    [Senate Hearing 110-686]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 110-686

                     S. 724, S. 514, S. 1058, AND H.R. 1294

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

     S. 724, LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS RESTORATION ACT OF 2007

           S. 514, MUSKOGEE NATION OF FLORIDA FEDERAL RECOGNITION ACT

     S. 1058, GRAND RIVER BANDS OF OTTAWA INDIANS OF MICHIGAN REFERRAL ACT

       H.R. 1294, THOMASINA E. JORDAN INDIAN TRIBES OF VIRGINIA FEDERAL
                            RECOGNITION ACT OF 2007

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

                        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    46-266 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2009

    ___________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
                     LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    KENT CONRAD, North Dakota            TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JON TESTER, Montana
          Allison C. Binney, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
         David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 25, 2008...............................     1
    Statement of Senator Dorgan......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................    12
        Letter from Hon. Mel Martinez................................    44
    Statement of Senator Tester......................................    12

                                   Witnesses

    Fleming, R. Lee, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, U.S.
      Department of the Interior.....................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Kaine, Hon. Timothy M., Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia.......     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Moran, Hon. James P., U.S. Representative from Virginia..........     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of
      Anthropology, Old Dominion University..........................    28
        Prepared statement with attachment...........................    29
    Sinclair, Hon. John, President, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
      Indians of Montana.............................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Tucker, Hon. Ann Denson, Chairwoman, Muscogee Nation of Florida..    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Virginia.......................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Yob, Hon. Ron, Chairman, Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians.....    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25

                                    Appendix

    Adams, Hon. Kenneth, Chief, Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................    71
    Adkins, Hon. Gene, Chief, Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern
      Division, prepared statement...................................    69
    Adkins, Hon. Stephen R., Chief, Chickahominy Indian Tribe,
      prepared statement.............................................    72
    Adkins, Wayne, President, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for
      Life, prepared statement.......................................    75
    Barton, Rev. Jonathan M., General Minister, Virginia Council of
      Churches, prepared statement...................................    67
    Steele, Jr., James, Chairman, Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders
      Council, letter to Senator Tester..............................    77
    Tucker, Hon. Ann Denson, prepared statement attachments..........    78
    Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Virginia, prepared statement
      with attachment................................................    49

                     S. 724, S. 514, S. 1058, AND H.R. 1294

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

                                           U.S. SENATE,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
    628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. This is a
    hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee. We are going to be
    considering four pieces of legislation today to provide Federal
    recognition to certain tribes in Virginia, Montana, Michigan,
    and Florida.
        I thank my colleagues for being here and we have three
    elected officials who are here to begin the testimony as
    witnesses today.
        The Committee has held two hearings to examine the Federal
    acknowledgment process. The four bills that we have before us
    would provide Federal recognition to nine Tribal groups who
    have partitions currently pending before the Administration.
        I think it is quite clear the process for acknowledgment is
    broken. These things take an unbelievably long time. We have
    had a lot of testimony about that. The costs are borne by the
    petitioning group, with no assistance from the Federal
    Government. The acknowledgment process has limited resources,
    limited staff, and limited funding.
        I will make some other comments about this in a few
    minutes. We have three elected officials here, including
    Governor Kaine, Congressman Moran, and Senator Webb. I would
    like to take their testimony and then we will break and come to
    the business meeting, which should just take us five minutes,
    and then we will have the other witnesses. That will be, I
    think, more convenient for the three of you. We very much
    appreciate your attendance and your desire to testify on behalf
    of legislation pending.
        Would that be satisfactory with you?
        Senator Murkowski. Absolutely. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso is on the phone; he has a
    portion of this business meeting. I think that is the way we
    will handle it.
        Governor Kaine, welcome to the Committee. We thank you for
    being here today with your colleagues.
        Governor Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The full statement of all three will be made
    a part of the permanent record, and we would recognize you,
    then our colleague Senator Webb, and then Congressman Moran.
        Governor Kaine. Excellent.

     STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF
                                VIRGINIA

        Governor Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. The testimony has been filed, so I will just
    summarize a couple of points.
        I first want to begin by thanking my Virginia colleagues
    here, Senator Webb and Congressman Moran, for their great
    advocacy on behalf of the Virginia tribes.
        Beginning in 1607, English settlers in Virginia began to
    interact with these great tribes of Virginia, and these stories
    are known to virtually all Americans, the stories of Pocahontas
    and Chief Powhatan, John Smith, John Rolfe, and others. It is
    not an exaggeration to say that the Jamestown Settlement that
    was the first English settlement in the New World would not
    have survived had it not been forbearance and actual assistance
    of these tribes to the English who settled in 1607.
        Yet, despite the fact that these stories of the interaction
    between English and these tribes are among the best known in
    our collective history, none of the Virginia tribes are among
    the 560-plus Federal tribes that have been recognized. I think
    there are two basic reasons for that. It seems like a kind of
    disharmony. I think there are two basic reasons why these
    tribes have not been recognized.
        First, they made peace and began to integrate into society
    in 1677. Before there was the United States of America, their
    treaties were with England. So England has recognized these
    tribes since 1677. But because they didn't enter into treaties
    with the United States Government, that has been a reason that
    they haven't been recognized. And I don't think, in retrospect,
    they should be penalized for having early decided to begin
    peaceful relations with the settlers who are our ancestors.
        The second reason is a more sinister reason. Beginning in
    the 1920s--and the Committee is well aware of these facts from
    earlier hearings, I know, and testimony--there was a
    practitioner, really, a promoter of the Eugenics movement in
    Virginia who became head of the State Bureau of Records, a guy
    by the name of Walter Plecker. Plecker ran this bureau under
    this fiat. The decision was made that all Virginians had to be
    identified either as white or colored.
        So the Indians, who had maintained their identity for these
    hundreds of years, were required to change their identity on
    all official documents to colored. If they did not, they were
    subject to criminal penalties, and many were actually
    imprisoned because of this. If members of Virginia Indian
    tribes wanted to marry as Indians, they had to leave the State
    to do so.
        So there was, for a period of 40 years, until this matter
    was struck down by the courts in the 1960s, an official State
    policy, sadly, to the shame of our Commonwealth, that
    systematically denied members of these Indian tribes their
    rightful ability to claim their heritage, and that has made the
    documentation for some of these tribes very difficult.
        To my way of understanding, and I am not a historian, but
    those are the two reasons why these tribes have never been
    recognized: they laid down arms and made peace in the 1670s and
    then their collective heritage was denied by Commonwealth
    policy during the 1900s.
        Beginning the 1980s, Virginia realized we need to clean the
    air and do the right thing, so these tribes have been
    recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia, beginning in 1983.
    But we are strongly of the notion that neither of those two
    reasons should be an obstacle to these tribes in obtaining
    recognition today.
        Virginians consider this a matter of fundamental justice
    and really an acknowledgment of the fact that we would not be
    the modern Virginia we were had these tribes not essentially
    supported, in those early years, the settlement at Jamestown
    Island. Relationships were uneasy, but there were a number of
    times where, had it not been for the support of these tribes,
    that Jamestown Settlement experiment would have ended, as had
    earlier experiments in Virginia.
        I will just conclude and tell a story. This has been a
    matter of real passion for me. I mentioned in my inaugural
    address wanting to finally turn the chapter and acknowledge
    these Indian tribes, but about a year after I was inaugurated
    in Williamsburg, I went to England on the commemoration of the
    sailing of the three ships that came to Jamestown Island in
    December of 1606, 400 years later I was in England, and my wife
    and I and my kids paid a visit to St. George Parish in
    Gravesend, which is where Pocahontas is buried.
        Pocahontas married the English tobacco planter, John Rolfe,
    went to England for a time, was presented at court, and then
    was getting ready to come back to Virginia, but when she was on
    the ship going down the Thames, became ill, was taken ashore
    and died in this little tiny community Gravesend, at the mouth
    of the Thames, where it empties into the English Channel.
        The English in that parish have taken care of her memory in
    exquisite way. There is a beautiful statute of Pocahontas
    outdoors; the chapel is dedicated to her; there are
    inscriptions of Pocahontas, she is buried underneath the
    chapel; and the English have cared for her in amazing ways. But
    as I was sitting in this chapel, thinking about her journey and
    this legacy of the American Indians in Virginia, I looked on
    either side of the alter there are two stain glass windows, and
    one is a stained glass window of Rebecca, which was Pocahontas'
    baptismal name; the other window was Ruth. And I looked at that
    and I was trying to remember from my history whether there was
    a Ruth in the Pocahontas story, and it suddenly struck me, no,
    there wasn't; it is the Old Testament Ruth from the Book of
    Ruth.
        I am sure you remember those great powerful words from the
    King James Bible. Naomi moved to a strange land and went with
    her husband and her sons, and her sons then married women from
    that strange land, Moab, foreign women. Her husband and sons
    died, so then Naomi is in this strange land with these
    daughters from the land and she decides to move back to Judea.
    And when she decides to move back, her daughters-in-law want to
    go back with her. She says, no, stay here, marry again, have
    more kids; and one of the daughters, Orpha, stays, but Ruth
    says, no--and these are the beautiful words: whither thou
    goest, I will go. Whither thou lodgest, I will dwell. Your
    people shall be my people. Your God shall be my God; and when
    you die, so there I will die and I will be buried.
        It is a great story, and obviously the Ruth window is in
    that chapel to signify the union not just of John Rolfe and
    Pocahontas, but the union of these Virginia Indians and these
    English settlers, and it strikes me that that is a fitting
    story about the union of these Virginia Indian tribes and
    Virginia. They have become part of us; they have been in our
    schools, they have worked in our fields, worked in our
    factories, served in all of our wars from the Revolution to the
    current day; they laid down arms and made peace with those who
    came to Virginia beginning in the 1670s.
        And it just strikes me that that is worth something, that
    that has a value, and that there ought to be an acknowledgment
    of these hundreds of years of living peacefully; and this is
    something that Virginians--not just Virginia Indians, but
    Virginians--very, very much want to do.
        Britain has recognized these tribes since 1670 and Virginia
    finally realized we needed to do it in the 1980s we got onboard
    and recognized these tribes, and it is our earnest, earnest
    hope that the Federal Government will recognize them as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Governor Kaine follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of
                                    Virginia
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of
    Federal Recognition for Virginia's Native American Tribes. We are proud
    of Virginia's Native Tribes and the contribution their communities have
    made to our Commonwealth and the Nation.
        I am here today because recognition of these Tribes by the Federal
    Government is long overdue.
        As a part of my Inaugural Address on January 14, 2006 at the
    Colonial Capital in Williamsburg, Virginia, I stated:

            ``Our Virginia might not exist today were it not for the
            generosity extended to those first settlers by the native
            Virginia tribes living in this region. Without the hospitality
            of Chief Powhatan . . . those in Jamestown would have perished.
            . .  And, we should use this historic time to help those who
            first helped us by working with the Federal Government to see
            that Virginia's native Indian tribes are finally recognized.''

        Almost immediately after first landing at Jamestown in 1607, the
    early English settlers and explorers came into contact with the
    Virginia Tribes living throughout Eastern Virginia. While the
    relationship between the Native Tribes and the English settlers was not
    always easy, there can be little doubt that had it not been for
    accommodations on both sides, the settlement would not have survived.
    Indeed, Virginia's Native American Tribes played an integral role in
    helping the settlers survive those first harsh winters.
        One year after the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English
    Settlement at Jamestown, it is especially tragic that these tribes
    still have not received equal status with the 562 other Federally
    Recognized Tribes in the United States.
        How can we commemorate their history and not recognize their
    existence? Now is the time to reconcile history. Let us, once and for
    all, honor their heritage. A heritage, I might add, that has been
    sorely tested by centuries of racial hostility and state-sanctioned
    coercive actions.
        The eight Virginia Tribes--the Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy,
    Mattaponi, Monacan Indian Nation, Nansemond, Pamunkey, Rappahannock and
    the Upper Mattaponi--are unique. Unlike most tribes that obtained
    federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal
    Government, tribes in Virginia signed their peace treaties with the
    British Monarchy.

       Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between
            Virginia's Tribes and Charles the II--well before the
            establishment of the United States. This treaty has been
            recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the
            past 331 years when the Governor of Virginia accepts tribute
            from the Tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the State
            Capitol.

        However, while the Virginia Tribes have received official
    recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and
    officially recognized status from the federal government has been
    considerably more difficult due to systematic mistreatment over the
    past century.
    Recent History of Tribal Recognition Issue in Virginia
        For 34 years, from 1912 to 1946, Walter Ashby Plecker, at the
    Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics, led an effort to actively destroy
    vital records and evidence of Indian existence in the Commonwealth.
        This practice was supported when the eugenics movement was endorsed
    by Virginia Universities and the Virginia General Assembly enacted the
    Racial Integrity Act in 1924--a race based statue that forced all
    segments of the population to be registered at birth in one of two
    categories ``white'' or ``colored''. From that point on no reference
    was allowed for other ethnic distinctions and no reference was allowed
    for Indian Tribal peoples in Virginia. Members of Virginia's Tribes
    were denied their identities as Native peoples.
        Essentially, Virginia declared, by law and the systematic altering
    of key documents, that there were no Indians in the Commonwealth as of
    1924. The passage of these race based statutes in Virginia made it
    criminal for Native peoples to claim their Indian Heritage. For
    instance, married couples were denied marriage certificates or even
    forbidden to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital
    until they changed their ethnicity on the state record to read
    ``colored.''

       Ironically, 1924 is the same year that the Federal
            Government guaranteed Native Americans full citizenship and the
            corollary right to vote.

        The Racial Integrity Act was not struck down by the Federal Courts
    until 1967.
        From 1983-1989 each Tribe gained official Recognition in the
    Commonwealth of Virginia.
        In 1997, then Governor George Allen signed legislation
    acknowledging the ``paper genocide'' of Indians in Virginia. This
    legislation provided that state records be corrected that had been
    deliberately altered to list Virginia Indians on official state
    documents as ``colored.'' In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly
    adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation
    recognizing the Virginia Tribes.
        Each of the tribes have also petitioned the U.S. Department of
    Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for official
    recognition under the process set forth in 25 CFR Part 83, ``Procedures
    for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian
    Tribe.'' The Virginia Tribes have also submitted letters of intent and
    partial documentation to petition for Federal acknowledgment.
        Unfortunately, these applications have been denied as incomplete.
    Without proper records and complete documentation the Tribes cannot
    fulfill the requirements of the BIA process.
        Helen Rountree, noted anthropologist and expert on Native-Americans
    in Virginia, has spent her life documenting the Virginia Tribes.
    Through her thorough analysis and research the Commonwealth of Virginia
    was provided with sufficient authentication to officially recognize
    these tribes. I believe that that research should also be sufficient to
    address the damage of the Racial Integrity Act era and meet the BIA's
    criteria.
    Need for Congressional Action
        It is clear that political action is needed to remedy what
    bureaucracies cannot fix. Justice begs for a congressional response.
        Six of the Tribes first came to Congress seeking recognition in
    1999. They joined together to request Congressional action on their
    application for Federal Acknowledgement through the ``Thomasina E.
    Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act'' (this year
    it is H.R. 1294).
        The six Tribes view Federal recognition as a basic issue of
    equality with the other 562 tribes.
        Under the United States Constitution Indian Commerce Clause,
    Congress has the authority to recognize a ``distinctly Indian
    community'' as an Indian tribe. I believe that the Tribes' situation
    clearly distinguishes them as excellent candidates for Congressional
    action.
        Under H.R. 1294, the six Tribes would finally, and at long last, be
    granted federal recognition. At the same time, I feel that the
    safeguards provided in this legislation would address some Virginians'
    concerns about Class III style gaming in the Commonwealth. Indeed, this
    legislation would give both the Governor and the General Assembly
    strict control over any possibility of the development of Indian
    Gaming.
        I commend the committee for giving its time and attention to the
    Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.
    I would like to especially thank Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND) for his
    leadership on this important issue.
        I would also like to thank Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) for his
    important work on behalf of the native peoples of Virginia and his
    testimony today. I am also heartened by the bipartisan Virginia
    Delegation support for H.R. 1294 and thank Representatives Jim Moran
    (D-VA), Tom Davis (R-VA), and Bobby Scott (D-VA) for their original co-
    sponsorship of the legislation.
        It is time for these Virginia native peoples to be recognized by
    their own country. Recognition of the Tribes of Virginia is long
    overdue.
        Congress has the power to recognize these Tribes. It has exercised
    this power in the past, and it should exercise this power again with
    respect to our Virginia Tribes. Our recent commemoration of the 400
    years of modern Virginia history will be incomplete without successful
    Federal recognition of these Virginia Tribes.
        It is time to finally right an historic wrong for Virginia and the
    Nation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
    issue and I welcome your questions.

