).

Tribal Advocates Speak Out on Fracking and Energy Issues

April 19 was a big day for Indian energy hearings. In the morning, the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held an oversight hearing on "fracking" - "Bureau of Land Management's Hydraulic Fracturing Rule's Impacts on Indian Tribal Energy Development." Invited witnesses, representing tribes with significant involvement in oil and gas industries, expressed frustration about the lack of consultation with tribes in the Bureau of Land Management's rule making process regulating fracking. A summary of the hearing is available here.

In the afternoon, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs considered Vice Chairman John Barrasso's bill (S. 1684) called the "Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011." The bill, introduced last October, would streamline the federal government processes for energy leasing and for approval of tribal energy resource agreements. These processes attempt to balance the long-term uses and effects of using Indian lands for energy development with tribal needs for economic development and self-determination.

Invited witnesses supported the legislation, with some commenting that it would be stronger and more useful if it included additional provisions, such as those included in Senator Dorgan's bill in the last Congress. Witness testimony is available on the committee's web site.

FCNL, the faith community, and other advocates all over the U.S. celebrate the passage of S. 1925 (the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act).

FCNL In Action

FCNL sent a letter to all U.S. senators on behalf of the faith community. We asked senators to:

-vote FOR the reauthorization of VAWA

AND

-NOT remove provisions of the bill that protect victims of domestic violence including Native Americans and immigrants, as well as provisions that allow for funding of programs that serve victims of domestic violence regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification.

And the votes are in...

The bill was passed on a vote of 68 to 31. Visit 4vawa.org to find out if you senators voted for or against the VAWA and send them a letter with your response to their vote.

Next Steps?

Now, we move forward to push for the passage of VAWA in the House. Stayed tuned for more information and actions you can take to support the VAWA.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to proceed to the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. LEAHY. I am glad we are doing that. I want to thank the majority leader for moving to proceed to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as the next legislative measure for the Senate to consider. He made the motion Tuesday afternoon.

My hope is that it is not going to be necessary to have extended debate or a filibuster or the filing of a cloture motion and a delay of several days and then a delay of 2 more days even after more than 60 Senators vote to bring the debate to a close and proceed to the bill and then another vote on the motion to proceed before the Senate is permitted to consider this important measure.

I expect anybody listening got lost through that whole process. That is something we Senators should think about. The American public expects us to vote yes or no, not maybe. The longer the delay and the motions go on, the more we are voting maybe. Let's vote yes or no.

For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and children and men. I appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has had from the beginning.

Senator Crapo and I introduced a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act last year after months of discussion. We wanted it to be a bipartisan bill, and it is. Too often in recent times, the Senate goes through all kinds of delaying moves before they proceed to legislation. Again, as I said, the American people elect us. They expect us to vote yes or no not maybe. The delays are a big fat maybe.

The Violence Against Women Act is a measure that is cosponsored by 61 Senators. It is a bipartisan measure cosponsored by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. So I hope Democrats and Republicans and Independents will come together to proceed to consider the bill without delay. I would hope they step forward and do the right thing and send the message to America that we are united in the effort to see the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized.

It is an opportunity for the Senate to come together and renew what I believe is a shared commitment among Senators to end violence against women. For generations, violence against women in this country was condoned. Too often these insidious crimes were dismissed with a joke or a shrug or that ``they involve somebody else.'' Rape was too often excused and domestic violence was tolerated as a family matter.

Victims were blamed, humiliated, and ignored. They had nowhere to turn. There were no crisis centers, there were no shelters. Far too many women and families were left to fend for themselves with no help. The Violence Against Women Act was passed nearly 18 years ago and has helped to change that. It sent a powerful message that violence against women is a crime and it is not going to be tolerated, no matter where it happens.

It transformed the law enforcement response and provided services to victims all across the country. Now is the time to renew our commitment to these victims by passing this legislation. We need to move forward. We need to reaffirm that ending violence against women is a priority for all Americans. We need to be a beacon to others around the world in this regard.

