[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS AND THE LITTLE BAND OF 
                           OTTAWA INDIANS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 501 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate bill, S. 
1357.

                              {time}  1256


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate 
bill (S.1357) to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the 
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of 
Ottawa Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Menendez in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, S. 1357 is sponsored by Senator Levin and cosponsored 
by Senator Riegle of Michigan. The bill reaffirms and clarifies the 
Federal relationship with the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa 
Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. These two groups 
are the political successors to the signatories of the 1836 Treaty of 
Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. The two groups have 1,500 
members who continue to reside near their ancestral homeland in 
northern Michigan. The subcommittee held a hearing on this bill 
September 17, 1993, at which the tribes submitted well documented 
evidence that they should be immediately recognized. The companion, 
bill, sponsored by Representative Kildee, was reported out of 
subcommittee by voice vote on November 8, 1993. This bill passed the 
Senate on May 25 and was reported out of the Natural Resources 
Committee on June 29 by voice vote without amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1357, the Odawa 
Recognition Act, which would extend Federal recognition to the Odawa 
Indians, completely bypassing the BIA's Federal Acknowledgment Process 
[FAP] through which all other nonrecognized must pass.
  The reasons for my opposition are identical to the reasons I oppose 
S. 1066, the Pokagon Recognition Act, which we will take up next. I 
will outline them briefly for the benefit of the House, before 
discussing them in greater detail.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you all the things this bill is not. No 
matter how many times the proponents repeat themselves--probably in the 
hopes that it they repeat it often enough it will become the truth--
this is not a restoration or a reaffirmation bill. This is a 
recognition bill, pure and simple.
  I know that the bands claim they are descended from a treaty 
signatory, and that they say that means they are recognized. But as I 
have previously stated, the Federal courts have completely rejected 
that thesis in such cases a Untied States versus Washington. Simply 
because a group existed as a federally recognized tribal entity in 1820 
or 1830 in no way guarantees that they have continued to exist in the 
same unaltered state until today.
  Many groups have split, become extinct, joined with others, or have 
become absorbed in to the surrounding non-Indian community. Many others 
have ceased to function as tribal entities. That's what we have the FAP 
process for, to weed out those groups that can no longer meet the 
criteria for government-to-government recognition. The Pokagon should 
have to go through it just like any other nonrecognized tribe.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about what is or is not wrong with the 
FAP process. The Odawa's argument that the process is too complex or 
ineffective is completely disingenuous. Neither of these groups has 
even tried the process. Neither has done anything more than submit 
letters to the BIA informing that agency that they intend to petition 
for recognition at some unspecified time in the future: the Little 
River Band on June 4, 1991, and the Little Traverse Bay Band on 
September 27, 1989. How can they complain about a process that they 
haven't even attempted to pursue?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about whether the Odawa are Indians; 
clearly they are. The question is whether, today, they can meet all the 
criteria to prove that they presently constitute a recognizable tribe; 
whether they live together in an identifiable community separate from 
the surrounding non-Indian community, whether they exercise political 
control over their members. This is why we have sanctioned the FAP 
process, to make this complex determination.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not fair to all the other groups which 
must complete the FAP process to be recognized. These tribes have seen 
fit to go through the proper channels, so why shouldn't the Odawa?
  Similarly this bill is not fair to those groups that have already 
gone through the process, especially those that were turned down. 
Should we now let them have a second bite of the apple and allow them 
to pursue legislative recognition.
  Mr. Chairman, bills like this are not supported by the vast majority 
of recognized tribes in this country. I have heard from several tribal 
chiefs, including Chief Philip Martin of the Mississippi Choctaw, and 
several umbrella organizations representing large groups of tribes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not supported by the BIA. In a statement 
in the other body in February of this year, the BIA made its position 
clear:

       We oppose enactment of S. 1357 * * *. The date, neither of 
     the [bands] has submitted the documentation necessary for us 
     to make an evaluation on whether either Band meets the 
     mandatory acknowledgment criteria.