        The Chairman. Governor, thank you very much for your
    eloquent testimony. We appreciate you being at the Committee
    today.
        Next we will hear from Senator Jim Webb.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

        Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
    Senator Tester. I do appreciate your willingness to hold this
    hearing so late in the Congress, and I am really pleased to be
    joined here by Governor Kaine. There is not a whole lot on the
    persuasion side that I could add to what he just said. I am
    also pleased to be here with Congressman Jim Moran, who has
    been a long-time supporter of this proposition.
        This is not a new issue for your Committee.
        First of all, I have a longer piece of testimony that I
    would ask be submitted for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Senator Webb. And I understand the reluctance from Congress
    to grant this type of recognition, as opposed to the usual BIA
    administrative process. I just want to assure you that I have
    not taken this issue lightly, that I agree in principle that
    Congress generally should not be determining whether or not
    native tribes deserve Federal recognition, but this is a fairly
    unique situation, as Governor Kaine laid out.
        I spent a good bit of time, over several months, asking
    hard questions about these particular issues and the issue of
    lineal descent and record-keeping and the miscegenation laws in
    Virginia, and many barriers that were placed against these
    particular tribes that you don't really see in the cases that
    you have coming before you.
        For those reasons, I became a strong proponent that this
    sort of recognition should be given and should be given by the
    Congress. It is almost impossible--it is not just lengthy, it
    is almost impossible for this particular situation to be solved
    through the regular BIA process, and that is the reason that I
    joined my colleagues several months ago in urging this
    legislation be passed and that is the reason that I am here
    today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Webb follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senator from Virginia
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am honored
    to be here today to show my strong support for the ``Thomasina E.
    Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007''
    (H.R. 1294). I am pleased to be joined by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
    and Congressman Jim Moran, both of whom have been strong advocates for
    Virginia's Native American Tribes. I would also like to acknowledge and
    thank the Chief's of the six Virginia tribes and all the members
    present here today.
        I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing. This is not a
    new issue for this Committee and you have heard support for these six
    Virginia tribes from many individuals throughout the 15 years since
    they began seeking federal recognition. These six tribes are the
    Chickahominy, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper
    Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond Indian
    Tribe.
        I am here today to urge the Committee to approve legislation
    recognizing the six Virginia tribes that began the administrative
    recognition process so long ago. The tribes covered by this bill gained
    state recognition in the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983 and
    1989. I believe it is appropriate for them to finally receive the
    federal recognition that has been denied for far too long.
        Mr. Chairman, I understand the reluctance from Congress to grant
    any Native American tribe federal recognition through legislation
    rather than through the BIA administrative process. I have not taken
    this issue lightly, and agree in principle that Congress generally
    should not have to determine whether or not Native American tribes
    deserve federal recognition.
        Earlier this year the BIA's Office of Federal Acknowledgment came
    out with new guidelines on implementing the criteria to determine
    federal recognition. While I applaud improvements to the process, this
    still does not change the impact that racially hostile laws formerly in
    effect in Virginia had on these tribes' ability to meet the BIA's seven
    established recognition criteria.
        Virginia's unique history and its harsh policies of the past have
    created a barrier for Virginia's Native American Tribes to meet the BIA
    criteria, even with the new guidelines. Many Western tribes experienced
    government neglect during the 20th century, but Virginia's story was
    different.
        First, Virginia passed ``race laws'' in 1705, which regulated the
    activity of Virginia Indians. In 1924, Virginia passed the Racial
    Integrity Law, and the Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics went so far
    as to eliminate an individual's identity as a Native American on many
    birth, death and marriage certificates. The elimination of racial
    identity records had a harmful impact on Virginia's tribes, when they
    began seeking Federal recognition.
        Second, Virginia tribes signed a treaty with England, predating the
    practices of most tribes that signed a treaty with the Federal
    Government.
        For these reasons, I strongly believe that recognition for these
    six Virginia tribes is justified based on principles of dignity and
    fairness. As I mentioned, I have spent several months examining this
    issue in great detail, including the rich history and culture of
    Virginia's tribes. My staff and I asked a number of tough questions,
    and great care and deliberation were put into arriving at this
    conclusion. After meeting with leaders of Virginia's Indian tribes and
    months of thorough investigation of the facts, I concluded that
    legislative action is needed for recognition of Virginia's tribes.
    Congressional hearings and reports over the last several Congresses
    demonstrate the ancestry and status of these tribes.
        On May 2007, the House overwhelming passed the Thomasina E. Jordan
    Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, with bipartisan
    support. This bill has advanced further this year than it has in the
    past several Congresses with the strong support and tireless efforts of
    Congressman Jim Moran. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and the Virginia
    legislature support federal recognition for these tribes. I look
    forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, especially those
    on the Indian Affairs Committee, to push for passage of this important
    bill. Congress has exercised its power to recognize tribes in the past
    and I ask you to use this power to grant federal recognition to these
    six Virginia tribes.
        Last year, we celebrated the 400th Anniversary of Jamestown--
    America's first colony. After 400 years since the founding of
    Jamestown, these six tribes deserve to join our nation's other 562
    federally-recognized tribes.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. I
    respectfully request that this Committee pass this bill as soon as
    possible.

        The Chairman. Senator Webb, thank you very much.
        Finally, we will hear from Congressman Moran.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN,
                   U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA

        Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Senator. I really
    appreciate my two friends, Governor Kaine and Senator Webb,
    testifying on this.
        I also greatly respect your position, Mr. Chairman, that
    the legislative process is not the ideal way to determine the
    legitimacy of Native American Tribes, but our point is there
    really is a uniqueness here with these Virginia tribes. First
    of all, most Native American Tribes gained their recognition
    when they signed an agreement with the United States
    Government.
        When they signed these peace treaties, that established
    their legitimacy. These tribes signed their peace treaties with
    the King of England; the principal one was in 1667 with Charles
    II. It has been recognized for 332 years both in Virginia and
    in England. So there is a uniqueness because they date all the
    way back, as both the Governor and Senator have said, to when
    the English settlers arrived on the shores of Virginia.
        We were hoping we could get this done by the 400th
    anniversary of Jamestown. We missed it, but we can't give up on
    it. But the second reason goes to a very shameful part of
    Virginia's history. There was a paper genocide that occurred.
    The officials in Virginia deliberately expunged the records,
    they destroyed the official records and most of the private
    records. I have a statement that gets into the whole thing,
    but, basically, a lot of Virginia's ruling elite claim to be
    blood descendants of Pocahontas, and in their view that meant
    that no one else in Virginia could make a claim that they were
    Native American or a descendant of Pocahontas because to do so
    would mean that Virginia's ruling elite would have to be
    classified as all other non-whites were, which was--and this
    was the law--the inferior Negroid race.'' This was what it was
    about.
        And with enormous hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed
    policies, got them passed, and it culminated with the Racial
    Integrity Act of 1924, and in Orwellian fashion they destroyed
    the State and local courthouse records, and that really has
    meant that it has been almost impossible for these tribes to
    establish their legitimacy because the courthouse records just
    aren't there anymore.
        I think any of the tribes would be hard-pressed to show
    that they have endured the same kind of thing that has happened
    to these Native American Tribes. It wasn't until 1967 that that
    law was taken off the book. Granted, this is Virginia's
    problem. I think it is pretty clear Virginia has come a long
    way, and we may even go even further in November----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Moran. --but this is something we have got to rectify.
    We have got to rectify this, Mr. Chairman. It really is unique.
    These tribes are so deserving; they are good people. We have
    even got language in the bill that says that they can't gamble.
    I mean, this is such tight language, I can't believe that they
    have accepted it, but that is the reality. This is about their
    pride and about their heritage and what they leave as a legacy
    to their children and grandchildren.
        So that is why we are here and we really hope that we can
    get this bill into law. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. James P. Moran, U.S. Representative from
                                    Virginia
        Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee.
        I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing and to provide
    me and my colleagues from Virginia with an opportunity to testify. My
    message is straightforward and simple: Congress must grant Virginia's
    historic tribes federal recognition. It can and it should do so. It has
    the authority, and there is precedent. Doing so will also help right a
    wrong, a grave injustice, that has been perpetrated for centuries.
        Last year marked the 400th anniversary of the first permanent
    English settlement in the New World at Jamestown. The forefathers of
    the tribal leaders who are in this room today were the first to welcome
    the English, and during the first few years of settlement, ensured
    their survival. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the
    settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who resisted
    quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up
    through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S.
    citizens.
        Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia
    Indians survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their
    story of survival doesn't span just one century, it spans four
    centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned
    actions.
        The Virginia tribes' history, however, diverges from that of most
    Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the
    Virginia tribes were never recognized by the Federal Government; the
    second explains why congressional action is needed today.
        First, unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained
    federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal
    Government, Virginia's tribes signed their peace treaties with the
    Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 with
    Charles II. This Thanksgiving, the Virginia tribes will fulfill their
    commitment to that treaty, as they have every year for the past 332
    years, by providing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine with game and produce
    as tribute in a ceremony at the State Capitol. This may be the longest
    celebrated treaty in the United States.
        In the intervening years between 1677 and the birth of this nation,
    however, these six tribes were dispossessed of most of their land. They
    were never in a position to negotiate with and receive recognition from
    our nascent federal government. Two years ago, the English government
    reaffirmed its recognition of the Virginia tribes hosting them at
    ceremonies in England. Sadly, as we concluded the 400th anniversary of
    Jamestown, these same Virginia tribes remain unrecognized by our
    Federal Government. This is a travesty this Committee can correct.
        The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they
    experienced at the hands of the state government during the first half
    of the 20th Century. It has been called a ``paper genocide.'' At a time
    when the Federal Government granted Native Americans the right to vote,
    Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at
    those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white
    society. The fact that some of Virginia's ruling elite claimed to be
    blood descendants of Pocahontas in their view meant that no one else in
    Virginia could make a claim they were Native American and a descendent
    of Pocahontas' people. To do so would mean that Virginia's ruling elite
    were what they decreed all non-whites to be: part of ``the inferior
    Negroid race.''
        With great hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed policies that
    culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This
    act directed state officials, and zealots like Walter Plecker, to
    destroy state and local courthouse records and reclassify in Orwellian
    fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans
    with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity.
        To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a
    jail sentence of up to one year. In defiance of the law, members of
    Virginia's tribes traveled out of state to obtain marriage licenses or
    to serve their country in wartime. The law remained in effect until it
    was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period
    between 1924 and 1967, state officials waged a war to destroy all
    public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native
    Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state
    compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian
    identity.
        All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with
    the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a
    very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one
    fraught with complications that officials from the bureau have
    acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The
    acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable
    delays, and lacking in dignity. Virginia's paper genocide only further
    complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it
    difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and
    aggravating the injustice already visited upon them.
        It wasn't until 1997, when Governor George Allen signed legislation
    directing state agencies to correct state records, that the tribes were
    given the opportunity to correct official state documents that had
    deliberately been altered to list them as ``colored.'' The law allows
    living members of the tribes to correct their records, but the law
    cannot correct the damage done to past generations or to recover
    documents that were purposely destroyed during the ``Plecker era.''
        In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling
    upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. I
    am pleased to have honored that request, and beginning in 2000 and in
    subsequent sessions, Virginia's Senators and I have introduced
    legislation to recognize the Virginia tribes.
        There is no doubt that the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy,
    the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi
    tribes exist. These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since
    before the first European settlers stepped foot in America. They are
    here with us today. Helen Rountree, who will testify today, has spent
    her career verifying their history and their existence. Her
    publications are well known and well regarded. Her expertise on
    Virginia tribes cannot be matched at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        I know there is resistance in Congress to grant any Native American
    tribe federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of
    gambling and its economic and moral dimensions has influenced many
    Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues. The six Virginia
    tribes are not seeking federal legislation so that they engage in
    gaming. They find this assertion offensive to their moral beliefs. They
    are seeking federal recognition because it is an urgent matter of
    justice and because elder members of their tribes, who were denied a
    public education and the economic opportunities available to most
    Americans, are suffering and should be entitled to the federal health
    and housing assistance available to federally recognized tribes.
        To underscore this point, the legislation I introduced, as approved
    by the House, includes restrictive language that would prevent the
    tribes from engaging in gaming on their federal land even if everyone
    else in Virginia were allowed to engage in Class III casino-type
    gaming. I remain puzzled that objections are still being raised that
    these tribes could somehow engage in gaming given the restrictive
    language that is now a part of this bill. Nevertheless, I remain
    willing and ready to work with you and my fellow Senate colleagues to
    find the right equation that is respectful of tribal sovereignty and
    rights and meets Members' concerns about this issue.
        The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, when it was chaired by Senator
    Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 2004, reported out a Virginia tribal
    recognition bill. At a hearing before this committee in 2006, Senator
    John McCain said that these tribes deserve recognition. Mr. Chairman,
    the Virginia tribes have waited too long, have come too far, to see
    their recognition bill die with the 110th Session of Congress. I also
    note that legislation to grant federal recognition to the North
    Carolina Lumbee tribe has been approved by this Committee.
        In the name of justice, I urge you to move this bill through
    Committee. And if we must adjourn before action on it is complete, I
    ask that you to make it your first priority in the next Congress.
        Thank you.

        The Chairman. Congressman Moran, thank you very much.
        I want to make a very brief comment before we excuse our
    witnesses. Senator Webb has been aggressively irritating on
    this subject for a long while,----
        Senator Webb. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. --as you know, on behalf of the interests and
    passion he has. He has been pushing and pushing very, very
    hard.
        I know that some have raised a question why are we holding
    a hearing this close to the end of the legislative session, and
    I want to explain to you why we are doing this. We have spent
    an enormous amount of time this year to get Indian health care
    out of the United States Senate, the first time in 17 years. We
    did that. It was very hard; it took a lot of the Committee's
    time. The Indian housing bill went through this Committee and
    the United States Senate. Also, we have spent much of the year
    working on a new groundbreaking piece of legislation on Indian
    law enforcement.
        So we have not done all we would like to do in other areas,
    and I scheduled this hearing, with the cooperation of Senator
    Murkowski, even though we are near the end of the session, so
    that, hopefully, in the first quarter when we get back next
    year, this Committee will take action and make decisions.
        It is not a secret that I would prefer that the recognition
    process at Interior be a workable process. I recognize,
    however, that it is a process that is broken, and I believe it
    is appropriate for this Committee to make decisions case-by-
    case in matters where equity would require the Committee to
    proceed. We have had congressional recognition in the past for
    some. You make a very persuasive and strong case. I know how
    strongly you feel about this. Senator Warner has asked that a
    statement that he has submitted be included for the record,
    which we will do by consent.
        But I want to thank you and thank members of your tribes
    and others who will testify today. Our purpose today is to
    continue and hopefully finalize the hearing records, and when
    we come back in a very few short months, begin to make the
    decisions that I want the Committee--and I know Senator
    Murkowski and Senator Tester feel as I do--to make. So let me
    thank you very much for your courtesy to come here today. Thank
    you.
        I want to call to the dais: Helen Rountree, Ron Yob, Ann
    Tucker, and John Sinclair. If they would come up to the witness
    table.
        Let me thank all of you for being here.
        Senator Murkowski, I did not give a full opening statement.
    Let me make a comment and just a couple of words, and if you
    wish to make a comment.
        I indicated that the acknowledgment process at the Federal
    level is largely broken. We have hearings on it. I do think
    that we have tribal leaders who come to Washington, D.C.
    frustrated and exhausted after decades of work, believing that
    they have made progress and, yet, receiving no answer.
        My preference is always to use the process that exists at
    Interior. I recognize that that is not always possible. I
    recognize the process itself is broken. So even as we are
    working with the Department of Interior, we are holding these
    hearings with several tribes that have come to us whose
    circumstances are different and unusual so we can consider
    action in the first quarter of next year.
        I just wanted to make that point.
        Senator Murkowski?

                   STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to follow up, I
    think we do recognize that the process is too slow, it is too
    cumbersome to recognize that you would have three decades,
    perhaps more, working to seek recognition. It is full-time
    employment for the lawyers, but not really a resolution to
    those that are seeking the redress, and we must find a better
    way to provide for this.
        We do recognize there has been a push in this direction
    with the Department of Interior publishing the additional
    guidance and directions, but we continue to hear that even with
    a recognition process that is more streamlined, perhaps more
    efficient, in an effort to improve the time line experiences,
    we still continue to hear from so many that the current
    administrative recognition process is insufficient, and we
    recognize this. We appreciate that it is excessively drawn out;
    it does have uneven application of the regulatory criteria.
        So, as the Chairman has noted, when it is not working
    within the agency, sometimes there must be a redress through
    the legislative process, and that is why we have those of you
    assembled before us here today. I know that this has been the
    second visit for some of you. We appreciate that. Again, we do
    want to do what we can from the legislative process to help
    advance, and having this hearing today puts clearly on the
    record the situation that so many of you have been in the midst
    of for so long. So I appreciate your time and your very
    diligent efforts and your willingness to come before the
    Committee this afternoon.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much.
        Senator Tester?

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
    guess we have been here before, and you folks have been here
    many, many times before. The Department of Interior isn't doing
    their job on this particular issue, it is quite obvious to me.
    You know, we have been through five Administrations, going on
    six, and, quite honestly, I have said this many times, they
    need to make a decision and tell you yes or no, instead of just
    demanding paperwork.
        I remember the last time you were here, John Sinclair, and
    you talked about the mountains of paperwork and the mountains
    of paperwork, and how this has become a generational thing now.
    Your father did this, probably your grandfather before him. But
    the truth is that the system is broken badly, and I don't know
    if it is because people in the agency aren't committed to make
    it work or if we have to develop something new, but it is not
    working. I agree with the Chairman that an act of Congress is
    not the way to get this job done, although, if we have to, we
    will. So we will go forward.
        I have a meeting I have to run to, but I really want to
    thank John Sinclair, the Chairman of the Little Shell Tribe in
    Montana, for his efforts and his commitment to this cause and
    his people, and appreciate your being here today and appreciate
    all you have gone through, because, quite frankly, I know it
    hasn't been easy for you. This bill that we are going to hear
    about today is sponsored by myself and Senator Baucus and
    Representative Rehberg, so we are all on the same sheet in
    Montana over this. It was in the State legislature when they
    passed resolution after resolution, encouraging the Federal
    Government to give the Little Shell recognition.
        So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Tester, thank you very much.
        Let me call on John Sinclair, who is President of the
    Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. President
    Sinclair, welcome. You may proceed.
        And let me just say for all four of you that your entire
    statements will be made a part of the permanent record. You may
    summarize.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT, LITTLE SHELL TRIBE
                     OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA

