A/HRC/21/47/Add.1 and proposed by the executive to extend protection for indigenous women against violence by, inter alia, enlarging the law enforcement capacities of tribal authorities. 99. Following up to the hearing on the Declaration held by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on 9 June 2011, Congress should hold hearings to educate its members about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to consider specific legislative measures that are needed to fully implement the rights affirmed therein. Attention should be paid to aspects of already existing legislation that should be reformed, and to new legislation that could advance needed measures of reconciliation. Consideration should also be given to providing judicial remedies for infringements of rights incorporated in the Declaration. 100. Congress should, in consultation with indigenous peoples, enact legislative reforms or altogether new legislation as required to achieve the reconciliation called for in its apology resolution of 2010. 101. Any legislation adopted by Congress should be in alignment with the human rights standards represented by the Declaration. To this end Congress should consider adopting a resolution affirming the Declaration as the policy of United States and declaring its resolve to exercise its power to advance the principles and goals of the Declaration. 102. At a minimum, Congress should continuously refrain from exercising any purported power to unilaterally extinguish indigenous peoples’ rights, with the understanding that to do so would be morally wrong and against United States domestic and foreign policy, and that it would incur responsibility for the United States under its international human rights obligations. The federal judiciary 103. The federal judiciary, in particular the United States Supreme Court, has played a significant role in defining the rights and status of indigenous peoples. While affirming indigenous peoples’ rights and inherent sovereignty, it has also articulated grounds for limiting those rights on the basis of colonial era doctrine that is out of step with contemporary human rights values. 104. Consistent with well-established methods of judicial reasoning, the federal courts should discard such colonial era doctrine in favour of an alternative jurisprudence infused with the contemporary human rights values that have been embraced by the United States, including those values reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, just as the Supreme Court looked to the law of nations of the colonial era to define bedrock principles concerning the rights and status of indigenous peoples, it should now look to contemporary international law, to which the Declaration is connected, for the same purposes. 105. Accordingly, the federal courts should interpret, or reinterpret, relevant doctrine, treaties and statutes in light of the Declaration, both in regard to the nature of indigenous peoples’ rights and the nature of federal power. The states of the United States 106. Although competency over indigenous affairs rests at the federal level, states of the United States exercise authority that in various ways affects the rights of indigenous peoples. Relevant state authorities should become aware of the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 22