  Mr. Chairman, more than 180 members of this body voted against a 
similar recognition bill last October--the Lumbee recognition bill. I 
hope that those members will support me in opposing this bill.
  Let me now flesh out my position for the benefit of the Members of 
the House not familiar with this topic. S. 1357 presents this Congress, 
us, with one of the most difficult contemporary public policy issues in 
Indian affairs: In which cases, if any, should we exercise our 
authority to extend Federal recognition to a group seeking formal 
acknowledgment as an Indian tribe outside the established 
administrative process? In the last two Congresses, we have been asked 
to consider acknowledgment of two bands of Odawa Indians. So far, we 
have declined to exercise that authority in their regard. The 
proponents of this bill present no compelling justification why we 
should depart from that well-reasoned course now.
  The question of whether a native American group constitutes an Indian 
tribe is one of immense significance in the field of Federal Indian 
law. Because Congress' power to legislate for the benefit of Indians is 
limited by the Constitution to Indian tribes, for most Federal purposes 
it is not enough that an individual simply be an Indian to receive the 
protections, services, and benefits offered to Indians; rather, the 
individual must also be a member of an Indian tribe. Though it might 
seem to the layperson that there is only one kind of Indian tribe, for 
purposes of American Indian law there are actually two--those that are 
recognized by the Federal Government and those that are not.
  ``Recognized'' is more than a simple adjective; it is a legal term of 
art. It means that the Government acknowledges as a matter of law that 
a particular native American group is a tribe by conferring a specific 
legal status on that group, thus bringing it within Congress' 
legislative powers. This Federal recognition is no minor step. A 
formal, political act, it permanently establishes a government-to-
government relationship between the United States and the recognized 
tribe as a ``domestic dependent nation,'' and imposes on the Government 
a fiduciary trust relationship to the tribe and its members. 
Concomitantly, it institutionalizes the tribe's quasi-sovereign status, 
along with all the powers accompanying that status such as the power to 
tax and to establish a separate judiciary. Finally, it imposes upon the 
Secretary of the Interior specific obligations to provide a panoply of 
benefits and services to the tribe and its members. In other words, 
unequivocal Federal recognition of tribal status is a prerequisite to 
receiving the services provided by the Department of the Interior's 
Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], and establishes tribal status for all 
Federal purposes.
  Prior to the 1930's, Federal recognition of tribes took many forms: 
congressionally sanctioned treaties, court cases, administrative 
decisions, and executive orders--and ``was essentially sporadic, or, at 
best * * * plagued with all sorts of pitfalls and a lack of a 
systematic approach * * *.'' Instead of a process based on a well-
reasoned set of standardized criteria, the granting of recognition was, 
by all accounts, nothing better than arbitrary and excessively 
political.
  In 1871, Congress provided that no tribe could thereafter be 
recognized as an independent sovereign entity with which the United 
States could conclude a treaty. Similarly, in 1919 Congress retired 
another method of recognizing an indigenous group as a tribe when it 
prohibited the President from creating reservations by executive order. 
Thus, by the early 1900's this curtailment of available avenues of 
dealing with the tribes, coupled with the growing involvement of the 
BIA in managing the daily affairs of the tribes, meant that Congress 
had effectively delegated--either explicitly or implicitly--much of its 
authority over Indian matters to the BIA.
  Those agencies, however, continued to deal with the tribes in a 
somewhat desultory fashion. The early principles of administrative 
recognition were based on a Supreme Court decision which offered a 
rather vague guide to defining a tribe. In an effort to remedy this 
disorganization, in 1942 the Solicitor of the BIA, Felix Cohen, first 
proposed a workable set of criteria designed to provide a uniform 
framework for tribal recognition. The so-called Cohen criteria 
considered both the tribal character of the native group and any 
previous Federal actions treating it as a bribe. However, application 
of the criteria proved to be no less haphazard than the process they 
replaced. Besides the Cohen criteria, the BIA relied on a patchwork 
mixture of court opinions, limited statutory guidance, treaty law, and 
evolving departmental policy and practice. Thus by 1975, faced with a 
steadily increasing number of groups seeking recognition, the BIA held 
in abeyance further acknowledgment decisions pending the development of 
regulations for a systematic and uniform procedure to recognize Indian 
tribes.
  About this same time the congressionally-estabished American Indian 
Policy Review Commission [AIPRC] proposed the formation of a firm legal 
foundation for the establishment and recognition of tribal 
relationships with the United States, and the adoption of a ``valid and 
consistent set of factors applied to every Indian tribal group. * * 
*.'' Joining the chorus for standardization was the National Congress 
of American Indians, which called for a ``valid and consistent set of 
criteria applied to every group which petitions for recognition * * * 
based on ethnological, historical, legal, and political evidence.'' 
Senator James Abourezk, AIPRC's chairman, took the issue to the floor 
of the Senate, and introduced legislation calling for the establishment 
of an office in the BIA to handle recognition petitions in a uniform 
way.