        Mr. Sinclair. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Dorgan
    and members of the Committee. On behalf of myself and the
    Little Shell Tribe of Montana, I extend a special greeting and
    heartfelt thanks to Senator Tester for his continued friendship
    and support of the Little Shell Tribe. I am accompanied by a
    tribal attorney in the Federal recognition process, Kim
    Godschalk. To the Committee, I express the Tribe's and my own
    appreciation for the opportunity to tell our story, a story
    that shows that justice and good policy behind Senator Tester's
    bill to recognize Little Shell Tribe, S. 724.
        In 1892, our leader, Chief Little Shell, rejected the terms
    of a Federal agreement that settled many Chippewas on
    reservations. Our people, who had fallen the buffalo herds into
    Montana, were left with no reservation and no means of
    subsistence, as the buffalo herds had largely died out. Because
    our ancestors had no reservation home and were so poor, they
    became known as the trash can Indiana or the landless Indians
    of Montana.
        In 1908, Congress first appropriate funds to acquire land
    for the landless Indians of Montana, which included our
    ancestors. Congress appropriated money for this purpose several
    more times. After the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in
    1934, the Department of Interior also promised a reservation
    home for the Little Shell people. But money was too short and
    our people never got the homeland they so often promised to us.
    So the tribe never received the service and benefits our people
    so badly need, service and benefits that our brothers, who
    accepted reservation life according to the terms of the 1892
    agreement, have long enjoyed.
        Because we were landless, we were viewed as unrecognized
    when the Department of Interior set up their federally
    acknowledgment process in 1978. We hoped, however, that this
    process would be the answer, but we were wrong. We have been in
    this process now for 30 years, and there is no certain end in
    sight. We have been caught in a bureaucratic twilight zone.
        Let me just give you a few dates to give you a flavor of
    what the Little Shell Tribe has been through with this process.
        In 1978, the Tribe first notified the BIA of our intent to
    petition for acknowledgment and spent the next 14 years
    collecting documents, doing genealogies, participating in
    technical assistance meetings with the BIA, and responding to
    numerous requests for yet more documents.
        In 1995, the BIA finally declared the Tribe's petition was
    ready for active consideration.
        In 1997, the BIA began active consideration of the Tribe's
    petition for recognition.
        In 2000, the BIA issued its proposed finding on the Tribe's
    petition for recognition.
        In 2005, the BIA told the Tribe to expect the last stage,
    the final determination on the Tribe's petition, in February of
    2007. This was extended to the end of 2008 and recently
    extended again until January 28, 2009.
        So 30 years after the Tribe began this process we are still
    waiting for the BIA to complete the process, and we have no
    faith that this most recent extension will be the last one. But
    it gets worse.
        In 2000, the BIA issued a favorable proposed finding on the
    Tribe's petition. In other words, the BIA concluded in 2000
    that the Tribe had met all the criteria for recognition under
    the regulations, and yet the Bureau asked for more documents,
    which we provided, and still we wait. In the meantime, we have
    lost a whole generation of Little Shell people, including
    recently my own father, who fought for recognition as President
    of the Tribe, just as I do now.
        Mr. Chairman, this is why the Little Shell Tribe needs
    Congress to step in. End the process and enact special
    legislation to recognize the Little Shell Tribe. Enactment of
    S. 724 is good, responsible Indian policy. After all, the BIA
    itself has said that the Little Shell Tribe meets the criteria
    for recognition, and it said so nearly eight years ago now.
    Justice to the Little Shell people requires the enactment of S.
    724. We have endured all these generations without the Federal
    status, reservation, and service that our Indian brothers in
    Montana have long enjoyed. It is time the Little Shell people
    received the same Federal status.
        I would like to end on this point. Every government in
    Montana knows the Little Shell people and agrees that justice
    requires recognition of the Tribe. The State of Montana and all
    local governments support S. 724, and all recognized tribal
    governments in the State support recognition of the Little
    Shell Tribe. Congress deals every day with difficult issues.
    This is not one of them. On behalf of the Little Shell people,
    I implore the Committee to move Senator Tester's bill forward.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sinclair follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. John Sinclair, President, Little Shell Tribe
                         of Chippewa Indians of Montana
        Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, our good friend Senator
    Jon Tester, and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S.
    724, a bill that would confirm the federal relationship between the
    Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and the United
    States, and address related issues.
        My name is John Sinclair and I have the honor of serving as
    President of the Little Shell Tribe. I follow in the footsteps of my
    father and grandfather in that honor and appear before you today in the
    same work at which they labored--the long effort to confirm federal
    recognition of the Little Shell Tribe. S. 724, introduced by our
    tireless champion Senator Tester, would accomplish this long sought
    goal for the Tribe. I urge the committee to act favorably on S. 724.
    The bill is consistent with Congress' and the Department of the
    Interior's historical commitments to acknowledge our people and
    establish a land base for them. This bill is necessary since our
    experience with the acknowledgment process administered by the Office
    of Federal Acknowledgment, Bureau of Indian Affairs, shows that the
    Department either cannot or will not bring that process to conclusion.
    And the terms of S. 724 show it to be a reasonable approach that would
    address, and thereby expedite, issues related to confirmation of the
    Tribe's federal status.
    The History of the Little Shell Tribe
        The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians is the successor in
    interest to the Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. We
    were buffalo hunters who lived and hunted around the Red River and the
    Turtle Mountains in North Dakota in the early 1800s. The Pembina Band
    was recognized by the United States in an 1863 treaty that was ratified
    by the Senate. See Treaty of October 2, 1863, 13 Stat. 667. After the
    treaty, some members of the Pembina Band settled on reservations in
    Minnesota but our ancestors followed the buffalo herds into western
    North Dakota and Montana, eventually settling in Montana and in the
    Turtle Mountains of North Dakota.
        In 1892, the United States authorized the creation of a commission
    to negotiate for a cession of land from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa
    and provide for their removal. Chief Little Shell and his followers
    walked out on the negotiations and refused to accept the terms of the
    eventual agreement. Some of Little Shell's followers moved to Montana
    and joined with other members of the Pembina Band who had settled in
    Montana; our collective Pembina ancestors came to be known as the
    ``Little Shell Band.'' When our traditional means of livelihood died
    with the buffalo herds, our ancestors were left to eke out an existence
    in a number of shantytowns across Montana. We became known as ``the
    trash-can Indian,'' or ``the landless Indians.'' Forced to live in
    communities which did not welcome us, our people faced severe racism
    and discrimination throughout Montana, some of which continues today.
        For one hundred years now, Congress has known of and attempted to
    address the plight of the Little Shell people. In 1908, Congress first
    appropriated funds to settle our people on a land base. 35 Stat. 84.
    Congress appropriated funds again in 1914 and, again, every year
    thereafter until 1925--all to provide a reservation land base on which
    to settle the ``homeless Indians in the State of Montana.'' The
    acquisition was never made and the Tribe never recognized.
        In the 1920s, newspaper articles chronicled the plight of our
    people. Our leaders pleaded for help for the destitute Little Shell
    people. Tribal leader Joseph Dussome asked Congress, ``Are we not
    entitled to a Reservation and allotments of land in our own County,
    just the same as other Indians are? '' Two weeks later, the Department
    of the Interior rejected our leader's plea:

            The Indians referred to are Chippewas of the Turtle Mountain
            Band. They were under the leadership of Little Shell who became
            dissatisfied with the treaties of the United States and the
            Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas. He accordingly refused to
            accede thereto . . . The disaffected band, by its failure to
            accede to the terms of the treaty and remove to the reservation
            is now unable to obtain any rights thereon for the reason that
            the lands of this band are all disposed of, and the rolls
            became final[.] . . . There is now no law which will authorize
            the enrollment of any of those people with the Turtle Mountain
            band for the purposes of permitting them to obtain either land
            or money.

        Letter of Asst. Secretary Scattergood, dated December 14, 1931.
    Three years later, however, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization
    Act [IRA], which provided a mechanism for groups of Indians like ours
    to organize and apply for land. In December 1935, the Commissioner of
    Indian Affairs took steps to organize our people under the IRA. The
    Commissioner proposed a form to enroll our people, stating:

            It is very important that the enrollment of homeless Indians in
            the State of Montana be instituted immediately, and it is
            proposed to use this form in the determination of Indians who
            are entitled to the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act.

        BIA Letter, December 23, 1935. This effort resulted in the Roe
    Cloud Roll, named after Dr. Henry Roe Cloud, an Interior official who
    played a large part in the project. Once the roll was complete, the
    Field Administrator clearly stated that the purpose of the roll was to
    settle our people and bring them under federal jurisdiction:

            The landless Indians whom we are proposing to enroll and settle
            on newly purchased land belong to this same stock, and their
            history in recent years is but a continuation of the history of
            wandering and starvation which formerly the Rocky Boy's band
            had endured.

            Out of the land purchase funds authorized by the Indian
            Reorganization Act, we are now purchasing about 34,000 acres
            for the settlement of these Indians and also to provide
            irrigated hay land for the Indians now enrolled on Rocky Boy's
            Reservation. The new land, if devoted wholly to that purpose,
            would take care of only a fraction of the homeless Indians, but
            it is our intention to continue this program through the years
            until something like adequate subsistence is provided for those
            who cannot provide for themselves. The first step in the
            programs is to recognize those Indians of the group who may
            rightfully make claim of being one-half degree, which is the
            occasion for presenting the attached applications. The fact of
            these people being Indian and being entitled to the benefits
            intended by Congress has not been questioned.

        Roe Cloud Roll applications, 1937. The Department of the Interior
    never fulfilled this promise. The limited resources available to
    acquire land were expended for tribes already recognized. In 1940,
    Senator James Murray requested Interior to fulfill its promise of land
    for the Little Shell Band. Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman responded
    that his office was ``keenly aware of the pressing need of the landless
    Chippewa Cree Indians of Montana. The problem thus far has been dealt
    with only in a very small way. I sincerely hope that additional funds
    will be provided for future purchases in order that the larger problem
    remaining can be dealt with in a more adequate manner.'' Unfortunately,
    the Federal Government's efforts to assist the Little Shell Tribe gave
    way during the termination era of the 1950s to the termination policy,
    and, as a result, the land promised for our people was never
    forthcoming.
    Recent Experience With the Office of Federal Acknowledgment [OFA]
        When the Department of the Interior adopted regulations
    establishing an administrative process to acknowledge Indian tribes in
    1978, once again the Little Shell people had hope. We hoped that the
    Department's process would finally bring to conclusion the Tribe's long
    effort to achieve federal recognition. The administrative process has
    turned out to be just another cruel hoax on the Little Shell people. We
    began work on through this new process in 1978 and, thirty years later,
    it still has not been completed.
        For years after its initial submission, the Tribe researched its
    history and community to establish the seven mandatory criteria under
    the regulations. We had numerous technical assistance meetings with the
    staff and responded to requests for additional information. Finally,
    nearly twenty years later in 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    declared that the Tribe's petition was ready for active consideration.
        However, a ``ready for active consideration'' designation does not
    mean that the OFA will commence its review; it only means that you get
    into line. Active consideration begins only when the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs has time to commence active consideration. In our case, that
    was 1997, two years after the petition was declared ready for active.
    At that point, we hoped that we were at least on the road toward
    completion of the process. Once again, we were wrong.
        On July 24, 2000, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finally issued the
    proposed finding on the Tribe's petition. The proposed finding found
    that the Tribe had met all the seven mandatory criteria and should be
    recognized--but this was not the end of the process. It merely
    triggered the next step--which is public comment on the proposed
    finding and review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of those public
    comments as part of its final determination.
        The Tribe takes very little comfort in the favorable proposed
    finding. Although the Department found that the Tribe met all the
    mandatory criteria, the Department ``encouraged'' the Tribe to submit
    more documentation. No significant evidence was submitted in opposition
    to the favorable proposed finding. Unlike many other cases, neither the
    State of Montana nor any local government submitted adverse comments on
    the proposed favorable finding for the Little Shell Tribe. But the
    Department made clear that it preferred that the Tribe submit
    additional records for certain time periods before the 1930s. We took
    the Department's suggestion to heart, submitting approximately 1,000
    pages of additional reports and appendices supported by several boxes
    of documentation.
        We are still waiting for the Department's final determination on
    the Tribe's petition. The Director of OFA advised a federal court in
    June 2005 that OFA expected to issue its Final Determination on Little
    Shell in February 2007. See 8th Declaration of Lee Fleming, Mashpee
    Wampanoag Tribal Council v. Norton, Case No.1:01CV00111 (D.D.C.) This
    did not happen. Then, OFA advised the Tribe in writing to expect the
    commencement of active consideration on the final determination on
    August 1, 2007. This did not happen, either. Instead, OFA granted
    itself extensions, advising the Tribe to expect active consideration on
    the final determination to begin by August 1, 2008, with a final
    determination to be issued by the end of 2008. Once more, this did not
    happen. On July 24, 2008, the Tribe received another letter from OFA,
    granting itself yet one more extension. Now, we are told to expect a
    final determination by January 28, 2009. Of course, nothing prevents
    the OFA from granting itself another extension, so the Tribe has no
    confidence that this new deadline is any more firm than the earlier
    deadlines.
        Over the past 30 years, the Tribe has been fortunate to have the
    services of the Native American Rights Fund on its petition. Without
    NARF's assistance, it would have been impossible for the Tribe to
    participate in this protracted and expensive administrative process.
    NARF has spent over 3,400 attorney hours over the last fifteen years on
    our petition. Consultants and graduate students put in thousands and
    thousands of additional hours. Tribal consultants, such as historians,
    genealogists and graduate students, donated substantial amounts of time
    pro bono or worked at substantially reduced rates in compiling large
    portions of the petition. Even with this generosity, the total cost for
    consultants and associated expenses over the last fifteen years exceeds
    $1 million dollars.
        The lengthy process also imposes an immeasurable human cost, with
    the recognition battle passing from one generation to the next. The
    demands of providing for my people without the protection of federal
    recognition, a protection that has been promised for one hundred years,
    has been daunting, to say the least. And it is just heartbreaking to
    think that, after all we've been through with this administrative
    process, the Department could at the end of day even decide not to
    confer federal acknowledgment, to reverse its own favorable proposed
    finding.
        Enough is enough. It's time for Congress to step in, to accept what
    the Department itself found in its proposed finding--that the Little
    Shell Tribe is entitled to federal recognition. It is unconscionable
    that nine years after it found that the Little Shell constitutes an
    Indian tribe, that in the face of no significant opposition to that
    proposed favorable finding, that the Little Shell Tribe is still
    waiting. One entire generation of Little Shell people has passed away,
    including my own father, as we wait for administrative action and we
    have no confidence that the new deadline will be met.
        The Constitution of the United States gives the Congress the
    privilege and right to recognize tribal governments. The Congress has
    considered the needs of the Little Shell people time and time again.
    Congress should not wait any longer, and should not force the Little
    Shell people to wait any longer, for the completion of a seemingly
    never ending administrative process. It's time for Congress itself to
    issue the final determination on the status of the Little Shell Tribe
    and enact S. 724.
    The Reasonable and Necessary Terms of S. 724
        First and foremost, S. 724 takes the final step that has been
    interminably delayed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs--even though it
    has essentially acknowledged that the Little Tribe is real and should
    be recognized--and that is the confirmation of federal recognition for
    the Tribe. This has been promised to the Tribe, both by Congress and
    the Department of the Interior. There is no rational reason for further
    delay. Since the Department does not seem capable of bringing its
    deliberations to an end, the Congress should do so by recognizing the
    Little Shell Tribe through legislation.
        I must underscore that the State of Montana, affected local
    governments, and all recognized tribes in the State of Montana support
    the bill to recognize the Little Shell Tribe. The circumstances here
    truly are unique. The Department of the Interior has already issued a
    proposed favorable finding on the Tribe's petition and there is no
    government opposition to recognition of the Tribe. In this case, the
    enactment of federal recognition legislation only makes sense.
        In addition, S. 724 does more than simply confirm federal
    recognition. It addresses many of the issues newly recognized tribes
    and local communities struggle with for decades after formal federal
    recognition--the establishment of a land base and a tribal service
    area. It is well documented that it takes years and sometimes more than
    a decade for the Department of the Interior to take land into trust for
    newly recognized tribes. For example, it took eight years after the
    Jena Band of Choctaw Tribe was recognized before Interior took that
    Tribe's cemetery and governmental offices into trust. Further, many
    tribes suffer from the years it takes for the Department to establish a
    service area for the newly recognized tribe. For example, after
    completion of administrative challenges to the Department's final
    determination acknowledging the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in 2002, the
    Cowlitz Tribe still does not have a BIA service area. Thus, even if the
    Department of the Interior does issue its final determination next year
    (which is doubtful given the Tribe's experience with OFA), the Tribe
    could be forced to endure many additional years in legal limbo as it
    struggles to establish and land base and service area.
        S. 724 addresses these issues. It defines a service area for the
    Tribe consisting of four counties where our people live. It also
    directs the Secretary to acquire trust title to 200 acres located
    within the service area to be used as a tribal land base. With these
    terms, the Little Shell people are put much closer to the actual
    delivery of federal Indian trust services and benefits.
        Can any reasonable person believe that the Little Shell people
    haven't waited long enough? The enactment of S. 724 would finally end
    the uncertainty regarding the status of the Little Shell people. The
    enactment of S. 724 would finally provide for the establishment of a
    land base for the Little Shell people, something the Department of the
    Interior promised one hundred years ago. And the enactment of S. 724
    would provide certainty for the local governments that support
    recognition of the Little Shell Tribe, by defining the Tribe's service
    area and the location of a land base.
    Conclusion
        As our history shows, the Little Shell people are persistent and
    patient. But I have difficulty in explaining to my people why we still
    remain unrecognized, even though the Department of the Interior issued
    a favorable proposed finding on the Tribe's petition in 2000. We have
    waited on the Department for one hundred years. Now it's time for
    Congress to act. The Little Shell people implore this Committee to act
    favorably on S. 724 and allow the bill to move forward.
    Additional Testimony
        It was a pleasure to testify before the Committee on S. 724, a bill
    to reestablish the government to government relationship between the
    United States and the Little Shell Chippewa Tribe of Montana. At that
    hearing, Mr. Lee Fleming of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment made
    statements regarding the Little Shell Tribe that are of concern to the
    Tribe and which therefore require a response. Towards that end, I
    respectfully request that this supplemental statement of the Little
    Shell Tribe be included in the hearing record. There are three issues I
    wish to address.
    1. OFA's Alleged ``Warning'' in the Favorable Proposed Finding
        Mr. Fleming testified that the Little Shell Tribe had been
    ``warned'' in OFA's favorable proposed finding that there were gaps in
    the Tribe's documentation, gaps that had to be filled or the Tribe
    would run the risk that OFA's favorable finding could turn into a
    negative final determination. As OFA stated in the Notice of Proposed
    Finding on the Little Shell petition, ``This proposed finding is based
    on the available evidence and does not preclude the submission of other
    evidence to the contrary. Such new evidence may result in a change in
    the conclusions reached in the proposed finding.'' 65 F. Reg. 45394,
    45396 (July 21, 2000). In other words, because no new evidence was
    submitted that would support a contrary finding, there is no basis in
    the record for turning the favorable proposed finding into a negative
    final determination.
        In fact, Mr. Fleming's suggestion that Little Shell had been
    ``warned'' in the favorable proposed finding is contradicted by the
    finding itself. On criterion (a), OFA's proposed finding specifically
    states that contrary new evidence would be required to reverse the
    favorable proposed finding:

            This proposed finding also accepts as a reasonable likelihood
            that references to the petitioner's individual ancestors as
            Indians and references to portions of their ancestors as
            residents of Indian settlements before the 1930's are
            consistent with the identifications of these and other
            ancestors of the petitioner as Indian groups after 1935. This
            conclusion departs from prior decisions for meeting criterion
            (a), which required evidence of a specific identification of
            the petitioner as an Indian entity during each decade. The
            Department believes that, absent strong proof to the contrary,
            it is fair to infer a continuity of identification from the
            evidence presented . . . (emphasis supplied)

