Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday on the cover page of The Washington Post newspaper, there was an article written by journalists Jon Cohen and Rick Maese that, according to a recent poll taken among the sports fans of the Washington, D.C. area:

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington

Redskins should not change the team name, even though most

supporters of the nickname feel the word ``redskin'' is an

inappropriate term for Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the term ``redskin'' inappropriate, but it is just plain offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans. And I want to share with my colleagues in Congress, and especially the American people, how the word ``redskin'' came about and its history.

In 1749, it was a standard procedure among settlers who lived in what is now known as Maine and Nova Scotia to kill and scalp as many of the Indians as members of the Micmac Tribe. The same policy was also implemented in 1755 by settlers who lived in what is now known as the State of Massachusetts--that their object was to kill and scalp members of the Penobscot Indian Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the policy was you get paid for killing and/or scalping Native American Indians. And if you kill an Indian boy, you get paid 50 pounds. If you get a scalp of an Indian, you also get paid 40 pounds. For any female, Mr. Speaker, under 12 years old that you killed or scalped, you also get paid 25 pounds. Mr. Speaker, I submit that these scalps were also called ``redskins.'' Mr. Speaker, this is why this word is so offensive to Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, there's a saying in Indian country: ``Walk in a man's moccasins for 2 weeks before you pass judgment on that person.''

Mr. Speaker, my point is what if that scalp belonged to your mother or to your wife or daughter or your brother or sister or to your son or father? Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that our Washington fans and the American public will come to realize why the usage of the word ``redskin'' has brought nothing but a stark reminder of the horrors of how Native Americans have been treated for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe in the fairness and decency of the American people. I believe that many of our fellow Americans did not know of the history of the word ``redskin,'' and I sincerely hope many others will come to a better understanding as to why Native Americans feel obviously offended by the use of the word.

I hope Mr. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, and all the NFL club owners will seriously raise this matter with Mr. Dan Snyder to try to change the name of his Washington football franchise. The NFL has a moral responsibility to take corrective action on this matter. It is the right thing to do.

Under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has both a legal and moral responsibility to look after the needs of our Native American nations. It is for this reason that the bill, H.R. 1278, was introduced to not allow or to cancel the registration of the word Redskins as a trademark name simply because it is a derogatory term and a racial slur against Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong. I'm a great supporter and fan of the sport of football. In fact, I played 4 years of football in high school. Many of my relatives played both at the college level and in the NFL: the late Junior Seau of the San Diego Chargers; Troy Polamalu of the Pittsburgh Steelers; Jesse Sapolu of the 49ers, just to name a few. There are many others. My point, Mr. Speaker, is we need to correct this inequity. We need to show a little more respect for members of the Native American community.

[From the Washington Post, June 26, 2013]

Washington Redskins Name: Washington Post Poll Finds Most D.C. Area

Fans Support It

(By Jon Cohen and Rick Maese)

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington

Redskins should not change the team name, even though most

supporters of the nickname feel the word ``redskin'' is an

inappropriate term for Native Americans, according to a new

Washington Post poll.

The debate over the team's name has intensified in recent

months as members of Congress, activists and media

commentators criticized it as offensive to Native Americans

and lobbied for change. But most Washingtonians--61 percent--

say they like the team's name, and two-thirds say the team

should not change it, according to the poll.

Among Redskins fans, about eight in 10 say the team should

keep its name. Also, there's some evidence that changing it

might undermine support from some of the team's most ardent

backers.

``It's been associated with the team for so long, I just

don't see any reason to change it now,'' said retiree Joseph

Braceland, 70. ``It was not meant to be derogatory.''

A quarter of all area adults and slightly more than half of

self-described Redskins fans say they ``love'' the team name,

yet both groups overwhelmingly say that in general a new name

wouldn't make much difference to them.

Among those who want to keep the Redskins' name, most--56

percent--say they feel the word ``redskin'' is inappropriate.

Only half as many--28 percent--consider the term as an

acceptable one to use.

``I think any word that you deal with, it depends on the

context,'' said Stephan Bachenheimer, a District resident who

works for the World Bank and supports the Redskins' name. ``A

lot of people have a hard time separating these issues.''

The name has been subject to much criticism and public

debate this offseason, with both local and national leaders

urging the team to consider a name change, a request the team

has fervently resisted.

In the new poll, 28 percent of all Washingtonians say the

team should change its name, far above the 11 percent

nationally who said so in a recent Associated Press poll.

``I don't believe in being super politically correct--I

have a sense of humor--but I think this name came about at a

time when there was very different awareness about the plight

of the American Indians,'' said Mary Falvey, 60, who works in

communications for the Food and Drug Administration. ``I just

don't think it's appropriate. There's increased sensitivity

about race in this country today--for the good.''