  In 1978, the Interior Department, after exhaustive consultations with 
Indian country, established procedures to provide a uniform approach to 
the recognition process. Called the Federal Acknowledgment Process 
[FAP], the regulations set forth seven criteria a petitioning group 
must meet to be deemed a ``recognized'' tribe. Under the criteria, 
based in part on Cohen's model, for a group to be recognized as a tribe 
it must.

       (a) establish that it has been identified from historical 
     times to the present on a substantially continuous basis as 
     ``American Indian'' or ``aboriginal;'' (b) establish that a 
     substantial portion of the group inhabits a specific area or 
     lives in a community viewed as * * * Indian and distinct from 
     other populations in the area, and that its members are 
     descendants of an Indian tribe which historically inhabited a 
     specific area; (c) furnish a statement of facts which 
     establishes that the group has maintained tribal political 
     influence or other authority over its members as an 
     autonomous entity throughout history until the present; (d) 
     furnish a copy of the group's present governing document * * 
     *; (e) furnish a list of all known members, and show that the 
     membership consists of individuals who have established 
     descendency from a tribe that existed historically or from 
     historical tribes that combined and functioned as a single 
     autonomous entity; (f) establish that the membership is 
     composed principally of persons who are not members of any 
     other North American Indian tribe; (g) establish that neither 
     the group nor its members are the subject of congressional 
     legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the 
     federal relationship.

  The BIA FAP office is staffed by two teams of professionals including 
historians, genealogists, ethnologists, and anthropologists. These 
teams do exhaustive research on the petitions they receive, and examine 
such factors as Indian identity and community, as well as political and 
cultural cohesiveness. Once a petition is received it is reviewed for 
any obvious deficiencies. These are noted for the tribe, which is given 
the opportunity to supply additional material to supplement its 
petition. The petitions are then placed on active consideration in the 
order received.
  S. 1357 seeks to legislatively extend Federal recognition to a group 
of Indians in the State of Michigan, completely bypassing the 
established BIA FAP process. The bill's proponents posit two principal 
arguments for recognition: First, that the group was previously 
recognized by the Federal Government, and that their recognition has 
simply fallen into abeyance over the years and needs to be reaffirmed; 
and second, that the FAP process is arbitrary and unworkable and 
therefore they are justified in bypassing it. Neither argument is 
persuasive.
  The proponents of S. 1357 posit that theirs is not a recognition bill 
at all; rather, they contend that it is reaffirmation legislation. They 
argue that there formally existed a government-to-government 
relationship between the Odawa and the United States, but that the 
relationship--while continuing in law--has not continued in fact due to 
the actions, or inactions, of the BIA and the Federal Government. The 
Odawa claim descent from signatories to a series of treaties between 
the United States and several Odawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi bands 
during the early 1800's. Specifically, the bands claim that they are 
descendants of, and political successors to, signatories of the 1836 
Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. Therefore, they 
conclude, they are automatically entitled to have their status as a 
recognized group reaffirmed by the Federal Government.

