>> MARY: EARLIER THIS SESSION, BOTH CHAMBERS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF CHANGES TO THE MINNESOTA INDIAN FAMILY PRESERVATION ACT, ENSHRINING PROTECTIONS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES INTO STATE LAW.

SENATOR MARY KUNESH IS THE LEAD AUTHOR OF THAT BILL IN THE SENATE, AND SHE'S HERE TO TELL US MORE ABOUT WHAT THOSE CHANGES MEAN FOR NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES.

A LOT OF HISTORY ON THE SHOW TONIGHT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACT AND WHY IT WAS NECESSARY.

>> SURE.

WELL, THE ACT IS CALLED THE MINNESOTA INDIAN FAMILY PRESERVATION ACT AND IT'S THE MINNESOTA VERSION OF IKWA, INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AND THAT IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT PROTECTS OUR KIDS FROM BEING REMOVED FROM FAMILIES, THEIR FAMILIES AT SUCH HIGH RATES HISTORICALLY, AND WHEN WE HEARD ABOUT A COURT CASE COMING THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE KNEW THAT WE HAD TO SHORE UP OUR MINNESOTA INDIAN FAMILY, PRESERVATION ACT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

SO IT'S LIKE A MINI MINNESOTA ICWA, IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE '80s BUT WE KNEW THAT WE NEEDED TO GO THROUGH, REFRESH IT AND ENSURE THAT WE HAD THOSE PROTECTIONS.

>> Mary: WATCHING THIS BILL COME THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, IT WAS DIFFICULT.

IT WAS PAINFUL.

>> EAH.

>> Mary: THERE WAS A LOT OF TOUGH TESTIMONY.

TELL S ABOUT SOME OF THE PAIN ASSOCIATED WITH HAD HISTORY.

>> WELL, WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IS THAT OUR NATIVE KIDS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FROM ALMOST THE VERY BEGINNING IN AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO CIVILIZE THEM, TO DESTROY -- IT'S A BASIC GENOCIDE IN THE EARLY 1900s, OVER 20,000 KIDS WERE REMOVED AND BY 1924, THREE TIMES THAT AMOUNT OF KIDS WERE REMOVED, AND SO WE HEARD THOSE STORIES FROM FAMILIES, FROM FAMILY MEMBERS WHO -- IT WASN'T JUST THEIR GREAT AUNT OR GREAT UNCLE OR THEIR GRANDPA, IT WAS THEIR MOTHERS AND UNCLES AND SISTERS.

>> Mary: IT'S NOT OLD HISTORY, THIS IS NOT FAR REMOVED FROM CURRENT PEOPLE.

>> CORRECT.

IN 1958 AND THE '60s, THEY WERE STILL REMOVING OUR NATIVE KIDS AT THESE INCREDIBLY HIGH NUMBERS AND MUTING THEM INTO THE FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ERA.

THERE IS A PHENOMENA CALLED THE '60s SCOOP HERE DOING THE '60s, THEY LILT LITERALLY WOULD GO INTO THE HOMES AND REMOVE ALL THOSE CHILDREN FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF REASON AND THEN PUT THEM INTO THE FOSTER CARE, ULTIMATELY ADOPTION IN AN EFFORT TO REMOVE THEIR CULTURE.

>> Mary: AND WHAT DOES THAT DO GENERATIONALLY WHEN CULTURE AND CONNECTIONS ARE REMOVED?

>> WELL, IT DESTROYS THE FAMILY, IT DESTROYS THE COMMUNITY.

YOU LOSE YOUR CULTURAL IDENTITY.

FOR EXAMPLE, MY GRANDFATHER WAS BORN ON THE STANDING ROCK RESERVATION AND CAME TO St. PAUL AS A YOUNG MAN, AND BECAUSE OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION, HE WAS NOT OUTWARDLY, YOU KNOW, A NATIVE MAN, AND SO WE DIDN'T PICK UP ON A LOT OF OUR CULTURE UNTIL, AS WE GOT TO BE OLDER AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT'S STILL THERE, IT'S STILL ALIVE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE LANGUAGE GOES AWAY.

IT WAS ILLEGAL TO PRACTICE OUR RELIGION, SO THE RELIGION AND THE PRACTICES GO AWAY.

PARENTING.

PARENTS DON'T KNOW HOW TO PARENT ANYMORE BECAUSE THEIR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED SO THEY BUILD UP THAT MENTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EMOTIONAL WALL AND IT JUST -- IT'S HANDED DOWN GENERATION TO GENERATION AND T'S ALMOST LIKE YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND RELEARN HOW TO BECOME A PARENT AND HOW TO LOVE YOUR KID BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT AFRAID THAT YOUR CHILD'S GOING TO BE REMOVED ANYMORE.

>> Mary: I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BILL AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT BEING THE FIRST NATIVE WOMAN TO SERVE IN THE SENATE AND I ASKED YOU EARLIER IF YOU KNEW THE FIRST NATIVE PERSON, SKIP FINN WHO HAS A CONNECT TO YOU IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATURE.

EXPLAIN THAT.

>> SO REPRESENTATIVE JAMIE BECKER-FINN AND I WERE ELECTED IN HE VERY SAME YEAR AND IT WAS JUST THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS THAT I GOT O KNOW HER MOTHER AND HER FATHER BECAUSE THEY ARE HER MOTHER LIVED IN MY DISTRICT AND I CALLED HER UP TO SAY, HEY, YOU WANT TO SUPPORT ME AND SHE'S LIKE, OH, MY DAUGHTER IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE, TOO.

AND SO IT WAS THROUGH THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN THAT IRV A HAD -- I HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FORMER SENATOR.

>> Mary: WHAT WOULD HE THINK, HOW PROUD WOULD HE BE TO SEE THE TWO OF YOU WITH GAVELS, CHAIRING, LEADING THIS PLACE?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE WOULD EVEN BELIEVE THAT WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW AND IN THIS TIME, AND EVENTUALLY IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BUT FOR HIS DAUGHTER, LIKE YOU SAID, TO BE HOLDING A REALLY IMPORTANT GAVEL, MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY -- FOR OUR STATE, I THINK HE WOULD JUST BE BUS BUSTING WITH JOY.

>> Mary: QUICKLY, YOU HAVE A GAVEL, EDUCATION IS HUGE, HOW IS YOUR BUDGET LOOKING?

>> WE RECEIVED A PRETTY GOOD BUDGET, THE LARGEST BUDGETS IN THE SENATE.

OF COURSE, IT'S NEVER ENOUGH BUT WE ARE ABLE TO, I THINK, PUT TOGETHER A REALLY GOOD BUDGET THAT'S GOING TO FUND OUR CHOOLS IN A WAY IT HAS NEVER BEEN FUNDED, EVER, HISTORICALLY, AND AS A FORMER TEACHER, IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR ME TO MAKE SURE WE DO THAT.