        Summary under the Criteria for the Proposed Finding for Federal
    Acknowledgment of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana
    (July 14, 2000) at page 6 (hereafter ``Summary'').
        It would be arbitrary and capricious for OFA now to apply a
    different standard to the Little Shell Tribe in order to reverse the
    favorable proposed finding in the absence of new, negative evidence.
        Finally, the Tribe did, in fact, submit substantial additional
    evidence in response to OFA's request for more documents in the
    favorable proposed finding. For example, additional work has
    demonstrated that the percentage of members tracing to a historical
    tribe is higher than thought in the proposed finding, i.e., is 94%, not
    62% We provided this additional information specifically to show that
    there was no ``departure'' from previous practice in the favorable
    proposed finding, not because we believed such a showing was necessary
    to avoid a reversal of the finding into a negative final determination.
    As OFA's proposed finding observed, certain departures from previous
    acknowledgment decisions for Little Shell were warranted, but
    additional evidence from the Tribe ``may create a different record and
    a more complete factual basis for the final determination, and thus
    eliminate or reduce the scope of these contemplated departures from
    precedence.'' 65 F. Reg. at 45395. Since no substantial negative
    evidence was submitted, and all governmental entities in the state
    support the recognition, our Tribe has expected that--someday when OFA
    ever finishes its work on our petition--the favorable proposed finding
    would become a favorable final determination. (But see concern
    expressed in section 2, infra.) Now, the very existence of the
    voluminous record of 67,000 pages, a record OFA convinced the Tribe it
    needed to generate, is used as an excuse by OFA for having missed its
    deadlines.
    2. OFA's Failure to Share New Information with the Little Shell Tribe
        Mr. Fleming espoused his view that tribes should be required to go
    through the complete administrative process so that all the evidence
    relating to tribal existence can be ``scrutinized'' by all concerned.
    But in fact OFA's process does not allow this ``scrutiny'' of all
    evidence, even by the petitioner. For example, 25 CFR Sec. 83.10 (l)(1)
    provides that after the period for submitting materials has closed, the
    ``Assistant Secretary may also conduct such additional research as is
    necessary to evaluate and supplement the record. . . . the additional
    materials will become part of the petition record.'' However, OFA makes
    no allowance in its regulations for a petitioner to access and respond
    to these materials prior to a final determination. In fact, OFA
    conducted weeks of field study in Montana after the closing date for
    submission of materials, conducting dozens of interviews and
    accumulating other materials as well. These materials have not been
    provided to the Little Shell Tribe despite the Tribe's request that
    they be shared.
        Indeed, the Tribe was forced to file a Freedom of Information Act
    request for the documents and OFA denied the Tribe's request for a
    waiver of the FOIA fees, which OFA estimated at approximately $4,500
    dollars. The Tribe appealed OFA's denial of the fee waiver request, but
    then the Tribe ultimately informed OFA that it would pay the under
    protest. OFA then informed us that the twenty working day time within
    which FOIA allows OFA to respond could not be met. When we asked OFA
    how long it would take to produce the new documents, our attorney was
    informed that the OFA attorneys who must review for privacy matters
    were all busy and that review of the responsive documents was not a
    high priority for them. Who knows when, if ever, we will get the
    material? And even if it is provided, there is no provision in the
    process for us to comment on them or to supplement the record if
    necessary before the final determination is made. The OFA process
    itself violates due process.
    3. Extensions of Time
        In his testimony, Mr. Fleming tried to emphasize that the Tribe
    itself had asked for numerous extensions as an excuse for OFA missing
    its target dates for completing the final determination. Mr. Fleming's
    attempt to blame shift is based on a mixing of apples and oranges. He
    tries to compare the Tribe's ``understandable difficulty in completing
    research on a very large number of dispossessed Indians on the American
    frontier'' (Summary, supra, at page 6) with the Department's duty to
    analyze such information once it has been gathered in one place. The
    latter is a far more manageable task. It should be noted that
    unfortunately, the Tribe's chief researcher, Dr. Rob Franklin, passed
    away during this process. It fell to his wife, Dr. Pamela Bunte to pick
    up the work, juggle her teaching duties, and struggle with her own
    physical ailments in an effort finally to finish the process of
    submitting materials to OFA.
    Conclusion
        In conclusion, there was nothing in Mr. Fleming's statement or
    response to questions at the hearing that explains either why OFA has
    been unable to meet its deadlines to issue a final determination for
    Little Shell or how that determination can be anything other than
    favorable.

        The Chairman. President Sinclair, thank you very much. We
    appreciate your being here and your testimony.
        The Honorable Ann Tucker will testify next, Chairwoman of
    the Muscogee Nation of Florida.
        Chairwoman Tucker, thank you very much for being here. You
    may proceed.

       STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER, CHAIRWOMAN, MUSCOGEE
                           NATION OF FLORIDA

        Ms. Tucker. Chairman Dorgan, Honorable Committee Members,
    my name is Ann Denson Tucker. I am Chairwoman of the Muscogee
    Nation of Florida, the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians,
    and I welcome the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 514 for
    the immediate Federal recognition of our tribe. I wish to thank
    Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez for their bipartisan
    sponsorship of this important legislation, and their staff
    members who have spent hours to ensure that this legislative
    request is the proper thing to do and the right way to do it.
        Thirty years of BIA process have inflicted financial
    hardship and injury on some of the poorest people in Northwest
    Florida, the Creek Indian people, and there is no end in sight.
    Because of the BIA's inability to act on this petition, the
    Muscogee Nation of Florida must rely on Congress.
        Muscogee Nation of Florida's center of government is in the
    Bruce Indian community of Walton County, Florida. Our ancestors
    signed 11 treaties with the United States Government between
    1790 and 1833. After President Andrew Jackson's Indian removal
    policies had decimated the Creek confederacy, our ancestors
    were faced with a brutal choice: remove from our homeland or
    find a way to survive. We found a way to survive.
        For the first half of the 19th century, we lived in Dale
    County, Alabama, in an Indian encampment near the
    Choctawhatchee River. By the Civil War, we were moving at night
    to avoid Indian removal and following the river south to Bruce
    Creek, where we still live today. We established our community,
    continued our traditions, fished, hunted, timbered, and farmed
    cooperatively. We did not have anthropologists traveling into
    the wilderness that was Northwest Florida to seek out Indians
    in a place where Jim Crow laws had made Indians illegal and the
    KKK reigned supreme to enforce this policy.
        In 1850 Florida, it was illegal to trade with Indians. In
    1851 Florida, it was illegal for Indians to hunt and to fish.
    In 1852 Florida, it was illegal under penalty of death for
    Indians to be Indians. We have spent 150 years on this
    homeland, the land of Timpoochee Canard, the land of the
    Euchees. We live separate, apart, with known community leaders,
    and they have addressed the needs of our community to the
    outside world at the local, State, and even Federal level. We
    had our own currency. We had our own teachers for our own
    school.
        Our council house was the geographic center of our town,
    the same building used for community meetings, political
    venues, community business, and community celebrations. It is
    still, today, our voting precinct. We have our own cemeteries
    and our own church with handwritten records that are 100 years
    old. We have a constitution, a baseline roll, and tribal codes
    that have been updated through the assistance of the
    Administration for Native Americans.
        We have our language preserved and we are proud that one of
    our young adult tribal members recently addressed the United
    Nations on the urgency of protecting the indigenous languages
    of this Country.
        Jim Crow laws did not allow my tribe to have a State
    reservation. Our State recognition was by concurrent
    resolutions passed by the House and Senate of the State of
    Florida. It is the best that you get in Florida, and we are the
    only Tribe that has this. In Florida, we have no Indian
    commission to oversee a State recognition. If we are not a
    Federal tribe, we are considered to be nothing at all.
        The legacy of Jim Crow laws is that southeastern tribes
    historically require intervention from Congress. We are not an
    exception to the rule with this legislation; we are the norm.
    The May 23rd, 2008 policy letter from the former deputy
    director of the BIA removed any doubts as to whether my Tribe
    should be in this Committee with Senate Bill 514. A unilateral
    pronouncement in his policy letter enabled another
    acknowledgment applicant to be bumped to the top of the list
    for review.
        If the criteria for recognition can be arbitrarily and
    capriciously changed and interpreted, then there is no reason
    to believe that Muscogee Nation of Florida will ever receive
    due process or timely disposition. We can be ignored and
    selectively bypassed by other applicants, regardless of filing
    dates, and tossed out of the process and told to find another
    method without full review of our tribal data.
        The BIA process is broken beyond repair for the Muscogee
    Nation of Florida. My tribal government has determined that
    congressional recognition is our only option. Our arduous
    journey from Bruce, Florida to these halls of Congress has
    taken us 150 years. We now stand ready, waiting for active
    consideration for Congress to take action on Senate Bill 514.
    Thank you for allowing us to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Ann Denson Tucker, Chairwoman, Muscogee
                               Nation of Florida
    Introduction
        Chairman Dorgan, Honorable Committee Members, my name is Ann Denson
    Tucker. I am Chairwoman of the Muscogee Nation of Florida, the Florida
    Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians. Thank you for inviting me to testify
    about my tribe's experience with the federal recognition process.
        My tribe needs and deserves federal recognition, and we need
    Congress to take action. Three decades of paperwork, costs, and delays
    are sapping my tribe of economic resources that could be going to help
    our members and delaying our ability to access federal programs
    designed to help tribes in our situation.
    First, I would like to remind you about who my tribe is.
        The Muscogee Nation of Florida, also known as the Florida Tribe of
    Eastern Creek Indians, is a tribe of Creek Indian people whose home is
    centered in Bruce, in Walton County, Florida. Our ancestors signed 11
    treaties with the United States between 1790 and 1833 that led to their
    forced removal from their traditional homelands. Eventually, our tribal
    ancestors left their Indian enclave in Daleville, Alabama and followed
    the Choctawhatchee River south to Bruce Creek, where we re-established
    our community and homes, fished, hunted, farmed cooperatively, raised
    cattle, and practiced our traditional ceremonies. My Tribe has lived on
    this land as a community and as a cultural, social and political unit
    for 150 years.
    Unfortunately, the tale of my tribe is not complete without
            understanding the effort that was made to erase us from
            history.
        By the time we migrated from Daleville to Bruce, Jim Crow laws had
    been enacted in Florida (see attachment 2). By 1850 it was illegal to
    trade with Indians. And in 1852, it became illegal--under penalty of
    death--for Indians to be ``Indian,'' unless the Indian was a Seminole
    or was confined to a Reservation.
        Because my tribe neither was Seminole nor had a reservation, the
    Jim Crow laws made it impossible for my tribe to openly embrace its
    cultural heritage and community. While we survived, until the Jim Crow
    laws were repealed by federal law, the Civil Rights Act, the tribe was
    forced to hide its government, traditional ceremonies, and culture. As
    a result, satisfying BIA's tribal recognition requirements became
    difficult, but we struggled to meet their paperwork demands. However, a
    series of changes of BIA recognition regulations has made the task
    impossible because the agency is demanding written documents that do
    not exist because Jim Crow laws criminalized interactions with our
    tribe.
    This brings us to why I am here today--the BIA has made it clear that
            they do not intend to act on our tribe's petition for
            recognition.
        It has been 60 years since our community leader--my great
    grandfather-wrote to the BIA and explained that our people deserved
    compensation for lands taken under the Treaty of Ft. Jackson (see
    attachment 3). BIA's response, which is on file in the Federal
    Archives, was dismissive, declaring curtly, ``You are mistaken. You
    cannot possibly be who you say you are because the members of that
    Tribe are either dead or removed. . .'' Fast forward to 1957, when the
    Seminole Tribe of Florida gained federal recognition and BIA finally
    acknowledged that it had not rid the Southeast of the Florida Tribe of
    Eastern Creek Indians. Fast forward again, 14 years, to 1971, when BIA
    finally verified our racial identification to the U.S. Government and,
    in turn, to the State of Florida. By then, my great grandfather had
    been dead for 2 years, and we had already spent 24 years trying to get
    BIA to acknowledge our existence as Indians, much less our status as a
    tribe. Now, 37 years later, I am here to tell you that our Indian
    community and tribal government are still waiting, and we need Congress
    to intervene.
        My tribe has spent many thousands of dollars and an untold amount
    of time trying to satisfy the BIA. We have retained attorneys,
    historians, genealogists, archaeologists and other experts to try to
    satisfy BIA's requirements. And we have done it all over again when
    BIA's requirements changed. After each attempt we have been met with
    new demands and no substantive action.
        The BIA made is crystal-clear earlier this year that they do not
    intend to take any reasonable actions to address our circumstances. On
    May 23rd, BIA published new guidance and direction regarding its
    internal procedures for evaluating petitions by Indian tribes for
    Federal acknowledgement. The guidance explicitly states that all tribes
    must be able to document continuous tribal existence in a manner that
    demonstrates that the tribe is entitled to a ``government-to-government
    relationship with the United States.'' As I just explained, we cannot
    satisfy this standard-because of Jim Crow laws designed to erase my
    tribe from history.
        The new guidance makes it clear that now one of two things will
    happen to the Muscogee Nation of Florida: (1) the BIA will address
    other petitions, even those submitted years after the Muscogee Nation
    of Florida's submission, and will ``not expend time on the'' tribe
    because it cannot produce certain documents-and the petition will
    continue to flounder for many more years; or (2) the BIA will notify
    the Muscogee Nation of Florida that it does not meet BIA standards and
    will inform the tribe of ``alternatives, if any, to acknowledgement.''
        In the end, the BIA cannot help my tribe because their regulations
    cannot recognize the unique circumstances my tribe faces. Indian tribes
    share much in common, but each tribe is also unique. We live in
    different geographic areas, have differing cultures and traditions, and
    have faced different legal barriers in the States where we reside. BIA
    regulations cannot accommodate these differences, and for tribes like
    mine that means we spend decades languishing in a regulatory purgatory.
    While BIA changes their rules and guidance over time, the results do
    not change. And although Jim Crow laws were eventually repudiated and
    eliminated, they continue to operate in the shadows by preventing our
    tribe from meeting BIA standards.
    My people need your help.
        We have worked hard over recent years to tell our story and educate
    lawmakers about our plight. We request that this committee support S.
    514, The Muscogee Nation of Florida Federal Recognition Act. This
    legislation is supported by both Senators from Florida, in the House by
    our local members of the House of Representatives.
        S. 514 is the only path for our tribe out of the continually
    shifting maze of BIA regulations, guidance, and demands. My people have
    endured delays and mistreatment for too long, and we seek your
    assistance. As each year passes, the tribe struggles to care for its
    members needs as it becomes more and more difficult to imagine when we
    will receive the federal recognition to which we are entitled. The
    tribal leaders who began the recognition process in their youth are now
    tribal elders. Our elders, like my mother, deserve to be recognized
    before they pass, and your assistance is our only hope for making this
    a reality.
        Thank You.
    Attachments *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to is printed in the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1) Muscogee Nation of Florida-Executive Summary

        2) Florida Jim Crow laws

        3) Court case permitting compensation for lands taken under Treaty
    of Ft. Jackson

        4) Demographics of tribe 1900-current

        5) Walton County endorsement of S-514

        The Chairman. Chairwoman Tucker, thank you very much for
    being here and for your testimony today.
        Next, we will hear from the Honorable Ron Yob, the Chairman
    of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians in Michigan.
        Mr. Yob, thank you. You may proceed.