With this effort we set the standard. We show that America understands equality and recognizes human dignity. We are going to fight injustice against the most vulnerable among us.

The legislation that I introduced with Senator Crapo last November is drawn from the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. It is based on the recommendations of the tireless professionals who serve those survivors every day.

It includes improvements suggested by law enforcement officers across the country. As we build on the progress we have made in reducing domestic and sexual violence, we made vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs to better serve the victims of violence.

We incorporate the important work that Chairman Akaka, Senator Murkowski, and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have been doing to try to respond to the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities. We increase the focus on effective responses to sexual assault.

While the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen since VAWA was introduced by more than 50 percent, the progress has not yet translated to reducing sexual assault. Incidents of sexual assault remains high, while reporting rates, prosecution rates, and conviction rates remain appallingly low.

So we faced that problem head on. We ensure that funds are allocated to law enforcement and victims service responses to sexual assault and authorize support for law enforcement sexual assault training and the reduction of the backlogs of untested rape kits.

In a lot of places, they say: We cannot test this rape kit for several months. So often the perpetrator comes back. So during the several months it takes to test the rape kit, they say to the victim: Be sure and keep your door locked. This is not how victims should be treated; they should not have to live in fear. We should be able to say we can test this immediately, and then go get the person involved.

My early experience with the question of sexual assault was not as a Senator but as a local prosecutor. Senator Crapo has been visiting women's shelters and working on these issues for decades as well. His principled bipartisanship should be respected and celebrated as being in the best traditions of the Senate, the Senate I came to 37 years ago. From the outset, we have consulted to make this bill the best it can be.

More than a month ago, Senators from both parties came forward to urge the Senate to take up and pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The Senate heard that day from Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murkowski, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Hagan, Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer, who was the author of the House bill in 1990. Eight Senators came to the floor to remind us all why this bill is important and why the Senate should pass it.

There is nothing radical or new about saying that all victims--all victims--are entitled to services. I have been at some of the most horrendous crime scenes you can imagine in my earlier career. I never asked, and certainly none of the police officers ever asked, whether the victim was a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, or from a minority. A victim is a victim, and we should be helping all victims not discriminating among them.

We know that even though the economy is improving, these remain difficult economic times and we have to spend our taxpayer money responsibly. That is why in this bill, we consolidated 13 programs into 4 to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. We cut the authorization level by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of 20 percent from the last reauthorization.

We have significant accountability provisions including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. I sought to consult with Senator Grassley and others in making these changes to authorization levels and for increased accountability, knowing how important these aspects are to them. In the Senate Judiciary Committee those who opposed the bill were given an opportunity to offer a substitute and other amendments. Senator Grassley offered a substitute which was voted on and rejected. In the minority views of the Committee report, Senator Kyl noted disagreement with the provisions of the bill responding to the crisis of violence against Native women that incorporated a provision for the SAVE Native Women Act to provide domestic violence jurisdiction over those perpetrators with significant ties to the prosecuting tribes.

Opponents have noted their disagreement with the U visa provisions requested by law enforcement. Some opposed the provisions intended to ensure against discrimination in services based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Again, I will say what I have said over and over again: a victim is a victim is a victim. We should not ask what category they fall in.

Since the bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee I have continued to reach out to Senator Grassley and ask what amendments opponents wish to offer during Senate consideration. While amendments to strike the tribal, U visa and sexual orientation provisions were not offered before the Judiciary Committee, I would understand if opponents wished to do so before the Senate. I have reached out to try to construct a pathway for consideration of the bill pursuant to an agreement that is fair to opponents of these various provisions. If they have other amendments, let's bring them up. Let's vote on them. Let's vote this up or down. Do not vote maybe.

I hope we can reach out to the leadership on both sides, get a time to get this done, do not keep holding up legislation that has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous religious and faith-based organizations, and our partners in law enforcement. Let's show the country we will not duck this issue. We will vote for it or we will vote against it.