While feelings about the team's nickname were similar

across most demographics, the percentage advocating a shift

in the D.C. area peaks at 39 percent among African Americans

with college degrees. (There weren't enough Native Americans

among the poll's 1,106 respondents for meaningful comparison;

Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the

population in the region, according to Census data.)

According to poll results, education plays a role more

broadly: 34 percent of all area college graduates say change

the name, compared with 21 percent of those with less formal

education.

``Leave the name alone,'' said Eileen Schilling, 52, who

works in construction sales. ``It's ridiculous. It's getting

completely out of hand. Pretty soon we won't be able to dye

our hair because it might offend someone. I'm Irish. Should

the Notre Dame Fighting Irish change their name because I

don't like it? Hell no. What about the Kansas City Chiefs?

The Cleveland Indians? Should the Eagles change their names

because it's a national symbol? It's ridiculous.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues and with the American people a particular issue that has been a source of humiliation for our Native American people--the use of the word ``redskin,'' which I will refer to as the ``R-word.'' This derogatory and racist term is rooted in state-sponsored genocide efforts when colonies paid individuals for the skins of dead Indians. The Native American community has never accepted the ``R-word'' as anything more than a hurtful, disparaging label that is a reminder of the maltreatment they have endured.

Some may argue that the ``R-word'' is no longer disparaging towards Native Americans. However, over the course of my tenure as a Congressman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, and as a member of the Congressional Native American Caucus, I have received an increasing flow of calls and letters from Native American individuals, tribes, and organizations who abhor this denigrating term. It is their opinion that the ``R-word'' is a racial stereotype that causes harm to the collective self-esteem of the American Indian people.

Mr. Speaker, this term has no place in our modern American society. It is akin to the ``N-word'' which reflects the history of prejudice and persecution that our African American brothers and sisters endured. Can you imagine the public outcry that would result if a Pro-Football team was named the ``N-word?''

In 1933, the District of Columbia's professional football team adopted the ``R-word'' as its name and mascot. In 1967, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, granted the team a federally registered trademark for the ``R-word.'' This action is contrary to the mandates of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) which requires the PTO to

refuse to register any trademark that ``[c]onsists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.'' 15 U.S.C. 1502(a). The PTO has denied registration of trademarks using the ``R-word'' on four separate occasions on grounds of disparagement--three times in 1996 and once in 2002.

In 1992, seven prominent Native American leaders petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, TTAB, to cancel the federal registrations over six trademarks using the ``R-word.'' The TTAB in 1999 ruled that the ``R-word'' may, in fact, disparage American Indians, and cancelled the registrations. On appeal, a federal court reversed the TTAB's decision, holding that the petitioners waited too long after coming of age to file their petition. A new group of young Native Americans petitioned the TTAB to cancel the registrations of the offending trademarks in 2006. The TTAB held a hearing on March 7, 2013. A final decision is pending.

Mr. Speaker, despite the indigenous community's efforts before administrative agencies and the courts, the ``R-word'' remains protected as a federally registered trademark. Since the federal government made the mistake in registering the disparaging trademark, it is now up to Congress to correct that mistake. Now is the time to end this injustice.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced H.R. 1278, the ``Non- Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013.'' I want to thank the following members for their support as original cosponsors of this historic legislation: Tom Cole (R-OK), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Karen Bass (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), John Lewis (D- GA), Michael Honda (D-CA), and Donna Christensen (D-VI).

H.R. 1278 is also endorsed by the following organizations: National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, Morning Star Institute, International Indian Treaty Council, Native American Rights Fund, American Indian Movement--West, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Americans for Indian Opportunity, Capitol Area Indian Resources, Inc., American Indian Studies--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property--American University, Alianza Indigena Sin Fronteras (Indigenous Alliance Without Borders), National Indian Education Association, Native American Finance Officers Association, and Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism. These organizations have indicated in letters of support for H.R. 1278 that the ``R-word'' continues to have damaging effects in the Native American community.

H.R. 1278 would cancel existing federal registrations for trademarks using the ``R-word.'' It would also deny registration for new trademarks incorporating the ``R-word.'' As in the decision made by TTAB in 1999, it ruled, in fact, that the ``R-word'' was a disparaging term.

As an avid sports fan, I applaud the excellence in athleticism and leadership demonstrated by our professional athletes both on and off the field. I am also very proud of the many Samoans and Pacific Islanders who have had much success in sports, particularly in the NFL. While I acknowledge the D.C. professional football team's many achievements, I have grave reservations concerning their name.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that H.R. 1278 is not an attempt to censor or remove the freedom of the D.C. professional football team to use the ``R-word'' in its franchise. Rather, this legislation seeks to reinforce governing law that prohibits federal registration for disparaging terms, like the ``R-word.'' It is unfortunate that the federal government, which has a special trust relationship with Native Americans, continues to protect this racial slur.

It is my hope that H.R. 1278 will advance the dialogue regarding the ``R-word'' among our legislators. I also invite those with a vested interest in this issue, including the owner of the D.C. professional football team, to bring their concerns to the table.