       STATEMENT OF HON. RON YOB, CHAIRMAN, GRAND RIVER BANDS OF
                             OTTAWA INDIANS

        Mr. Yob. Good afternoon, Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman
    Murkowski, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs. My name is Ron Yob, and I Chairman of the Grand River
    Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan. On behalf of my tribe, I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S.
    1058, a bill to expedite review of the Grand River Tribe's
    petition. With me today is one of my tribal council members,
    Philip Cantu.
        We strongly believe that recognition of our Tribe is long
    overdue. We are the largest treaty tribe in the Midwest that
    does not have a government-to-government relationship with the
    United States. Our forefathers entered into five separate
    treaties with the United States: in 1795, 1807, 1821, 1836, and
    1855. In the 1855 one, my great-great-great grandfather was one
    of the signatories of that treaty.
        Over 700 members watch as their cousins, who are enrolled
    in other Michigan tribes, enjoy the benefits of Federal
    recognition. Our members wonder why Federal education and
    health care is not available to us. It is very sad to be denied
    our birthright as this Nation's first Americans. Over 250 of
    our members are one-half blood Grand River Ottawa. Little River
    has already negotiated our treaty land rights through
    agreements with utility companies without our participation or
    input. We need recognition so we will be at the table.
        Our inland hunting and fishing rights were negotiated by
    the other treaty tribes in the State of Michigan and the United
    States. Grant River was not at the table. We were told not to
    intervene, and we had no money to do so, in any case. We
    believe that if Congress does not act soon on our recognition,
    the damage to our culture and traditions could be very severe.
        If we have to wait the 20 or 25 years it will take the BIA
    to act, many of our elders will be gone. They are our language
    speakers who need to pass their knowledge down. Without help
    from Congress, it would be very hard to maintain the transfer
    of our culture to our children. We are trying very hard to keep
    our traditions alive, but every year that goes by it becomes
    more and more difficult.
        We are certain that we meet the seven mandatory criteria
    established by the BIA and the regulations that are found at
    Part 83.7 of Section 25 of the U.S. Code of Federal
    Regulations. The documents we provided to the BIA prove this.
    We have been identified as a distinct community since 1900. The
    Tribe has existed as a community from historical times until
    the present. The Tribe has maintained political influence over
    its member from historical times to the present.
        BIA has a copy of our current governing documents,
    including our membership criteria. Our members are individuals
    who descend from a historic Indian tribe. Our members are not
    members of other federally recognized Indian tribes and our
    Tribe has not been terminated by an act of Congress. We have
    documented these criteria thoroughly, but I am quite sure that,
    as I sit here, the BIA has not begun to review the additional
    material we submitted in 2006 and will not look at those
    documents until well into the next decade, if then.
        Meanwhile, at great expense and no financial assistance
    from the Government, the Tribe has had to, and will in the
    future, continuously update all the material and file it with
    the BIA. Recognized tribes receive Government loans and grants
    to maintain their important tribal government infrastructures.
    The simple fact is that the Federal Government system is
    broken. There is no way it can be fixed unless Congress steps
    in with a new law of additional funds. At this point, that does
    not seem likely.
        Congress has regularly reviewed the recognition process at
    least since the early 1980s and has agreed that the process is
    broken. In fact, Congress knows the regulations now in place
    are not based on any law passed by Congress. We hope that
    Congress will pass our bill with amendments to bring it up to
    date. We are happy to work with the Committee staff on new
    language. We have been on the current recognition system for 14
    years, and hope that we do not have to wait another 20 years
    for a final determination of our status.
        As my testimony points out, Grand River applied for
    reorganization in 1935, but we were denied because the Tribe
    had no land base and the Department had no money for land
    purposes. Congress has preliminary authority over Indian
    Affairs. As such, in the end, Congress has the responsibility
    for determining who are Indians and which tribes deserve
    Federal reaffirmation. No one is closer to the issues than the
    members of Congress and Senators from the States where the
    tribes are located. In all of the cases before you today,
    support from members of the House and Senate for the tribes
    involved is evident and should be respected.
        I want to thank you for letting me present that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yob follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Yob, Chairman, Grand River Bands of
                                 Ottawa Indians
        Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski and Members
    of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Ron Yob and I am
    Chairman of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians (``Tribe'') of
    Michigan. Thank you very much for holding this hearing today on the
    bill, S. 1058, that would expedite review of the Tribe to secure a
    timely and just determination of whether the Tribe is entitled to
    recognition as a Federal Indian tribe. We would like to take this
    opportunity to express our deep appreciation to Senator Levin and
    Senator Stabenow for their interest and support of our Tribe and for
    introducing this legislation on our behalf.
        The two Senators also introduced a bill on behalf of the Tribe in
    the 109th Congress, S. 437, on which this Committee held a hearing on
    June 21, 2006. No companion bill has been introduced in the House of
    Representatives, although we are working with Congressman Hoekstra on a
    bill to provide direct congressional recognition of the Tribe in the
    same manner as Congress, in 1994, recognized our sister tribes, the
    Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of
    Ottawa Indians.
        For many valid reasons, the Tribe is very hopeful that the
    Committee will favorably consider S. 1058 or a similar bill. The story
    of our Tribe is long and varied, as is the story of recognition of all
    of the Michigan Indian Treaty Tribes of which the Grand River Bands of
    Ottawa Indians may be the only one that remains unrecognized. \1\ The
    Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is the largest unrecognized Treaty
    Tribe in Michigan--and perhaps in the entire United States. Our members
    live primarily in western Michigan, in the same area we have lived
    since before the Europeans first arrived there. Many elders speak our
    Ottawa language. Our pre-history burial mounds are located along the
    Grand River near the City of Grand Rapids and in many other areas of
    the River from below Lansing to Grand Haven.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Burt Lake was not a named group in the treaties but its members
    may descend from treaty signatories. It was denied recognition by the
    BIA and Representative Stupak has introduced legislation to recognize
    that group.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tribal History
        Who We Are: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan is
    composed of the 19 bands of Ottawa Indian who occupied the territory
    along the Grand River Valley and other river valleys in what is now
    Southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon.
    The Tribe has about 700 enrolled members and the majority live in and
    around the counties of Kent, Muskegon and Oceana.
        Treaties: The members of Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians are
    descendants of the signatories of the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, the
    1807 Treaty of Detroit, the 1821 Treaty of Chicago, the 1836 Treaty of
    Washington (DC), and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. The Grand River Bands
    of Ottawa Indians is a political successor Tribe to the original Tribes
    represented at the Treaty signings. Other Michigan Treaty Tribes
    include the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Little
    River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
    Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and
    the Bay Mills Indian Community. Their members are also descendants of
    the signers of the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of
    Detroit. All of these successor Tribes have now been recognized by the
    United States except for the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians and,
    perhaps, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa Indians. Below is a description
    of our Tribe, our continued efforts as a community to seek redress of
    our tribal land claims, and our recognition efforts.
        Continuous Existence: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians
    consists of several inter-related extended families which comprise a
    kinship organization that functions today much the same way we did
    before Treaty times. As a community we gather for religious
    celebrations, social gatherings, and to attend to the graves of our
    ancestors. We also host the annual Homecoming of the Three Fires Pow
    Wow in Grand Rapids as we did again in June 2008. The political
    leadership of our Tribe has, to a great extent, been passed down from
    Headmen and Chiefs of Treaty times, within the same families. Each
    generation of leaders has represented the Tribe in dealings with the
    United States and other Tribes, and tried to provide health, education
    and economic assistance to tribal members by whatever means available.
        Tribal Land Claims: In the 1940s, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa
    Indians organized with other Tribes in Michigan under the name of the
    Northern Michigan Ottawa Association to pursue claims for reservation
    lands that were taken from us without compensation. The Tribe filed
    claims under the Indian Claims Act of 1946 (25 USC Sec. 70; Chap.2A)
    and the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) awarded judgment in favor of the
    Tribe in several dockets. These awards for Grand River Bands of Ottawa
    Indians and others became the subject of two settlement Acts of
    Congress for the distribution of the funds.
        1976 Tribal Judgment Fund Distribution Settlement Act: In 1976, the
    Congress enacted P.L. 94-540, the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians--
    Disposition of Funds to provide for the distribution of funds awarded
    to the Tribe in Docket 40-K of the ICC. The funds were allocated to
    persons of Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indian blood who were
    descendants of persons who appeared on the 1908 Durant Roll or other
    census rolls acceptable to the Secretary and who were one-quarter (\1/
    4\) degree Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians blood.
        1997 Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act: In 1997, the
    Congress passed the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act to
    implement distribution of several land claim awards. By this time, five
    Michigan successor Tribes to the Ottawa and Chippewa Treaties had been
    recognized by the United States. The first, Bay Mills Indian Community
    (Chippewa), was recognized by the Secretary in 1935-37. In the 1970s,
    the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians was recognized by the
    Department of the Interior prior to promulgation of the 1978
    regulations governing federal acknowledgment procedures. The Grand
    Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians was the first to be
    recognized under the new regulations. Finally, the Little Traverse Bay
    Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians were
    recognized by an Act of Congress in 1994.
        The 1997 Settlement Act provided for the distribution of funds
    awarded in ICC dockets 18-E, 58, and 364 (Ottawa and Chippewa) and
    docket 18-R (Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie). The Act reflected the
    Tribes' agreement as to distribution and shares. The per capita shares
    for the members of the unrecognized Tribes were included in the 1997
    Act along with a set-aside for any Tribes that might be recognized
    within a specific time frame. Section 106(d)(1) of the Act describes
    the potential eligible unrecognized treaty tribes as: Grand River,
    Traverse, Grand Traverse, Little Traverse, Maskigo, or L'Arbre Croche,
    Cheboigan, Sault Ste. Marie, Michilmackinac. In the 1997 Act, we
    believe the Congress used tribal names that were contained in the
    treaties that gave rise to the land claims.
        Of the nine other Michigan groups currently on the BIA list of
    groups petitioning for federal recognition, the Grand River Bands of
    Ottawa Indians is the only one that represents--by name--a historic
    Michigan Treaty Tribe. This is important because the 1997 law set aside
    funds for treaty descendants who are not members of a federally
    recognized tribe but who are one-quarter blood Ottawa/Chippewa. It also
    set aside funds for the unrecognized Tribes, such as the Grand River
    Bands of Ottawa Indians, for the operation of tribal programs.
        The Act provided that, to be eligible for the set-aside, an
    unrecognized Tribe must have filed its documented petition by December
    15, 2000 (3 years after date of enactment). The Grand River Bands of
    Ottawa Indians filed it petition on December 8, 2000. The Act gave the
    BIA six years to issue a final determination. Unfortunately, despite
    the fact that the Tribe filed its petition within the timeframe set by
    Congress, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Federal
    Acknowledgment has still, to this day, failed to act on the Tribe's
    petition. The judgment funds were paid to members in June 2007, about
    eight weeks after our bill, S. 1058, was introduced in the 110th
    Congress. Our Tribe will not receive its share of the judgment funds or
    the bonus funds that Congress had set aside in the 1997 Act for newly
    recognized treaty tribes. That money is now gone forever, yet there is
    no penalty against the BIA for its failure to abide by the requirements
    of the law.
        Tribal Recognition Efforts: In 1934, the Tribe filed to reorganize
    its government under the Indian Reorganization Act enacted that same
    year. Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier (and author of the
    IRA) concluded that the Tribe was eligible for reorganization. However,
    we were put on hold because of federal funding issues. After World War
    II, the Federal Government's position toward Tribes changed and the
    Termination era took hold in earnest in the 1950s. Thus, reorganization
    was not an option politically so the Tribe's efforts were put on hold
    again. (The Tribe remained actively engaged during this period,
    however, in pursuing our Treaty land claims as discussed above.).
    During the 1970s and 1980s Tribal leaders did not pursue Federal
    Recognition as some of our elders and leaders, believing we were
    already recognized by the United States, feared that this process would
    actually threaten our status as a sovereign nation.
        However by the early 1990s we recognized that formal federal
    recognition would be necessary for us to pursue treaty, statutory
    rights and the protection of our people. In 1994, the Tribe filed a
    letter of intent with the BIA to file a petition for recognition and
    the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is petitioner #146.
        After making our submission on December 8, 2000 (21 boxes--three
    sets each of seven archival boxes), the Grand River Bands of Ottawa
    Indians did not hear from the Bureau of Indian Affairs until April 2004
    when they granted us a technical assistance meeting at the request of
    Congressman Pete Hoekstra. It took another nine months for us to
    receive our 29-page technical assistance (TA) letter on January 26,
    2005. The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians spent the next 17 months
    gathering materials and preparing a 63-page legal response supported by
    a 265-page ethno-historical response to the TA letter, including
    additional documents and two certified copies of all of our membership
    documents. The Tribe filed this response to the TA letter on June 9,
    2006.
        Conclusion: We know the Committee is well aware of the time
    consuming and very expensive work that goes into filing a petition for
    Federal recognition as an Indian Tribe. We have no doubt that the Grand
    River Bands of Ottawa Indian meets the seven criteria set out in the
    regulations and is qualified to be recognized by the Federal government
    and to enjoy the benefits of the trust protection and the government-
    to-government relationship that will ensue. If S. 1058 is not passed
    and the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians remains mired in the
    Federal Acknowledgment Process, we estimate it will take 15 to 25 years
    for recognition to come. In the meantime, our tribal citizens do not
    share the benefits that their cousins in other Michigan Tribes enjoy.
    And many of our elders will be gone without having had the benefit of
    recognition. Our Indian children will not be considered to be Indian
    children for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC Sec. 1901
    et seq., and will not be protected as Congress intended.
        The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians has the support of its
    community, other Michigan Tribes, and our Senators, as evidenced by
    their introduction of S. 1058. This bill does not directly recognize
    the Tribe but instead refers the matter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    for a determination, with timelines for deciding the Tribe's status and
    filing a Report to Congress.
        Now that the BIA has utterly failed to meet its obligations under
    the 1997 Act, we hope that Congress will grant federal status to the
    Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians in the same manner that it
    reaffirmed the existence of four other Michigan Tribes--Lac Vieux
    Desert in 1988, and, in 1994, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians,
    the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Pokagon Band of
    Potawatomi Indians. There is ample precedent for direct reaffirmation
    of our status. We are painfully aware that Congressional Acts to
    recognize Tribes have fallen out of favor and believe S. 1058 will give
    Congress the needed assurance that the Grand River Bands of Ottawa
    Indians is deserving of the Federal relationship.
        The September 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a
    map of historic Indian country which shows the ``Grand River Ottawa''
    as the historic Tribe of Southwestern Michigan. We know that the
    opinion of mapping scholars does not match the exhaustive work of the
    OFA in determining whether an existing tribal group is indeed the
    successor to an historic Tribe, but we are confident that the Grand
    River Bands of Ottawa Indians is such a Tribe and take pride in
    realizing that many others think so, too.
        The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians has always been an active
    leader in the Michigan Indian community. We participate, though often
    unofficially, in Indian Child Welfare cases, NAGPRA repatriation
    matters and other Indian affairs dealings with state, local and private
    entities. We also spearheaded the return of the original 1855 Treaty to
    Grand Rapids that was exhibited in the Museum named for former
    President Gerald Ford.
        We are attaching the ``Resolution of the Grand River Bands of
    Ottawa Indians June 18, 2002'' that authorizes the Tribe to seek
    legislation in Congress to direct the Department of the Interior to act
    timely on our petition.
        Thank you again for you attention to S. 1058 and we implore the
    Committee to act quickly on this legislation.

        The Chairman. Mr. Yob, thank you very much for your
    testimony.
        Finally, we will hear from Dr. Helen Rountree, Professor
    Emeritus at Old Dominion University, Department of
    Anthropology, in Norfolk, Virginia.
        Ms. Rountree, thank you very much.

      STATEMENT OF HELEN C. ROUNTREE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS,
                    DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, OLD
                          DOMINION UNIVERSITY

        Ms. Rountree. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and guests, it is
    my honor to speak on behalf of these Virginia Indian people,
    with whom I have been working intensively since 1969. I would
    add I haven't gotten a dime for it.
        I am Dr. Helen C. Rountree, Professor Emerita of
    Anthropology at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. I
    have produced seven books so far on the native people of
    Virginia.
        At this point, I request that all testimony, written and
    oral, that has been presented in previous hearings on the
    Virginia tribes be entered into the record along with today's
    testimony.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Ms. Rountree. Thank you, sir.
        The ancestors of the tribes I speak for were native to
    Virginia when Jamestown was founded. All were signatories in
    1677 to a treaty between the Virginia tribes and the King of
    England. However, they became landless as non-Indian settlers
    poured in and, by Virginia custom--not law--such Indian
    communities were considered to be outside the scope of the
    treaty. The treaty itself was with the King of England and is
    now considered to be with the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the
    United States. These tribes, therefore, remained State Indians
    in a State that ignored them, a situation very different from
    that of the other three tribes represented in this hearing.
        When much more detailed U.S. census records began to be
    made in 1850, these people do appear as enclaves and, in some
    U.S. censuses, specifically Indian ones. They are traceable as
    the ancestors of the six Virginia tribes before you today.
        The Office of Federal Acknowledgment has just this year
    issued changes to try to speed up the Federal recognition
    process, but they do very little for the six tribes of whom I
    speak. Most of the changes are for tribes with a treaty and/or
    IRA relationship with the Federal Government, which these six
    tribes do not have. The remaining change, moving up the
    starting date to 1789, does not do much for them either. Aside
    from the problems with pre-1850 records, which I have
    documented elsewhere, there are problems with State and local
    records that make these Indian communities hard for a
    researcher to track. It is as if the ever-growing legend of
    Pocahontas--thank you, Disney--contrasted with the reality of
    19th and 20th century Indian people, made Anglo-Virginians ever
    less tolerant of anything other than the legend.
        Beginning after the Civil War and culminating with
    Virginia's Racial Integrity Law of 1924, Virginia became a
    State committed to the proposition that there were only two
    races, ``white'' and ``colored,'' leaving no room for Indians.
    Under the 1924 law, anyone insisting upon an Indian identity on
    an official document could be sent to prison for a year.
    Several people were, in fact, imprisoned for such insistence. I
    knew one of them, by the way, personally.
        The campaign to eliminate Indians from the State was headed
    by the State's Vital Statistics Bureau, which went so far as to
    issue a circular with ``suspicious'' families' names listed
    county by county. The families were referred to as ``these
    mongrels.'' The circular was sent to all officials in charge of
    county records, all school superintendents, and all licensed
    health personnel, who signed off on birth and death
    certificates, in the State. It is no wonder that these Indian
    communities became much harder for researchers to find.
        Some of their members left the State, keeping up their ties
    to home but returning only during the Civil Rights era when
    they no longer had to be, as one old-timer said to me, ``scared
    like a rabbit.'' But the communities hung together and hung on,
    as the attached quick-reference chart will show. That is page 4
    of my testimony. They still exist, and they still say they are
    Indians. And even now, so thorough was the public relations
    campaign against them for decades, they meet skepticism on a
    daily basis.
        The tribes I speak for today consulted a BIA representative
    over a decade ago and were told that even if they submitted a
    petition forthwith, they would not see a decision ``in your
    lifetime.'' And this was said to people then in their 40s. The
    six tribes are not merely being impatient in wanting to move
    faster than that. Their primary motive for seeking Federal
    recognition is getting better access to health programs, badly
    needed by their elders now.
        Little schooling in Virginia was available to those people
    when they were young, if they wanted to remain ``Indians'' in
    the State. See the quick-reference chart; it will tell you how
    many schools did not go beyond grade school. Therefore, their
    income level has suffered ever since, and in their old age they
    are hurting badly. The six tribes are not interested in
    remedying that fact through gaming. In fact, they have waived
    their rights to gaming, if they are recognized. Instead, they
    hope to provide better conditions for their people through
    Federal Indian programs after recognition by the United States
    Congress.
        These tribes have endured over three centuries of
    injustice, some of the worst of it and by far the most public
    of it being in the recent past. Without Federal recognition and
    the aid springing from it, the injustice is ongoing. I hope
    that you will accede to their request for acknowledgment. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rountree follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Helen C. Rountree, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus,
              Department of Anthropology, Old Dominion University
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and guests: It is my honor
    to speak on behalf of these Virginia Indian people, with whom I have
    been working intensively since 1969. I am Dr. Helen C. Rountree,
    Professor Emerita of Anthropology at Old Dominion University in
    Norfolk, Virginia. I have produced seven books, so far, on the Native
    people of Virginia.
        At this point, I request that all testimony, written and oral, that
    has been presented in previous hearings on the Virginia tribes be
    entered into the record along with today's testimony.
        The ancestors of the tribes I speak for were native to Virginia
    when Jamestown was founded; all were signatories in 1677 to a treaty
    between the Virginia tribes and the King of England. However, they
    became landless as non-Indian settlers poured in, and by Virginia
    custom (not law) such Indian communities were considered to be outside
    the scope of the treaty. The treaty itself was with the King of England
    and is now considered to be with the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the
    United States. These tribes therefore remained ``state'' Indians in a
    state that ignored them, a situation very different from that of the
    other three tribes represented in this hearing. When much more detailed
    U.S. Census records began to be made in 1850, these people appear as
    enclaves and, in some U.S. Censuses, specifically Indian ones. They are
    traceable as the ancestors of the six Virginia tribes before you today.
        The Office of Federal Acknowledgment has just this year issued
    changes to try to speed up the federal recognition process, but they do
    very little for the six tribes of whom I speak. Most of the changes are
    for tribes with a treaty and/or I.R.A. relationship with the Federal
    Government, which these six tribes do not have. The remaining change,
    moving up the starting date to 1789, does not do much for them, either.
    Aside from the problems with pre-1850 records, which I have documented
    elsewhere, there are problems with state and local records that make
    these Indian communities hard for a researcher to track. It is as if
    the ever-growing legend of Pocahontas, contrasted with the reality of
    19th and 20th century Indian people, made Anglo-Virginians ever less
    tolerant of anything other than the legend.
        Beginning after the Civil War and culminating with Virginia's
    Racial Integrity Law of 1924, Virginia became a state committed to the
    proposition that there were only two races, ``white'' and ``colored,''
    leaving no room for Indians. Under the 1924 law, anyone insisting on an
    Indian identity on an official document could be sent to prison for a
    year. Several people were, in fact, imprisoned for such insistence. The
    campaign to eliminate Indians from the state was headed by the state's
    Vital Statistics Bureau, which went so far as to issue a circular with
    ``suspicious'' families' names listed county by county. The families
    were referred to (and I quote) as ``these mongrels.'' The circular was
    sent to all officials in charge of county records, all school
    superintendents, and all licensed health personnel (who signed off on
    birth and death certificates) in the state. It is no wonder that these
    Indian communities became much harder for researchers to find. Some of
    their members left the state, keeping up their ties to home but
    returning only during the Civil Rights era when they no longer had to
    be, as one old-timer said to me, ``scared like a rabbit.'' But the
    communities hung together and hung on, as the attached quick-reference
    chart will show. They still exist, and they still say they're Indians.
    And even now, so thorough was the public relations campaign against
    them for decades, they meet skepticism on a daily basis.
        The tribes I speak for today consulted a BIA representative over a
    decade ago and were told that even if they submitted a petition
    forthwith, they would not see a decision ``in your lifetime'' (this was
    said to people then in their 40s). The six tribes are not merely being
    impatient, in wanting to move faster than that. Their primary motive
    for seeking federal recognition is getting better access to health
    programs, which are badly needed by their elders now. Little schooling
    within Virginia was available to those people when they were young-if,
    that is, they wanted to remain ``Indians'' in the state (see the quick-
    reference chart). Therefore their income level has suffered ever since,
    and in their old age they are hurting badly. The six tribes are not
    interested in remedying that fact through gaming-in fact, they have
    waived their rights to gaming, if they are recognized. Instead they
    hope to provide better conditions for their people through federal
    Indian programs, after recognition by the United States Congress.
        These tribes have endured over three centuries of injustice, some
    of the worst of it and by far the most public of it being in the recent
    past. Without federal recognition and the aid springing from it, the
    injustice is ongoing. I hope that you will accede to their request for
    acknowledgment.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Dr. Rountree, thank you very much for you
    testimony as well.
        I wonder if I might depart from tradition and ask Mr.
    Fleming, who is the Director of the Office of Federal
    Acknowledgment, if you would be willing to come up to the table
    even as the witnesses are there.
        Mr. Fleming, would you be willing to come over on the side
    of Dr. Rountree and present your testimony so that we might ask
    questions? And I appreciate your willingness to do that. We
    will include your full statement in the record. Mr. Fleming is
    the Director of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment in the
    Department of the Interior, and he will discuss the
    Department's efforts to improve the process.
        Mr. Fleming, welcome. If you would proceed, we will make
    your full statement a part of the record.