  The Odawa position, however, rests upon several fatally flawed 
stylobates. To begin with, I am aware of no precedent in Federal Indian 
law for a concept of congressional reaffirmation. Traditionally, there 
are only four statuses available to Indian tribes: recognized, 
unrecognized, terminated, and restored. Clearly, the last two do not 
apply here; the Odawa have never been the subject of congressional 
termination legislation, the logical prerequisite to both termination 
and restoration. Just as clearly, the Odawa bands are not now federally 
recognized; their members do not presently receive services from the 
BIA because of their status as Indians, and they do not appear on the 
Secretary's most recent list of recognized tribes dated October 1993. 
That leaves the bands only one possible status: unrecognized.
  The bands, however, argue that they were recognized in a series of 
treaties in the early 1800's. They content that over the intervening 
years the Federal Government and BIA allowed that recognition to 
atrophy too the point of nonexistence. They conclude, therefore, that 
their recognized status was never terminated but lies dormant, only 
needing to be reawakened by Congressional reaffirmation. They are 
wrong.
  The argument that Indian groups benefit from a presumption of 
continuing tribal existence--and thus Federal recognition--solely on 
the basis that their ancestors belonged to groups with which the U.S. 
signed treaties has been soundly rejected by the Federal courts. The 
reason for that rejection is fairly straightforward: Just because a 
group existed as a federally recognized Indian entity in the 1800's in 
no way guarantees that they have continued to exist in that same 
unaltered condition to the present day.
  Over the years, some Indian groups have broken up and blended into 
the dominant, non-Indian culture. Others have ceased to function as 
tribes. There are countless Indian groups extant today that cannot meet 
the Federal Government's criteria for recognition, notwithstanding the 
fact that they are descended from treaty signatories. The consummate 
example are the Miami of Indiana. The Miami are descended from a group 
that signed a series of treaties with the United States between 1795 
and 1867. Yet despite the existence of these treaties, the group was 
denied recognition by the BIA on August 17, 1992. The Miami were unable 
to satisfy the second and third FAP criteria; they could not establish 
that ``a substantial portion of the group inhabits a specific area or 
lives in a community viewed as * * * Indian and distinct from other 
populations in the area,'' and they could not show that they 
``maintained tribal political influence or other authority over its 
members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present.''
  The Washington decision, and experience with groups such as the 
Miami, support the responsibility of the BIA to inquire de novo as to 
the maintenance of a group's tribal existence. Without that maintained, 
cohesive, existence there can be no Federal recognition.
  The proponents of S. 1357 take great pains to posit that the Pokagon 
meet all the criteria used by the BIA in determining tribal status. 
However, while the proponents' remarks on this bill, as well as the 
majority's report, focus extensively on their highly subjective 
judgments about whether the Pokagon people meet these criteria, I 
decline to engage in debate over this topic since it is largely 
irrelevant in terms of my position on this legislation. I do not argue 
that the Pokagon are not of Indian descent; moreover, I make no 
judgments on the question of their tribal status, or the adequacy of 
their recognition petition. Rather, I believe very strongly that 
neither the members of the Natural Resources Committee, nor of the full 
House, are in a position to make a rational and informed decision as to 
whether this group constitutes a federally recognizable tribe.
  True, as the chairman of the committee has previously pointed out, 
``[t]his is not about us being experts. It is about weighing the 
evidence that the experts have given us. That is our job on this and so 
many other subjects.'' However, we have heard from only one of the 
experts, Dr. McClurken, and there is not one member of the committee, 
nor of our staffs, with the specialized educational background 
necessary to make an informed decision in this area. Properly done, the 
process of recognition requires an evaluation of complex and often 
ambiguous data and issues of ethnohistory, cultural anthropology, and 
genealogy. Not only do we lack that expertise, but there are precious 
few members of this committee with any more than the most superficial 
knowledge on the subject at all. Such a decision is replete with out-
of-the-ordinary complexities which require more than just a simple one-
page staff memo to understand fully. Needless to say, if those of us 
charged with the day-to-day oversight of Indian affairs do not have the 
necessary expertise--or even knowledge--in this area, how will the 
balance of our Members appropriately exercise those judgments as they 
will be called upon to do today?