Mr. Speaker, in an ignorant display of defiance, NFL owner Dan Snyder vowed to continue his racist use of the offensive term ``redskins'' for his Washington team when he stated, ``We'll never change the name. NEVER--you can use caps.''

For historical purposes and in response to Mr. Snyder's unceasing, racist rants which disrespect Native Americans across this land who oppose the use of this derogatory term, I rise today to share with my colleagues and submit an editorial I recently co-authored with Suzan Harjo, a noted Native American rights advocate, entitled ``Change Will Prevail''.

[From The Hill, Sept. 9, 2014]

Change Will Prevail

(By Eni F.H. Faleomavaega and Suzan Shown Harjo)

In 1933 George Preston Marshall renamed his team the

Washington Redskins, previously known as the Washington

Braves, to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves. He did not

seek federal trademark protection for the name until 1967,

when students were trying to rid Oklahoma, Dartmouth,

Stanford and other schools of their race-based stereotypes

and were using the example of the Washington team name as the

worst in the country. The United States Patent and Trademark

Office (USPTO) wrongly granted him and later owners six

trademark licenses for this racial slur.

Some suggest this action was in violation of the Trademark

Act of 1946, or the Lanham Act, which directs the USPTO to

refuse to register trademarks that ``may disparage . . .

persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national

symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.'' In 1999

and again this year, the USPTO's trademark judges canceled

the existing federal trademarks, pending appeal, and its

examining attorneys have denied a dozen requests for new

trademarks.

While pundits on both sides of the argument dispute its

origins, the term ``redskins'' is reminiscent of colonial

times when, by governmental decree, Native Americans were

hunted, killed, and scalped for bounty. The struggle to rid

the sports world of this disgusting term is about that

heinous history of commodifying native skins.

In June of this year, the USPTO responded favorably to a

petition filed by five young Native Americans, holding that

the offending trademarks, owned by Pro-Football, Inc, (the

entity that owns and operates the Washington franchise) were

``disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times

they were registered.'' We applaud the USPTO's cancellation

of the six federal trademark registrations that use this

disparaging term.

Foreseeing that current owner Dan Snyder would appeal the

USPTO decision just like he did in 1999, historic legislation

was introduced in the House of Representatives that would

permanently clarify the Lanham Act to ensure that the

derogatory term will never receive federal trademark

protection again. H.R. 1278, the Non-Disparagement of Native

American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of

2013, now has more than 20 co-sponsors.

As early as May 13, 2013, 10 members of the House also sent

a joint letter to Snyder and

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell expressing the necessity for

H.R. 1278 and urging a name change for the Washington

franchise. Members of the Senate later solidified support by

sending a similar letter to the NFL on May 24, 2014.

The clarion call by Native American tribal leaders and

organizations to end the shameful legacy of this despicable

term can no longer be ignored. Members of the House and

Senate have spoken. President Obama thinks the name should be

changed. So does U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. U.S.

District Judge Peter J. Messitte held: ``the Court will

refrain from using the team name unless reference is made to

a direct quote where the name appears.'' Bob Costas,

Christine Brennan and other notable journalists, athletes and

political figures have joined the effort to rid the NFL of

this denigrating word. The Washington Post will no longer use

the offensive word in its editorials. The New York Daily News

refuses to acknowledge the word in its publications. Even an

entire network--CBS--has decided not to dictate the use of

this term on the air, allowing its announcers to stop using

the term during NFL broadcasts this season.

You can use caps. Change will prevail. Until it does, we

call upon the NFL to stop perpetuating racism against Native

Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to decry the disparaging name of the National Football League's Washington, D.C., franchise, the Redskins, which I will refer to as the ``R-word.'' For decades, Native American leaders and organizations have advocated for an end to the use of the ``R-word'' as the Washington franchise's ``brand'' because it is derogatory, it is demeaning, and patently offensive.

Recently, 10 of our colleagues explained the violent history and disparaging nature of the ``R-word'' in a letter to Mr. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL. In what can only be deemed as an insensitive and ignorant response, Mr. Goodell justifies the Washington franchise's name by claiming that neither the intent nor the use of the name was ever meant to denigrate American Indians. Then, in a dismissive manner, Mr. Goodell further declares that the ``R-word'' has a positive meaning and represents many positive attributes.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, a cochair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who states that Mr. Goodell's letter ``is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Mr. Dan Snyder,'' owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever-larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multibillion-dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that `Redskin' actually stands for strength, courage, pride and respect is a statement of absurdity,'' and a total lack of appreciation of the culture of the Native American community.

I also join, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, the cochair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, my dear friend and colleague, a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Congressman Tom Cole, when he says:

This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political

correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive.

This isn't like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of

respect, and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our

population. They just don't happen to live around Washington,