The Violence Against Women Act should not be a partisan matter. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate.

Although it seems that partisan gridlock is too often the default in the Senate over the last couple of years, it remains my hope that those who have voted for VAWA in the past will come forward and join our eight Republican cosponsors to support it. If so, we can pass our VAWA reauthorization with a strong bipartisan majority as we always have.

Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, gay and straight. Let's pass this without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what can be done when we work together.

I yield the floor.

For the last few years, a legislative priority for tribal governments, the administration and the congressional authorizing committees has been to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to assist tribes to acquire or expand their tribal homeland by placing land into trust with the federal government. Tribes place land into trust for economic development, infrastructure like housing and schools, and cultural and other purposes. We have reported on legislation called the "Carcieri fix," which is named after a 2009 Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, in which the Court held that only those tribes that were federally recognized at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934 can have the Secretary of the Interior take land into trust for them. (The tribe that was the subject of the case had been recognized as an Indian tribe after 1934.)

On April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in what will be the key Indian law case this term. The two cases that are being consolidated - Salazar v. Patchak and Match-She-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawattami Indians v. Patchak - involve the Bureau of Indian Affairs taking land into trust for a Michigan Tribe, which built a casino on the property. A non-Indian individual who lives near the gambling facility challenged the acquisition, saying that the Tribe was not recognized as a tribe by the federal government in 1934. The high court will review the initial questions of whether Mr. Patchak has been injured in some way by the taking of these lands into trust and therefore might have a right to sue, and whether he can sue the United States government, which is generally immune from suit. If the court settles these two questions in Mr. Patchak's favor, it may go on to consider the merits of the case.

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan introduced his budget proposal for FY2013 on March 23. The House passed it six days later by a vote of 228 - 191. The budget includes a ten year plan to reduce overall federal spending. The plan would:

What would the Ryan budget mean for Indian Country?

The President of the National Congress of American Indians, Jefferson Keel, made a strong case for the funding of Indian programs in his State of Indian Nations address: "The trust responsibility is not a discretionary choice. It is not a line item. It is a solemn agreement." But Congress sees line items and discretionary programs and "mandatory" programs. In a time when Congress is under the weight of massive debt and a sluggish economy, it begins to make choices that may ignore responsibilities, shared values, and even solemn agreements. If the Ryan budget becomes law, programs that are vital to Indian country will be in grave danger.

In the FY2013 budget request for Indian Country, tribal leaders requested increased appropriations from nine of the twelve appropriations subcommittees. Under current law, even without the Ryan budget, these committees will have about 12 percent less to allocate for 2013 than they had for FY 2012. The Ryan budget sets total appropriations for FY2013 at $19 billion lower than is required by the Budget Control Act, meaning that the appropriations committees would have about 15 percent less to allocate than in FY 2012.

But it gets worse. The Ryan budget increases funding for military programs above the discretionary spending limit required by the Budget Control Act. Since the overall limit is lower, this means that the non-military discretionary programs would have to absorb even deeper cuts.

This would mean an deep cuts in funding for tribal government and tribal justice support programs, education, health care, child welfare, support for elders and disabled people, economic development, natural resources and environment programs, agriculture, transportation and telecommunications. In addition, direct benefit (or "mandatory") programs like Medicare and Medicaid, food assistance, Pell grants, unemployment insurance and temporary assistance for needy families would also be cut deeply. All of these programs are significant in Indian country, where poverty soars above the national average.

The good news is - the Ryan budget won't become law this year and is very unlikely to be the template for any action the Senate might take. But it is important to be aware of the proposals and to engage in the debate against them, because they represent a set of values that would be destructive to tribal communities and to the nation as a whole.

On March 29, Senator Tester (MT) introduced a bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (S. 2283) to include procedures for requests from Indian tribes for a major disaster or emergency declaration. his legislation will mean that tribal leaders will not need to petition neighboring or surrounding states for a portion of their disaster funds when a tornado, flood, fire or other natural disaster devastates the area. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The measure is similar to Rep. Rahall's H.R. 1953 and provisions that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee included in legislation to reauthorize FEMA (H.R. 2903).