  Aside from our lack of expertise, other considerations militate 
against removing the recognition process from the BIA in this case. 
Foremost among these is the fact that recognition should be based on 
established principles free from the eddies and currents of partisan 
politics and influence--this was the reason the FAP criteria were 
established in the first place. Congress is by nature, however, a 
highly partisan institution. A single, powerful Member in the majority 
party is perfectly capable of moving a recognition bill through this 
body with little reference to its actual merits. As one attorney has 
noted:

       Neither this Committee nor the Senate Committee has adopted 
     any self-policing criteria [to use] to judge the petitions. 
     It has to do with the nature of the arguments that are put 
     forward before [the Committee], the proponents of the 
     legislation bring their historians and anthropologists and 
     say absolutely this is a tribe. The member or sponsor of the 
     bill lobbies of members of the Committee on behalf of his 
     [petitioning] constituent and depending on whether he's 
     persuasive or not perhaps he is successful. Some professional 
     staff pointed out to me one day, what happens the day that 
     Dan Rostenkowski[, Chairman of the House Ways and Means 
     Committee,] goes to George Miller[, Chairman of the House 
     Natural Resources Committee,] and says the [Illini] tribe are 
     alive and living in downtown Chicago. That should not be the 
     way the federal recognition is granted. There has to be some 
     sort of criteria and I think that is the bottom line.

  Moreover, a bill introduced by a Member of the party in control of 
the majority has a much better chance of passage than does one 
introduced by a minority Member.
  In other words, while we clearly have the power to recognize a tribe, 
that does not mean that the wisest use of that power is its exercise. 
In the absence of any discernible criteria by which we judge tribal 
status, and of any particularized background or knowledge, the 
Congress should leave the decision up to those best qualified to make 
it: the BIA.

  There is simply no precedent for congressional passage of a bill like 
S. 1357. Since 1978, the year the BIA promulgated the FAP regulations, 
Congress has approved 18 acts pertaining to recognition of tribal 
groups. None of these, however, can be characterized as a recognition 
bill such as S. 1357. More than half of the cited acts were bills 
restoring Federal recognition to groups that had once been officially 
recognized, but were terminated by legislation--a status to which the 
Pokagon cannot lay claim. The rest involved unique circumstances not 
applicable here.
  More than half of the bills cited as legislative recognition 
legislation are actually restoration bills--the word ``restoration'' 
appears in the title of each act cited. There is a clear legal 
distinction between a recognition bill, which establishes the 
government-to-government relationship between the United States and a 
tribe for the very first time, and a restoration bill, which simply 
reinstates a relationship which once existed but was expressly 
terminated by statute or treaty. No amount of obfuscation can turn one 
into the other. These 10 bills, therefore, cannot possibly serve as 
precedent for the Pokagon case.
  Of the eight remaining acts, four were related to the recognition of 
tribes in the context of eastern land claims. In these bills, Congress 
extended recognition to several groups as part of settlements of the 
tribes' legal claims to land in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. 
Another act pertained to a tribe that had already been recognized as 
part of another tribal entity; one acknowledged a band as a subgroup of 
another recognized tribe; and one act involved a group that was 
aboriginally indigenous to Mexico and thus specifically excluded from 
the administrative regulations.
  This leaves only one act, the Texas Tiwa legislation. In 1968, 
Congress transferred responsibility over the Tiwa Tribe--(now known as 
the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo)--and their lands to the State of Texas, 
thereby terminating any Federal relationship with the tribe. The act 
read, in pertinent part:

       Responsibility, if any, for the Tiwa Indians of Ysleta del 
     Sur is hereby transferred to the State of Texas. Nothing in 
     this Act shall make such tribe or its members eligible for 
     services performed by the United States for Indians because 
     of their status as Indians *** and none of the statutes of 
     the United States which affect Indians because of their 
     status as Indians shall be applicable to [them].