           STATEMENT OF R. LEE FLEMING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
            FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Mr. Fleming. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the Committee. My name is Lee Fleming, and I am the Director of
    the Office of Federal Acknowledgment at the Department of the
    Interior. I must say that my staff is a hard-working and
    dedicated staff, and we appreciate the regulations under which
    we are obligated.
        I am here today to provide the Administration's testimony
    on S. 514, S. 724, S. 1058, and H.R. 1294. The acknowledgment
    of the continued existence of another sovereign is one of the
    most solemn and important responsibilities delegated to the
    Secretary of the Interior. Federal acknowledgment enables
    Indian tribes to participate in Federal programs and
    establishes the government-to-government relationship between
    the United States and the Indian tribe, and has considerable
    social and economic impact on the petitioning group, its
    neighbors, and Federal, State, and local governments.
        We recognize that under the United States Constitution,
    Congress has the authority to recognize a distinctly Indian
    community as an Indian tribe. But along with that authority, it
    is important that all parties have the opportunity to review
    all the information available before recognition is granted.
    That is why we support a recognition process that requires
    groups to go through the Federal acknowledgment process because
    it provides a deliberative uniform mechanism to review and
    consider groups seeking Indian tribal status.
        Legislation such as these four bills would allow these
    groups to bypass this process, allowing them to avoid the
    scrutiny to which other groups have been subjected. While
    legislation in Congress can be a tool to accomplish
    recognition, a legislative solution should be used sparingly in
    cases where there is an overriding reason to bypass the
    process. The Administration supports all groups going through
    the Federal acknowledgment process under 25 C.F.R. Part 83.
        The Department, in 1978, recognized the need to adopt
    uniform regulations for Federal acknowledgment. Since 1978, 103
    decisions have been issued: 50 proposed findings, 46 final
    determinations, and 7 reconsidered final determinations. Ron
    Yob outlined the seven mandatory criteria and my written
    testimony will have that information.
        I want to say that over the past year the Department has
    taken several actions to expedite and clarify the Federal
    acknowledgment process. Some of these actions required changes
    to internal workload processes to eliminate backlogs in delays
    and others will require amendments to the regulations. Our goal
    is to improve the process so that all groups seeking
    acknowledgment can be processed and completed within a set time
    frame.
        I won't go over the 12 decisions or events that have taken
    place over the past year, but they are listed here in the
    testimony. One of the most significant, though, was the
    publication of the guidance and direction in the Federal
    Register regarding internal procedures for the Office of
    Federal Acknowledgment.
        I would like to turn now to the status of the petitions
    that are affected by the four bills. S. 514 provides Federal
    recognition as an Indian tribe to a Florida group known as the
    Muscogee Nation of Florida, which is currently a petitioner in
    the Department's Federal acknowledgment process. This group
    submitted to the Department its letter of intent in 1978 and
    completed documenting its petition in 2002, 24 years of
    researching. Currently, the group is fifth in line on the
    Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration list, thus, ready for
    the Department to review and evaluate its evidence under the
    seven mandatory criteria.
        S. 724 provides Federal recognition as an Indian tribe to a
    Montana group known as the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
    Indians of Montana, currently a petitioner under our process.
    This group submitted to the Department its letter of intent in
    1978 and completed documenting its petition in 1995. They took
    17 years to research and provide documentation. Currently, this
    group is on Active Consideration and a final determination is
    expected early 2009.
        S. 1058 provides an expedited review for Federal
    recognition as an Indian tribe to a Michigan group known as the
    Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, also currently a
    petitioner under our process. The group submitted to the
    Department its letter of intent in 1994 and completed
    documenting its petition in 2007. The group had taken time to
    provide the evidence necessary. This group is ninth on the
    Ready list.
        H.R. 1294 is the bill that provides Federal recognition as
    Indian tribes to six Virginia groups. These groups are
    currently petitioners in the Department's Federal
    acknowledgment process and, under the regulations, these six
    groups have submitted letters of intent and partial
    documentation to petition for Federal acknowledgment as an
    Indian tribe.
        The Federal acknowledgment regulations provide a uniform
    mechanism and standards to review and consider groups seeking
    Indian tribal status. These four bills, however, allow these
    groups to bypass our process, thus avoiding the scrutiny to
    which other groups have been subjected. We look forward to
    working with these groups and assisting them further as they
    continue under the Federal acknowledgment process.
        This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any
    questions the Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fleming follows:]

       Prepared Statement of R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal
                Acknowledgment, U.S. Department of the Interior

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Fleming, thank you very much for your
    testimony. I have a few questions, and then I will turn to
    Senator Murkowski.
        We have this afternoon Defense Secretary Gates appearing
    before the Congress in a classified session, so we will
    truncate this just a bit. He is here to talk about the war in
    Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Mr. Fleming, Mr. Sinclair, in his testimony, talked about
    the frustration they have had with the dates that have been
    offered. The Director of OFA advised a Federal court in June of
    2005 that they expected to issue a final determination in
    February 2007. Then OFA advised the Tribe in writing to expect
    the commencement of active consideration of the final
    determination in August 2007. That didn't happen. Then they
    granted extensions and said it will be August 2008, with a
    final determination by the end of 2008. That didn't happen in
    August. Then on July 24th the Tribe received another letter
    from OFA granting itself one more extension, now maybe 2009.
        What is the reason for this? And can you put yourself in
    the position of a petitioner and say what on earth is going on?
    Wouldn't that be enormous frustration on the part of a
    petitioner who has been waiting a long, long, long time, only
    to find that your office keeps saying, well, it will be now,
    then it will be later, then later again? Tell me what is going
    on.
        Mr. Fleming. We have currently three full-time teams. A
    team is composed of an anthropologist, genealogist, and
    historian. We are pleased to announce that we have a fourth
    team that has been selected and we are able to apply these
    resources to the various groups that are on our plate. We have
    currently seven groups that are under what is known as Active
    Consideration. Little Shell is one that is right before us,
    where we are working to produce a final determination, which is
    the final decision for the Department on a case that has been
    before us.
        I might state that the group itself had requested 10
    extensions in the process. When the proposed finding was
    issued--and it was a positive proposed finding--the decision-
    maker at the time warned the group that although this is a
    positive decision, you have 70-year evidentiary gaps that need
    to be filled, and if you do not fill those gaps, then a
    positive proposed finding could turn into a negative final
    determination.
        The Chairman. But that wasn't my question. I understand
    your testimony on that. My question was why does your office
    tell the court August 2007, August 2008, February 2007, January
    2008?
        Mr. Fleming. We are asked to provide projections that we
    are able to give the court or to the petitioners an idea of how
    we are focusing on our production.
        The Chairman. So if you told the court, in June of 2005,
    that you figured you would issue a final determination in
    February 2007, a year and a half ago, what caused that judgment
    to be so bad in 2005?
        Mr. Fleming. There are administrative occurrences that take
    place. We have litigation that we have to attend to that has
    deadlines, so we have to rearrange our resources at particular
    times. We have the issue of making sure, though, that the
    petitioners are notified of these particular extensions and why
    those extensions are needed.
        The Chairman. I understand you are notifying them, and that
    is what causes me to ask why are you notifying them if, in
    2005, you said you would finish in 2007, a year and a half ago.
    You have not come to us saying, look, we can't meet deadlines
    we are promising tribes, give us some resources. I don't
    understand it. It looks to me like you say, well, it is
    administrative. You know, my colleague and I, Senator
    Murkowski, have watched these Federal agencies act like they
    are wading through wet cement for years and years and years.
        Mr. Fleming. Well, let me give you an example. When the
    proposed finding came out for the Little Shell, through our
    Federal acknowledgment information resource database, we were
    able to scan the response, and that created, then, an overall
    administrative record of 20,116 documents, with a total page
    count of 67,000 pages of documentation. That is quite a bit of
    material to review for a final determination overall. We have
    been able to develop an image system to allow for faster
    review, but you multiply that by this group and other groups,
    and the limitation of our teams, we are only able to do what we
    can.
        The Chairman. You know, I don't want you to make decisions
    hastily; I want you to make good decisions. But I don't have
    any idea how we measure your performance. You take whatever
    time you decide to take and miss deadlines and tell me, well,
    it is administrative.
        Let me ask further, if I might. I am just asking about the
    Montana one because they set out what specifically you had told
    the Federal court and what you had represented in writing you
    would do and you have not done. I am only saying that if I were
    a petitioner, I would be enormously frustrated because it is
    not as if they have waited for six months or six years; in some
    cases it is 20 years.
        Ms. Tucker, in her testimony, made the point that the BIA
    will address other petitions even though they were submitted
    years after Muscogee and will not expend time on the Tribe
    because it cannot produce certain documents.
        If that is the case--and I don't know if it is, but if that
    is what Ms. Tucker says, and they cannot produce the documents
    because the documents don't exist. If that is the case, is
    there an alternative to coming to the Congress? Is the
    alternative to stay with you and wait until five or ten or
    fifteen years until you have told her you can't produce the
    documents, so your Tribe cannot possibly exercise the Federal
    recognition process at Interior? The only alternative would be
    to go to Congress. What is the alternative for Ms. Tucker?
        Mr. Fleming. Well, the group was provided a technical
    assistance review letter, and in that letter it revealed that
    the Department had concerns over the Indian entity
    identifications, we had concerns over their continuous,
    distinct community, their continuous leadership. They had
    descent difficulties and, with regard to their membership, they
    had to address individuals who could not demonstrate Indian
    descent, and some of the members may have an association with
    another federally recognized Indian tribe.
        Now, in order to respond to our technical assistance review
    letters, we advise that there are many types of documents that
    are out there to assist in this process: birth certificates,
    marriage/divorce/adoption/probate records, death certificates,
    and other primary documentation like Federal and State
    censuses. Even tax, land, and church records are available to
    help verify this process. And we stand ready to advise groups
    such as Muscogee Nation of Florida on how to address these.
        This group is fifth on the waiting list and we do have a
    projected schedule of our current active cases and our cases
    that are waiting for active consideration.
        The Chairman. I have been one of the strongest supporters
    here in Congress saying I believe tribes should go through the
    process we have established for the tribes, but that only works
    for so long if this process does not move along. And I am not
    suggesting moving it along in six months or sixteen months, but
    we have got people waiting year after year after year, in some
    cases decades. Somehow, you are going to wear out your welcome
    with the Congress and we are going to have people in Congress
    pushing, with sufficient strength, that the recognition process
    doesn't work because we have no method by which to evaluate
    your work; you make promises and don't keep them, and you say,
    well, we are busy, it is just administrative.
        So I have been a strong supporter, as you know, but the
    only way that we can continue to support this process is if the
    process actually works. You need more people? Ask us for more
    people. Set deadlines, keep the deadlines. But this is not
    fair, in my judgment.
        I want to ask Dr. Rountree a question. You are here on
    behalf of six Virginia tribes is that correct? But my
    understanding is there are other Virginia tribes that are
    unrecognized, is that correct?
        Ms. Rountree. There are two other State recognized tribes,
    both with reservations.
        The Chairman. And both have reservations.
        Ms. Rountree. Yes, they both have reservations.
        The Chairman. They are not seeking Federal recognition?
        Ms. Rountree. One is going to be seeking it eventually
    through the BIA; the other seems to be on hold, from what I can
    learn.
        The Chairman. And why is that the case? I mean, why----
        Ms. Rountree. Why are they on hold? I don't know, they
    don't tell me.
        The Chairman. Well, the reason I am asking the question is
    the Governor and the Senator and the Congressman made the point
    about what has happened in Virginia that appears in the
    rearview mirror as almost criminal, probably is criminal by
    today's cultural standards, what was done to American Indians
    there. It seems to me that the application would logically have
    been on behalf of all tribes similarly situated for Federal
    recognition.
        Ms. Rountree. It seems that way to me, but they did not
    consult me.
        The Chairman. And who are they?
        Ms. Rountree. The two reservation groups. They did not tell
    me, they didn't ask should they be included. I don't know what
    their negotiations were with the six tribes.
        The Chairman. Would you see if you can determine what that
    is and submit it for the Committee? I will make further
    inquiries as well, because if we are going to deal with the
    issue of Virginia, I am just curious why, if there are more
    tribes who are similarly situated, would not have been part of
    the petitioning.
        Ms. Rountree. I can only make an educated guess at this
    point because, as I said, I have not talked to people. My
    educated guess is that they are not particularly hopeful even
    of their own getting through the BIA, and they are also leery
    of going through Congress. They have been put through even
    worse things by Dr. Plecker than the six non-reservation
    tribes, much worse.
        The Chairman. Mr. Fleming, did you have observations about
    that?
        Mr. Fleming. You had inquired what the two tribes were, the
    Pomonkey and the Mattaponi. The Department has 12 formal
    petitioning groups from Virginia, and the bill only pertains to
    six of those groups. Of the 12 petitioning groups, we have two
    Rappahannock groups, two Chickahominy groups, and two Mattaponi
    groups. We also have two Monacan groups; one is located in
    Virginia and the other one is located in West Virginia. So it
    is an issue that we would hope that if these groups continue
    through the acknowledgment process, if there is any overlapping
    or if only partial groups are presented, our ultimate hope is
    that whatever tribe is recognized, be it through the Department
    or through Congress, that you are recognizing a whole tribe and
    not a partial or part of a tribe.
        The Chairman. Well, I am going to ask the staff, Senator
    Murkowski's staff and my staff, to inquire in Virginia to try
    to understand what this means. My understanding was that there
    were up to 12 in Virginia, and there are six that are brought
    together in this legislation. I am not quite sure I understand
    why that is the case. I do understand the powerful testimony
    given today by the Governor and our two colleagues in Congress,
    but I want to try to understand what the universe of actions
    might be by the Federal recognition process or the Congress.
        Dr. Rountree, did you have something else to add?
        Ms. Rountree. Only one other thing. I was answering for the
    State recognized tribes who do not overlap with one another.
        The Chairman. All right.
        Senator Murkowski, I took more time than I perhaps should
    have. Thank you for being patient.
        Senator Murkowski. No, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also want
    to include--Senator Martinez has a letter that he apparently
    would like placed in the record for the Muscogee Tribe of
    Florida.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Murkowski. If you could just, very quickly, with
    the Little Shell Tribe, Chairman Sinclair, you have been in
    this process now for 30 years, is that correct?
        Mr. Sinclair. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. And, Chairman Tucker, Muscogee has been
    in process for about 30 years, is that correct?
        Ms. Tucker. Yes. Our first petition was written by an
    assistant professor at Pensacola Junior College and was filed
    in late 1977 and was returned in 1978 with a number. We had a
    roll and a petition, and the new regulations were returned to
    us.
        Senator Murkowski. Chairman Yob, how long for the Ottawa,
    then?
        Mr. Yob. In our current efforts, we put our letter of
    intent in in 1994.
        Senator Murkowski. And, Dr. Rountree, with the Virginia
    tribes, how long has this been underway with the BIA?
        Ms. Rountree. With the BIA? Most of them sent in petitions
    to--sorry, letters of intent to petition in 1978. There have
    been some other groups that I don't work with who have appeared
    since then and sent in letters later.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, the reason I ask is because Mr.
    Fleming has indicated that the preference, of course, is to go
    through the process; and I would agree with Chairman Dorgan,
    that is the process that we have put in place. There is good
    reason for it and it is important to follow that, and only do
    you seek the legislative solution if there is an overriding
    reason--and those are your words, Mr. Fleming--to bypass the
    administrative process.
        But you have indicated that we don't want to go to the
    legislative process because it avoids scrutiny, and I guess my
    question to you is when you have 30 years here with the Little
    Shell and 30 years with the Muscogee and 30 years with--excuse
    me, not quite 30 years, 17 and close to 30, how is this
    avoiding scrutiny?
        Mr. Fleming. Senator Murkowski, a good part of the time is
    work that is done on both sides. You have a petitioning group
    that is trying to research evidence to apply under the seven
    mandatory criteria, so, as a group submits a letter of intent,
    that is not the fully documented petition at the very
    beginning, and in some cases these groups have taken over 20
    years to do the research.
        One of our cases of a group in New England petitioned and
    put a letter of intent in 1978 but did not submit documented
    petition material until 1998. Yet, we get blamed for that 20-
    year research project that is done by volunteers, it is done by
    limited resources by the groups. The groups may go through some
    leadership problems and such. This is why, in our directive, we
    wanted to address how the Department can deal with groups that
    do go through splintering problems. The moment you have a
    dispute between two leaders, sometimes their records are moved
    and taken away, and then we get a barrage of Freedom of
    Information Act requests.
        Senator Murkowski. And I can clearly appreciate that you
    can have a build-up of time and it is not necessarily on the
    agency's ends, that there are other issues at play then. So it
    is not as if we want to say, okay, nothing should extend beyond
    10 years or set an arbitrary number, but when you made the
    comment that somehow or other seeking a legislative solution
    could be viewed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny, I would
    suggest that, at least with these groups that we have before us
    today, the scrutiny has clearly been there, based on what I
    have seen.
        I want to try to understand what, in your opinion, would
    qualify, then, as an overriding reason to bypass this
    administrative process. And let's just use two examples,
    whether it is Muscogee or whether it is the Little Shell, where
    you have 30 years between the time the letter of intent has
    been filed and where you are in the process now. So you clearly
    have I think what most people would consider to be adequate
    time to review and to exchange and to get to the documentation.
        The other situation that, in my mind, might be a compelling
    reason is the story that we have heard today about the Virginia
    tribes, and the fact that you may be requesting documentation
    or information that does not exist.
        And I think, Chairman Tucker, you have mentioned this as an
    issue as well.
        So if these two situations don't qualify as an overriding
    reason to bypass, what would? What has, in your opinion,
    constituted an overriding reason?
        Mr. Fleming. I would look to the recent directive. In the
    directive is a provision that allows for an Indian tribe that
    has had long historic State reservation status. In the
    directive, if the group is able to demonstrate that, then they
    can go to the head of the waiting list, because, with that
    long-standing reservation status, there is considerable State
    documentation because of that State relationship. I would say,
    in those cases, there you have an overriding factor.
        The groups that are before us right now have had, and some
    still do, a lot of questions with regard to their Indian
    ancestry, to some that have questions regarding the continuous,
    distinct community; some have questions over political
    influence and leadership. Some may even be associated, as I
    mentioned earlier, with another federally recognized Indian
    tribe.
        You want all of that to be clear and all of that cleared
    and understood before they are either recognized under our
    process, and I would think you would want it clear before you
    recognize them through a Federal statute.
        Senator Murkowski. I understand what you have said. I don't
    know that any who are represented here today would suggest that
    that is making this process any more defined for them and their
    quest.
        One last quick question. Then, if I have additional, I will
    go ahead and submit them to the record.
        I think it was you, Chairman Tucker, that mentioned that
    one of the reasons that you are seeking the Federal recognition
    through Congress is the financial hardship issue, and the
    matter of limited funding.
        Ms. Tucker. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. We have all had to deal with lawyers at
    one point in time and pay lawyer's fees, and they are not
    cheap. Do you have any idea of what you have had to pay as you
    have sought this recognition over the course of these decades?
    What are we talking about in terms of dollars?
        Ms. Tucker. Millions.
        Senator Murkowski. Millions?
        Ms. Tucker. Yes. Easily.
        Senator Murkowski. Chairman Sinclair? Similar situation?
        Mr. Sinclair. I think the lawyers alone, in our case, I
    think our last estimate was they put $1 million, but most of it
    has been pro bono because we don't have any money. But their
    patience, I think, is growing thin. You know, we are kind of at
    the end.
        Senator Murkowski. It speaks to a process that, again, as
    Chairman Dorgan has noted, we want to make sure that when you
    utilize the process that we have set up through the agency to
    provide for this recognition, that it not be a--I think Senator
    Tester used the word--generational quest and a quest that can
    literally put you in a bankrupt situation or a financial stress
    that you look at and you say we simply can't even avail
    ourselves of this option because we don't have the time and we
    don't have the money. We have to have better systems in place.
    I would like to think that, with these guidelines that are out
    there, that is helping somewhat, but it sounds like there is
    more that remains to be done.
        Mr. Fleming?
        Mr. Fleming. Well, I wanted to point out that, in
    particular for the Virginia groups, for example, under the
    directive, there is a provision that allows for a group to only
    be burdened with documenting from 1789, which was when the
    United States was created through its governing document. So
    rather than 1607 to the present, they only need to document
    from 1789 to the present. By having that provision in there,
    they are relieved of 182-year evidentiary burden, and that is
    very helpful in their case. We have requested documentation
    from Dr. Rountree, and I believe even Senator McCain had asked
    for Dr. Rountree to provide the office with whatever
    documentation. We have not received anything yet, but we look
    forward to receiving documentation from all of these groups and
    hope that the documentation meets the seven mandatory criteria.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I am sure that that is
    appreciated, but I will tell you, when the new passport
    requirements were being discussed and Alaska Natives in my
    State knew that they were going to be required to have a
    passport to go over into Canada, I can tell you that there was
    great concern by many elders in our villages because they
    simply have no documentation, and these are people that are
    living here today. So to say that, well, we have kind of
    forgiven them for the first 150 years and they just need to
    find it from 17-whatever--I forget the date that you gave me.
        Mr. Fleming. 1789.
        Senator Murkowski. 1789, thank you. We recognize that it is
    easier said than done.
        Mr. Fleming. Right. When I was registrar for the Cherokee
    Nation, we worked with many families that were born outside of
    a hospital, and many of them did not have the standard birth
    certificates. So the staff had to work with the families to
    establish what are known as delayed birth certificates, which
    is--as we know, the birth certificate is one of the key
    cornerstones of all of what is required by many agencies. So it
    is helpful when you have a trained staff that can work with
    individuals and with groups to help them meet the requirements.
        And we are very excited by the fact that we now are on the
    internet. As you know, our agency has been off of the internet
    for over six and a half years. Our office was one of the first
    to get their material up, and it was actually put online today
    so that groups, interested parties, the general public can take
    a look at our decisions, our regulations, and many of the items
    that are necessary. Before we were cut off the internet, we
    only had 20 documents that were on our website. We have over
    500 now, just at the flick of a switch today. So we are trying
    to be transparent and helpful.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, again, let me thank all of you who have
    traveled to Washington to provide testimony today. As I
    indicated, the Committee is holding this hearing because we
    want to gather additional information for the purpose of making
    some decisions as we go forward when the new Congress begins.
        This Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

       Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia
        Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and colleagues on the Senate Indian
    Affairs Committee. I thank you for holding this hearing today regarding
    recognition of six Virginia Indian tribes. For years now I have worked
    closely on this matter with these tribes and with my colleagues in the
    Virginia Congressional delegation.
        My message today is a simple one: While I strongly support federal
    recognition for these Virginia tribes, I do have a serious concern that
    H.R. 1294, the bill before the Committee, could produce the unintended
    consequence of allowing Virginia Indian Tribes greater rights to
    conduct gambling activities beyond the limitations currently
    established under Virginia's laws.
        I shared these same concerns about gaming with the Committee at its
    June 2006 hearing on a similar bill. At that time, I noted that I
    strongly believe that Virginia's Indian tribes deserve federal
    recognition. But, I also noted then that I share the concern of some
    people that federal recognition could--without appropriate court-tested
    safeguards--unintentionally result in gaming in Virginia that is
    contrary to the letter and spirit of Virginia's laws. At that hearing,
    I committed to working with the Virginia tribes and others to ensure
    that a federal recognition bill would not result in such an unintended
    consequence.
        Despite my best efforts, the best efforts of the tribes, and the
    best efforts of others in the Virginia Congressional delegation, a
    consensus has not been reached on this matter. I remain concerned that
    the House passed bill could produce the unintended consequence of
    allowing Virginia Indian tribes greater rights to conduct gambling
    activities beyond the limitations currently established under
    Virginia's laws.
        Last year, I specifically asked the Congressional Research Service
    to review the House passed language on gambling. I respectfully submit
    for the record the CRS memorandum reviewing this legislation. In the
    memorandum, CRS states that the gaming language in H.R. 1294 has never
    been tested in court and that it is not possible ``to predict or assert
    with any degree of certainty that H.R. 1294 provides `iron clad'
    protection against gaming.''
        It is important to recognize that Congress has previously passed
    legislation that has been upheld in court with respect to federal
    tribal recognition and gaming limitations. It is my hope that the
    Committee would work with the Virginia tribes and the Virginia
    Congressional delegation to examine these statutes and court cases and
    determine if such language could serve as a model to help move this
    very important recognition bill forward in an amended fashion.
        Mr. Chairman, I hold the view that a consensus can be reached to
    move this legislation forward. The Virginia tribes deserve recognition,
    and I believe federal recognition can be achieved while respecting
    Virginia's laws on gaming. Congress has passed similar laws for others
    tribes in other states, and courts have upheld those laws. Those
    efforts should serve as our path forward.
        The case for federal recognition of these Virginia tribes is clear.
    To date, the Federal Government has acknowledged more than 500 Native
    American tribes, yet the Federal Government has not done so for six of
    the tribes that first greeted Captain John Smith upon the shores of
    Jamestown more than 400 years ago. While I recognize that there is an
    administrative process that is also available to obtain recognition,
    the case is well established that, because Virginia, many decades ago,
    destroyed vital documents, that this process is not appropriate for
    these tribes.
        In sum, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that a federal recognition bill
    can pass the Congress and be signed into law with court-tested
    safeguards in place to protect our state laws on gaming.
        Given the fact that legislative activity in the 110th Congress
    could come to a close in the coming days, I recognize that a consensus
    on this matter may not be achieved this year. If that is indeed the
    case, it is my hope that you and others on this Committee will help
    move federal recognition legislation with court-tested gaming
    safeguards in the next Congress.
    Attachment

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Rev. Jonathan M. Barton, General Minister,
                          Virginia Council of Churches
        Chairman Dorgan, members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee
    Governor Kaine, Senator Webb, Congressmen Moran, Congressman Scott,
    tribal leaders from the Virginia Tribes, thank you for your leadership
    and the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Jonathan
    Barton and I serve as the General Minister for the Virginia Council of
    Churches. I ask your permission to include my previous testimony. I
    would like to express my deep appreciation to the members of Virginia's
    six tribes present here today for inviting the Council to stand with
    them in their request for Federal Acknowledgment. The Virginia Council
    of Churches stands with the Virginia tribes today in solid support of
    the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition
    Act of 2007.''
        The Virginia Council of Churches, established in 1944, is the
    combined witness of 37 governing bodies of 18 different Catholic,
    Orthodox, and Protestant denominations located within the Commonwealth
    of Virginia. A list of our member denominations is appended to my
    written comments. During our 64-year history, we have an established
    record for fairness, justice, and the dignity of all peoples. We stand
    today grounded in our faith and in our history and values. Faith means
    living not by our feelings but by our commitments. The assurance of
    things hoped for is often less about when a hoped-for dream becomes a
    reality than why that dream must become reality. The conviction of
    things not seen isn't always about when or even how it will come to
    pass but rather why it deserves our energies in the first place. We
    hold fast to our faith that our Virginia Tribes will be recognized by
    this Congress because we have assurance in the rightness of it and have
    the conviction necessary to see it through.
        Four hundred and one years ago when Captain Christopher Newport
    sailed into the Chesapeake Bay, a relationship between the church and
    Virginia's Indigenous Peoples began. There is little doubt in the
    historical record that one of the purposes of Jamestown was to
    establish the Church of England. In 1999 both chambers of the Virginia
    General Assembly agreed to House Joint Resolution 754 urging Congress
    to grant Federal Recognition to the Virginia Tribes. Our legislature
    asked the state's delegation in Congress ``to take all necessary steps
    forthwith to advance it.'' Six years ago when I testified before this
    Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources, Senator Ben
    ``Nighthorse'' Campbell made the comment: ``You know Rev. Barton, the
    Indians and the church have not always gotten along very well.'' The
    church has much to repent in our early missionary efforts. My presence
    here today represents a desire to repent for past sins. These early
    immigrants who came to these shores in the early 1600s failed to find
    the Image of God in the native people they encountered. These early
    settlers were guided by the ``Doctrine of Discovery.'' Under this
    principle, European powers lay claim to lands within the New World and
    the continent of Africa. This Doctrine evolved from various papal
    bulls, dating back to 1493 provided a sense of Divine Calling,
    outlining how Europeans could claim and acquire land from the Indian
    Nations. They believed that in order to be a Christian, they needed to
    look, live, and speak with an English accent. Even though the
    missionaries were excessively zealous, the scriptures they brought with
    them eventually provided a source of strength for our Virginia Tribes
    to endure four centuries of oppression and discrimination. As
    settlements increased in Virginia, missionaries continued to reach out
    to the tribes. While this relationship was often tense the message took
    root and began to flourish within the tribes. By the middle of the 19th
    Century and up through the middle of the 20th century tribal churches
    were established and became a focal point of the community. Even during
    the period of the Racial Integrity Act when the Commonwealth was
    asserting there are no Indians here Baptist, Methodist and Episcopal
    Indian Churches continued to serve our tribes. These relationships
    continue today.
        During that same hearing, Senator Allen asked me about concerns the
    Council may have regarding gaming. At that time, I stated the Council's
    opposition to all forms of gaming and our conviction that if gaming
    comes to Virginia it will not be the Virginia Tribes who are the ones
    to introduce it. This is still our strong conviction today.
        The cultural landscape is similar with each of the Virginia tribes.
    As you enter their land, you find the church, the school and the Tribal
    Circle. As you approach the Circle you can hear the sounds of the
    Tribal Drum, you can feel the heartbeat of life move through your body,
    declaring you are on sacred ground. It is here where the tribal
    community is grounded. You must listen to the sound of the drum of the
    past, so that you can sing in the present and dance into the future.
    Here is where the faith and traditions of the Elders are passed to new
    generations.
        It has been a blessing for me to know and work with each of the
    chiefs of our Virginia tribes. I know them to be persons of great
    integrity and moral courage. Each brings strong leadership to their
    tribes. Each brings unique and special gifts, and they all share a
    common respect for their past and vision for the future.
        In 2007, Virginia hosted America's 400th Anniversary Commemorations
    with special events drawing international guests and visitors. We
    welcomed the Queen of England, several visits from the President and
    Vice President, as well as several special signature events. In
    addition, the churches in Virginia held several of their own events
    recognizing significant events in the life of the church. The Virginia
    Tribes played a significant role in each of these events. The events
    and excitement of 2007 are for many a memory now and Virginia's
    Indigenous People, who have lived on this land for a thousand
    generations, and who greeted the English as they landed in 1607, are
    still not recognized. It seems that our tribes are not only frozen in
    history; they seem frozen in the indifferent ice of Dante's Inferno. We
    are called to review our complete history, reflect upon it, and act as
    a people of faith mindful of the significance of 1607. We are also
    called to remember that our Tribes are still here. The people of
    ancient Israel wandered in the desert wilderness for forty years. Our
    tribes have wandered the desert of their native land for ten times
    forty years. Now they stand on the edge over looking the promise and
    wonder if like Moses they will not be able to enter. If the dream of
    federal recognition has been deferred to the next generation or will
    they, at last, be able to cross over the Jordan River.
        The people in our churches and communities now look at the
    significance of these events differently. What represented newness of
    hope and opportunity for some was the occasion for oppression,
    degradation, and genocide for others. For the church this is not just a
    time for celebration but a time for a committed plan of action insuring
    that this ``kairos'' moment in history not continue to cosmetically
    coat the painful aspects of the American history of racism. This nation
    is a great nation with high ideals and hopes for all people. While we
    strive to reach these lofty goals we have also fallen short of the
    mark. What continues to make us great is that we acknowledge our flaws
    and redress the wrongs, always seeking a more perfect union. These six
    Virginia Tribes; the Chickahominy, the Chickahominy--Eastern Division,
    the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond,
    stand before you today after a four hundred year journey asking only
    that you honor their being, honor their contributions to our shared
    history, and honor their ancestors by acknowledging they exist. This
    simple request is vital to the healing of the broken circle, broken
    four centuries ago when cultures collided and forever changed the
    history of the world. It is about the present and the recognition that
    despite the journey these tribes have survived and are still here. It
    is about taking their proper place among the other 563 tribes currently
    recognized by the United States. It is about the future that future
    generations may experience the fullness of life intended by their
    forbearers and their Creator. Let us mend the Circle so that we may
    move forward into the future. Let me close with the words from one of
    the songs created and recorded for the Jamestown observance in 2007 by
    ``Anniversary Voices.''
        Remember the Many.

            We are all part of the sacred earth, every deer, every stream,
            every tree.

            We have learned to respect all living things, and to live in
            harmony.

        We are riders on the sands, the sands of time, the Creator's in the
    wave in the shore.

            We have been here for more than ten thousand years.

            We will be here for ten thousand more!

            Stand where I'm standing; take a look at my view.

            How should I feel? I was here before you.

            The time has arrived recognition is due.

            Remember the many who've become the few!