On April 5, the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held a field hearing in Fairbanks, AK, entitled "Federal Laws and Policies Affecting Energy Prices in Rural Alaska and their Effects on Native Villages." Here is a recap of the hearing.

On Thursday, April 19, in the morning, the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs will hold an oversight hearing entitled "Bureau of Land Management's Hydraulic Fracturing Rule's Impacts on Indian Tribal Energy Development." (The leadership of the House committee opposes the rule.) That afternoon, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold a legislative hearing on Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011 (S. 1684).

Congress returns from the spring recess on April 16 for a two-week work session. In the remaining two weeks in April, the Senate may take up legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (S. 1925). This legislation includes important tribal provisions that will close loopholes that allowed abusers to escape prosecution, many of which the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved in the "Stand Against Violence and Empower (SAVE) Native Women Act" (S. 1763). The bill has 60 co-sponsors and should gain Senate approval easily.

However, tribal advocates are concerned that when the bill is brought to the Senate floor, a handful of senators may offer amendments to delete two key tribal provisions from the bill. One provision (section 904) would authorize concurrent tribal jurisdiction, along with the appropriate state or federal government, to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence any person - Indian or non-Indian - who assaults an Indian spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner, or who violates a protection order in Indian Country. The other provision (section 905) would make certain that a tribal court has full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce certain protection orders involving any person, also whether Indian or non-Indian. Here in Washington, we are lobbying senators to support the VAWA reauthorization with these two tribal provisions intact as approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and to vote against any amendment to strike them from the bill or amend them so that this tribal jurisdiction would not be recognized.

In the House, action on VAWA is beginning to move as well. On March 28, Representative Moore (CA) introduced a House companion bill to S. 1925 (H.R. 4271). This measure, which already has 41 cosponsors, was referred to five House committees.

See letter to Senate from 25 faith-based groups supporting the Violence Against Women Act and provisions relating to Native women, immigrant victims of trafficking and sexual abuse, and gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence.

See Senator Leahy's floor speech opening the debate on the Violence Against Women Act, Thursday April 19, 2012.

On April 11, the Departments of the Interior and Justice announced that the federal government has settled lawsuits filed by 41 federally-recognized tribes, alleging mismanagement of trust funds and natural resources which are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of those tribes. Under the negotiated settlement agreements, which total some $1.023 billion, to be paid out of the Judgment Fund, litigation against the United States will end regarding the Department of the Interior's accounting and management of the tribes' trust accounts, lands held in trust, and other natural resources. Additional information, including a list of the 41 tribes involved in the settlement agreements, is available here.

There has been much more publicity and speculation about the recent Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality Affordable Care Act which, among other things, requires some individuals to purchase health insurance, or pay a small fee or fine. Though it garnered less publicity, another issue was of great concern to tribal communities: whether the long awaited reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which was incorporated into the Affordable Care Act, would be overturned if the Affordable Health Care Act were to be overturned. The National Indian Health Board, the National Congress of American Indians and more than 445 tribes and tribal organizations filed an amicus brief, urging the protection of the Act's permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and other Indian-specific provisions. The brief argues that the Indian-specific provisions are separate from other provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and should stand on their own, even if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate provision for minimum coverage is unconstitutional. Several justices mentioned the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in their comments during oral arguments.

The brief argues:

The Indian-specific provisions of the ACA are legally separable from the remainder of the Act, because they solely relate to the Federal responsibility to provide health care to Indian tribes and their members, and are of critical importance to the delivery of health care services to Indian tribes and their members throughout the country.

The entire brief is available here.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is conducting a study directed by Congress on the housing needs of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, in order to provide Congress with an assessment of housing conditions in Native communities. The final report is expected in December, 2014. HUD is holding a series of tribal leader consultations - six regional and two national. Find out how you and your community can be a part of this study.