  Congress later reversed itself, thereby restoring recognition to the 
Tiwa, when informed by the State that the latter could not legally hold 
tribal land in trust for the tribe.
  Despite previous attempts to characterize the Tiwa Act as recognition 
legislation, it is not; the Tiwa Act was restoration legislation, a 
status set forth in the very name of the act itself. As I have 
previously noted, recognition and restoration are two completely 
different legal concepts, and consequently the Tiwa Act (restoration) 
is not precedentially analogous to the Odawa case (recognition). 
Furthermore, no similar transfer of responsibility has ever taken place 
between the United States and Michigan with regard to the Odawa, nor 
has the United States ever held land in trust for this group.
  In sum, the Odawa are not automatically entitled to recognition 
simply because they are descended from treaty signatories. given that 
fact, no amount of verbal obfuscation can transmute this bill into 
anything other than what it is: recognition legislation. As such, the 
Odawa should pass through the same recognition process required of 
every other tribe in this country, and not exempted by this ill-
considered legislation for which there is no congressional precedent.
  The Odawa next posit that they are justified in bypassing the FAP 
because the process is cumbersome and ineffective. The FAP has come 
under firs over the last few years. There are those who argue--
correctly in some instances--that the process takes longer to complete 
than is provided for in the agency's regulations, costs each group 
financial resources they do not have, and is subject to the whims of 
the BIA staff. In limited defense, I point out that because the FAP 
establishes a permanent government-to-government relationship with a 
tribe, the BIA is very cautious about its determinations. This kind of 
exhaustive research takes a lot of time, as does the process of 
preliminary review, notification to the tribe of deficiencies, and 
waiting for the tribe to respond to these deficiencies with a 
supplemental petition. In addition, the FAP teams have been 
historically underfunded by this Congress and there have never been 
more than than two. Still, the process clearly has its faults.
  Regardless, the Odawa are hardly in a position to complain about the 
process. First, neither of the bands have done any more than submit a 
letter of intent to petition. How can they complain about a process 
that they haven't evenly participated in yet? Second, the BIA recently 
finalized a number of significant new regulations designed to address 
many of the concerns expressed about the process. So, not only are the 
Odawa complaining about a process to which they have not yet given a 
chance to work, they're complaining about a process which no longer 
exists in the same form. Finally, all indications are that the BIA will 
issue a positive finding in the Odawa case, should they ever submit a 
petition. I am sure that the gentlemen from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] 
and Michigan [Mr. Kildee] are aware of this, yet here we are.
  Furthermore, while I have always agreed that the FAP is in need of 
repair, it is not as feckless as the bill's proponents would have this 
House believe. For example, we have repeatedly heard Members state that 
there is a backlog of 120 cases waiting to be processed, and that only 
eight tribes have made it through the process since its inception. 
However, those numbers--off-parroted as the premier example of why the 
FAP should be bypassed--are patently spurious and unsupported by the 
record.
  There were 40 petitions on hand when the FAP office organized in 
October, 1978, and 110 petitions or related inquiries have been filed 
since then for a total of 150 cases. Of these, 9 groups have been 
recognized; 13 have been denied recognition; 1 was determined to be 
part of a recognized tribe; 1 had its status confirmed by the Assistant 
Secretary for Indian Affairs; 1 had its status clarified by legislation 
at the BIA's request; 1 had its previously-terminated recognition 
restored; 3 were legislatively acknowledged; 1 withdrew its petition 
and merged with another petitioner; and 7 require legislative action to 
permit processing. This means that a total of 37 cases, not 8 as others 
contend, have been resolved since 1978: 26 by the BIA, 4 by Congress, 1 
of its own accord, and 7 because they are precluded from petitioning.