        The member Communions of the Virginia Council of Churches, strongly
    encourage you to remember the few, recognize our tribes pass the
    Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act
    of 2007.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Adkins, Chief, Chickahominy Indian
                             Tribe-Eastern Division

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Kenneth Adams, Chief, Upper Mattaponi Indian
                                     Tribe
        I am Kenneth Adams, Chief of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe of King
    William County, Virginia. I am submitting this statement on behalf of
    the Upper Mattaponi Tribe seeking Federal acknowledgement through H.R.
    1294, The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal
    Recognition Act of 2007.
        There is overwhelming evidence of the continuing existence of the
    Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. We have lived close to the upper reaches
    of the Mattaponi river, as documented by John Smith of the Jamestown
    colony in the early 1600s. Today, the town of Aylett on the Mattaponi
    River incorporates ancestral land of the Upper Mattaponi Indians. Other
    written accounts and maps tell of a concentration of Indians in the
    vicinity of Aylett from the colonial era onward.
        Records of the 20th century include the establishment of Sharon
    Indian School in 1919 to educate the children of the Upper Mattaponi
    Tribe. Today Sharon Indian School is listed on the National Register of
    Historic Buildings as the only public Indian School still existing in
    the Commonwealth of Virginia. After the school was built, the Upper
    Mattaponi used the school for church worship services until 1942, when
    Indian View Baptist Church was built, the name reflecting the
    membership of the tribal people of the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.
        From the late 1940s into the late 1950s, Upper Mattaponi children
    attended high school and college at Bacone College in Muskogee,
    Oklahoma, a school established in 1880 for the education of American
    Indians. In 1892 from the King William County Superintendent of
    Education and again in the 1940s from the Tribal Chief, educational
    assistance was requested from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the
    Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.
        Draft cards of the First and Second World Wars document many of the
    Upper Mattaponi warriors as Indians, and marriage records from 1853
    forward document the Upper Mattaponi as Indians.
        These are but a few of many reasons we should be officially
    acknowledged by the Federal Government as an Indian Tribe. We have
    spilt our blood and given our lives for this nation in the
    Revolutionary War and the wars of the 20th century. We are only asking
    this government for one thing and that is proper recognition of the
    Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephen R. Adkins, Chief, Chickahominy
                                  Indian Tribe
        Thank you Chairman Dorgan and other distinguished members of this
    committee for allowing me to submit testimony in support of the
    Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act
    of 2007--H.R. 1294. This bill and the history of the six Virginia
    tribes seeking federal acknowledgement was researched diligently and
    studiously by Senator Jim Webb before he agreed to support the bill. I
    thank Senator Webb for giving this bill due diligence and his
    subsequent unflagging support of the merits of this bill. A hearing on
    our Federal Recognition was held by this committee in 2006. I am
    honored to submit my testimony to this Senate Committee today on behalf
    of the six Tribes named in H.R. 1294 the Eastern Chickahominy, the
    Monacan, the Nansemond, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, and my
    Tribe the Chickahominy. I feel deeply privileged that His Excellency,
    Timothy M. Kaine, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who in his
    inaugural address pledged his strong support for Federal Recognition of
    the Virginia Tribes is here today giving oral testimony in support of
    H.R. 1294. I wish to thank Dr. Helen Rountree, a renowned
    anthropologist specializing in the heritage of the Virginia Tribes, who
    worked on the petitions we filed with the BIA, for providing expert
    testimony before you today and who is prepared to assist with any
    questions you may have about our history. And finally I thank Rev. Jon
    Barton from the Virginia Council of Churches who has worked tirelessly
    in our effort to gain Federal Recognition and who is supplying written
    testimony today.
        Chairman Dorgan et. al., I am sure you are well aware of the events
    that occurred in Virginia and the United Kingdom commemorating the
    400th anniversary of the first permanent English Settlement in America
    in May 1607. The settlement became known as Jamestown and is located on
    the James River in Tidewater Virginia. On Anniversary Weekend at
    Jamestown, May 11-13, 2007, visitors from all over the world including
    leaders representing the United States government, Great Britain,
    Native Americans and African Americans et. al., gathered acknowledging
    the birth of this Great Republic, the United States of America, which
    blossomed at Jamestown. In July 2006, a delegation of 54 tribal members
    representative of the gender and age demographics of the Tribes
    recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia had the opportunity to visit
    the United Kingdom as part of its 2007 Commemoration activities. For
    many of us it was a first time visit to St. George's Church at
    Gravesend, the final resting place of Pocahontas, the daughter of
    Paramount Chief Powhatan and the wife of John Rolfe. History tells us
    that Pocahontas died when she returned with John Rolfe to England in
    1616.
        The impact of our experience in Gravesend is something I want to
    share with you because it was beyond what any of us could have possibly
    imagined. The congregation of St. George's Church brought home to us,
    the very real connection the British people feel with our heritage. And
    for us, who have experienced and know so well what has happened to our
    people since the days of Pocahontas, the connection we felt to both the
    congregation and Pocahontas was palpable and real. The British have
    paid honor and tribute to her in a manner that no member of her family
    or her descendants has ever received in this country. This feeling of
    respect and honor in the church through its living congregation
    suffused the entire Virginia Indian delegation. But to my utter
    amazement, this attitude of honor and respect transcended the spiritual
    and emotional service within the church and was extended to us in every
    venue we attended from Kent University, to Kent County Council, to the
    House of Commons and the House of Lords. If you would indulge me, I
    would like to share with you the words from a plaque which hangs on a
    wall of St. George's Church, I believe from these words you can sense
    the very sincere regard British people feel for Pocahontas. ``This
    stone commemorates Princess Pocahontas or Metoak daughter of the mighty
    American Indian Chief Powhatan. Gentle and humane, she was the friend
    of the earliest struggling English colonists whom she nobly rescued,
    protected, and helped. On her Conversion to Christianity in 1613, she
    received in Baptism the name Rebecca, and shortly afterwards became the
    wife of John Rolfe, a settler in Virginia. She visited England with her
    husband in 1616, was graciously received by Queen Anne wife of James I.
    In the twenty second year of her age she died at Gravesend preparing to
    revisit her native country and was buried near this spot on March 21st
    1617.
        I believe for our people to go back to Great Britain and be
    embraced by this church congregation was a significant reconciliation
    and healing. As descendants, we have not felt the honor here at home
    that those in Great Britain both feel for Pocahontas and bestowed upon
    us. Through this visit to Gravesend, we saw Pocahontas as more than the
    legend we live behind, we saw her as the first to brave the new world
    that opened up with first contact by the English. We saw Pocahontas as
    one with whom we can identify, as a soul who today can still touch us,
    and remind us of whom we are and remind us that we have a proud
    heritage. She is not a myth, for, she is still inside all of us, and
    her death and burial in England, remind us of how far and challenging
    our path has been since she braved that voyage to England. She was
    brave and she was alone. It was a tremendous experience to step into
    that church and feel the love of that British congregation.
    Appropriately, the St. George's Church Guide, contains this prayer:

            May your Church, Lord, be a light to the nations, the sign and
            source of your power to unite all men. May she lead mankind to
            the mystery of your love? Amen.

        I could tell you the much publicized story of the 17th century
    Virginia Indians, but you, like most Americans, know our first contact
    history. I wish there was time today to tell the full story of what has
    happened to the Virginia Tribes since Pocahontas went to England to the
    Court of Queen Anne. The story of Chief Powhatan and his daughter
    Pocahontas is well known across this land, her picture being in this
    very capitol building with her English husband John Rolfe. But, what
    about our story, for years the Commonwealth of Virginia did not care
    about our story? Our public school textbooks had scant mention of who
    we are. So, what do you know or what does mainstream America know about
    what happened in those years between the 17th century and today. The
    fact that we were so prominent in early history and then so callously
    denied our Indian heritage is the story that most don't want to
    remember or recognize. In 2006 & 2007, the Virginia Indian Tribes, were
    a part of the commemoration of Jamestown. In 2007, when Jamestown was
    visited by the Queen of Great Britain and the President of the United
    States, the Virginia Tribes gained a much deeper understanding of who
    we are, fueled in part by our learning gained from our trip to Great
    Britain and in our involvement in researching the truth about the
    underpinnings of the first permanent English Settlement at Jamestown
    and, finally, what our contributions meant to its success. Our
    connection to Pocahontas and, by extension, to Great Britain must come
    full circle and extend to the Congress of the United States of America.
    We must feel the same honor and love from leaders of the United States
    of America as we do from the people from Great Britain with whom our
    last treaty was signed in 1677.
        I and the Chiefs from Virginia, stand on the shoulders of many
    others besides Pocahontas and Powhatan. One story that has always made
    me sad, and which brings in a different picture than the love we
    experienced in Great Britain, is that of the Paspahegh led by Chief,
    Wowinchopunk whose wife was captured and taken to Jamestown Fort and
    ``run through'' with a sword, whose children were tossed overboard and
    then their brains were ``shot out'' as they floundered in the water,
    and whose few remaining tribal members sought refuge with a nearby
    tribe, possibly the Chickahominy. With this horrific action in August
    1610, a whole Nation was annihilated. A Nation who befriended
    strangers, and, ultimately died at the hands of those same strangers.
    As we commemorated Jamestown 2007 and the birth of our Nation, those of
    Indian heritage in Virginia were also reminded of this history.
        We are seeking recognition through an act of congress rather than
    the BIA because actions taken by the Commonwealth of Virginia during
    the twentieth century erased our history by altering key documents as
    part of a systematic plan to deny our existence. This state action
    separates us from the other tribes in this country that were protected
    from this blatant denial of Indian heritage and identity. The
    documentary genocide the Virginia Indians suffered at the hands of
    Walter Ashby Plecker, a rabid white separatist, who ruled over the
    Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia for 34 years, from 1912 to 1946
    was well documented in an article written by Peter Hardin of the
    Richmond Times Dispatch in 2000. Although socially unacceptable to kill
    Indians outright, Virginia Indians became fair game to Plecker as he
    led efforts to eradicate all references to Indians on vital records. A
    practice that was supported by the state's establishment when the
    eugenics movement was endorsed by leading state universities and was
    further supported when the general assembly enacted the Racial
    Integrity Act in 1924. A law that stayed in effect until 1967 and
    caused my parents to have to travel to Washington D.C. on February 20,
    1935 in order to be married as Indians. This vile law forced all
    segments of the population to be registered at birth in one of two
    categories, white or colored. Our anthropologist says there is no other
    state that attacked Indian identity as directly as the laws passed
    during that period of time in Virginia. No other ethnic community's
    heritage was denied in this way. Our state, by law, declared there were
    no Indians in Virginia in 1924, and if you dared to say differently,
    you went to jail or worse. That law stayed in effect half of my life.
        I have been asked why I do not have a traditional Indian name.
    Quite simply my parents, as did many other native parents, weighed the
    risks and decided it was not worth the risk of going to jail by giving
    me a traditional Indian name.
        Former Senator George Allen, as Governor of the Commonwealth of
    Virginia, sponsored legislation in 1997 acknowledging the injustice of
    the Racial Integrity Act.
        Unfortunately, while this legislation allows those of the living
    generations to correct birth records, the legislation or law has not
    and cannot undo the damage done by Plecker and his associates to my
    ancestors who endured pain and humiliation in venues disparate as
    trying to obtain marriage licenses to being inducted into the Armed
    Forces as Indian, all because of these distorted, altered, incorrect
    records.
        We are seeking recognition through Congress because this history of
    racism, in very recent times, intimidated the tribal people in Virginia
    and prevented us from believing that we could fit into a petitioning
    process that would understand or reconcile this state action with our
    heritage. We feared the process would not be able to see beyond the
    corrupted documentation that was designed to deny our Indian heritage.
    Many of the elders in our community also feared, and for good reason,
    racial backlash if they tried.
        My father and his peers lived in the heart of the Plecker years and
    carried those scars to their graves. When I approached my father and
    his peers regarding our need for state or federal recognition they
    pushed back very strongly. In unison they said. ``Let sleeping dogs lie
    and do not rock the boat''. Their fears of reprisal against those folks
    who had risked marrying in Virginia and whose birth records accurately
    reflected their identity outweighed their desire to openly pursue any
    form of recognition. Those fears were not unfounded because the threat
    of fines or jail time was very real to modern Virginia Indians.
        Chairman Dorgan, the aforementioned story is very painful and I do
    not like to tell that story. Many of my people will not discuss what I
    have shared with you but I felt you needed to understand recent history
    opposite the romanticized, inaccurate accounts of 17th-century history.
        Let me tell you how we got here today. The six tribes on this bill
    gained State Recognition in the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983
    and 1989. The legislation of 1997 placed the burden of cost to correct
    the inaccurate vital records on the Commonwealth of Virginia, but it
    couldn't fix the problem--the damage to our documented history had been
    done. Although there were meager attempts to gain federal
    acknowledgement by some of the tribes in the mid 20th century, our
    current sovereignty movement began directly after the enactment of the
    aforementioned legislation acknowledging the attack on our heritage. In
    1999 we came to Congress when we were advised by the BAR (Bureau of
    Acknowledgement and Research) now OFA (Office of Federal
    Acknowledgement) that many of us would not live long enough to see our
    petition go through the administrative process. A prophecy that has
    come true. We have buried three of our chiefs since that prophetic
    declaration was made.
        Given the realities of the OFA and the historical slights suffered
    by the Virginia Indian Tribes for the last 400 years, the six tribes
    referenced in H.R. 1294 feel that our situation clearly distinguishes
    us as candidates for Congressional Federal recognition.
        As Chiefs of our tribes, we have persevered in this process for one
    reason. We do not want our families or our tribes to let the legacy of
    Walter Plecker stand. We want the assistance of Congress to give the
    Indian communities in Virginia, their freedom from a history that
    denied their Indian identity. Without acknowledgment of our identity,
    the harm of racism is the dominant history. We want our children and
    the next generation, to have their Indian Heritage honored and to move
    past what we experienced and our parents experienced. We, the leaders
    of the six Virginia Tribes, are asking Congress to help us make history
    for the Indian people of Virginia, a history that honors our ancestors
    who were there at the beginning of this great country. We want to
    experience the honor and love that we felt was still alive in the
    congregation at St. George's. After our visit to Great Britain I truly
    believed that Federal Recognition of the Virginia Indian Tribes would
    occur in that anniversary year. The reception we received in Great
    Britain and across the Commonwealth of Virginia convinced me the time
    was right to end 400 years of disenfranchisement. When recognition did
    not occur, there was much sadness among my people. But our hope does
    not waver. We believe in the language of the Constitution of the United
    States of America. We believe that ultimately America will do right by
    us. We believe the blood we shed in every military conflict the United
    States has engaged in will not be in vain. We believe you will
    reconcile history in this country between two cultures in a way that
    honors our history of learning to live together in peace and in love.
    That is what we want for our people, and for our nation. The acceptance
    of the invitation to visit Great Britain to share our culture and
    history to describe our contemporary lifestyles as both contributors to
    the American way of life and aspirants to the American dream and our
    decision to honor Pocahontas at her grave has strengthened our resolve
    to obtain federal acknowledgement. It has made us understand that we
    deserve to be on a level playing field with the other 562 odd tribes
    who are federally acknowledged. It has made us unwilling to accept
    being discriminated against because of both a historical oversight and
    the concerted efforts of our Commonwealth to deny to us our rightful
    heritage. The aforementioned invitation to visit Great Britain was not
    easy for us to accept. We did not know what to expect, and we were
    apprehensive. In a powerful way this visit was destined to be for it
    brought us into the history we commemorated at Jamestown in a very
    positive palpable way.
        The Commonwealth of Virginia has taken definitive actions to right
    the wrongs inflicted upon its indigenous peoples and stood with us as
    we commemorated the anniversary of the founding of the first permanent
    English Settlement which occurred 400 years ago on the banks of the
    James River at Jamestown, Virginia. We believe it is time for the
    United States Congress to stand alongside us and grant us the
    Recognition we deserve as Sovereign Nations who provided safe haven to
    the 17th-century colonists and helped give birth to the greatest Nation
    in the world.
        Again, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of
    the six tribes in H.R. 1294.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Wayne Adkins, President, Virginia Indian Tribal
                               Alliance for Life
        I am Wayne Adkins, an assistant chief of the Chickahominy Tribe,
    and I am submitting this statement on behalf of The Virginia Indian
    Tribal Alliance for Life (VITAL), an organization of the tribes seeking
    Federal acknowledgement through H.R. 1294, The Thomasina E. Jordan
    Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007.
        In 1999, after the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution
    memorializing Congress to grant them Federal Recognition, the Virginia
    Tribes united to seek recognition through Congress collectively. VITAL
    was founded at that time to, among other things, work with Virginia's
    Congressional delegation to obtain federal recognition.
        The Tribes of Virginia have been seeking federal recognition for
    nearly a century, but largely through individual tribal efforts. John
    Collier, head of the BIA in 1943, stated that it is largely ``an
    historical accident'' that the tribes of Virginia were not recognized,
    because our treaties were with England, rather than with the United
    States. For well over a century, ethnologists from various institutions
    have affirmed the identity of the Indian tribes in Virginia through
    independent, scholarly studies.
        Part of VITAL's mission is to build grassroots support within the
    larger Virginia population. Throughout this effort, we have been
    pleased with the overwhelming support we have received. Starting in
    2006, and throughout 2007, the Virginia Tribes participated in events
    commemorating the establishment of the colony at Jamestown that lead to
    the birth of the United States. At these events, we shared our history
    and culture in dance programs, panel discussions and historical
    presentations that honored the memory and contributions of our
    ancestors. And again, we received affirmation of support for federal
    recognition from all demographics and all regions of Virginia. The
    universal reaction we experience is surprise, even shock, that no
    tribes in Virginia are recognized by the United States, followed by the
    statement that recognition is appropriate and long overdue.
        A significant event during this commemoration was the trip to Kent,
    England by a delegation of Virginia Indian people. The people of Kent
    insisted that the Virginia Indians be a part of their commemorative
    events. This participation became a life-altering experience for us.
        Tribal leaders were treated as heads of state, acknowledging the
    tribal sovereignty that is still recognized by the English people. We
    were treated with much respect wherever we went. Even more important to
    many of us, we visited St. Georges, the church where Pocahontas,
    daughter of the paramount Virginia chief Wahunsenacawh (Powhatan), is
    buried. We were able to have a private worship service there and to
    worship there with the people of Gravesend. While at that site, I felt
    that we had fully reconnected with our ancestors and we had come full-
    circle.
        This event, coupled with the many expressions of support by the
    people of England for our federal recognition effort, confirmed for me
    that federal recognition of the Virginia Tribes is warranted and
    strengthened my resolve to pursue it even more vigorously when we
    returned to the United States.
        Through the efforts of VITAL, tribal leaders and our Congressional
    sponsors, we have enjoyed successful hearings in each session of
    Congress since 2002. We continue to receive exceptionally strong
    support from the Commonwealth of Virginia, including recent Governors.
        The Virginia tribes are seeking federal recognition now for the
    same reasons as our ancestors who initiated efforts to obtain
    recognition in the early part of the 20th century.
        It would allow our students to participate in educational programs
    open only to federally-recognized tribes. It will also help us provide
    health care for the elders of our tribes who cannot afford health care
    on their limited incomes.
        Recognition will allow the tribes to repatriate the remains of
    their ancestors in a respectful and dignified manner. Museums and
    universities, for example, have a large number of Virginia Indian
    remains but are not required to repatriate them to non-Federally-
    recognized tribes.
        Federal Recognition would place the Virginia tribes on equal
    footing with other tribes in the United States and afford us the same
    rights and opportunities they enjoy. Our tribal governments will be
    able to more fully exercise their sovereignty, helping to ensure the
    continuity and future of our tribal communities.
        Finally, Federal Recognition will officially affirm our Indian
    identity and heritage in a way that our ancestors were prohibited from
    doing by the state of Virginia. It will allow us to fulfill our
    ancestors' dream for recognition and further honor them and their
    efforts to achieve it.
        I strongly urge the Committee to mark up H.R. 1294 and position it
    for approval by the full Senate this year.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        Attachments to the prepared statement of Hon. Ann Denson Tucker

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]