[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]