  Of the 113 remaining cases, 26 are incomplete petitions and thus are 
not yet eligible for review. A full 74 cases are similarly unreviewable 
because the groups have submitted only letters of intent to petition 
informing the BIA that at some unspecified time in the future they will 
submit their actual petitions.
  That leaves us with 13 cases that could possibly be considered to be 
pending. In three of those, the BIA has already completed its review 
and announced its findings; those findings do not become final for 
regulatory purposes, however, until the close of a prescribed comment 
period. Of the remaining 10 cases, 6 are presently under active 
consideration. That leave 4 cases--not 120, but 4--that are currently 
backed-up and awaiting review. In simpler terms, only three percent of 
the total number of cases filed with the BIA are pending BIA action. 
This is hardly an insuperable barrier justifying congressional redress.
  In any event, the logical solution to the problems posed by the FAP 
process is to correct them. Several bills have been introduced over the 
past few years to overhaul and streamline the process. Despite the 
chorus of Democrat complaints about the process, though, the majority 
has--until last month--never seriously pursued any of these bills in 
committee, seeming to prefer instead the introduction of a string of ad 
hoc recognition bills designed to circumvent the process entirely.
  Finally this May, the subcommittee chairman and I introduced H.R. 
4462, a bill to radically overhaul the FAP process by, inter alia, 
extracting it from the BIA entirely; a similar bill exists in the 
Senate. The Chairman has stated on several occasions that he intends to 
pass this bill out of the House this session. In fact, we held a 
lengthy hearing on the legislation just last Friday. Given that we are 
on the verge of reforming the process and addressing those same 
concerns which motivate some tribes to seek legislative recognition, I 
think it makes little logical sense to deracinate a tribe therefrom.
  Bypassing the process not only ignores the problem, but is unfair to 
all of the recognized tribes. There exists a formal government-to-
government relationship between the recognized tribes and the United 
States. If Congress creates tribes at will, without meaningful uniform 
criteria or substantial corroborated evidence that the group is indeed 
a tribe, then we dilute and weaken that relationship. A sizable 
majority of tribes have objected to similar bills for just this reason. 
We have received resolution that support the FAP process and a strict 
adherence to a systematic procedure from tribes in 12 States, from 
regional intertribal organizations representing all the tribes of the 
Pacific Northwest, Montana and Wyoming, the united south and eastern 
tribes (representing all the tribes from Maine to Florida and west to 
Louisiana), all of the 10 southwestern Pueblo tribes, and 25 of the 26 
tribes of Arizona.
  Passage of S. 1357 is also patently unfair to all of the other 
petitioning groups. If the process is so ineffectual that the Odawa 
should be excused from it, then what of the other 100 or so groups 
presently in the process? If we decide to recognize the Odawa in whole 
or in part because we deem the FAP process to be necrotic, does not 
equity require that we immediately put before the House bills to 
provide for the recognition of all these other groups too? It is sadly 
ironic that the Odawa would have us consider their cause unique. 
Finally, what about those groups that have been denied recognition 
under this superfluous FAP process; do we now open our doors to them 
and allow them another bite of the recognition apple? It would be 
patently unfair to require some groups to be judged under the 
administrative standards and allow other groups to be judged in 
Congress under no discernible standards simply because they are able to 
avail themselves of an influential congressional sponsor.
  Aside from the obvious inequities to other native groups, I cannot 
help but consider the effects of a case in which we are wrong in our 
assessment of a group seeking legislative recognition? As I have 
repeatedly stressed, we are not equipped to make an informed decision 
in this area. It has been estimated by one authority that at least 15 
percent of groups currently seeking recognition are essentially bogus 
Indian groups, or Indian descendent recruitment organizations, composed 
of predominantly non-Indian persons. If we make a mistake, and 
recognize a group that should not have been accorded that status, then 
we sully the relationship with the tribes even further.

  Moreover, legislative acknowledgment of the Odawa in the absence of 
any established recognition criteria raises serious constitutional 
questions. Despite our plenary power over Indians, Congress may not 
arbitrarily confer Federal recognition as an Indian tribe on any group 
claiming to be a tribe. If we act to recognize the Odawa, or any other 
group, in the absence of any set guidelines, then it seems to us that 
we act ultra vires--outside the bounds of what is constitutionally 
permissible.
  In conclusion, while the recognition process is in need of repair, it 
is not as crippled as many would have us believe. There is only a 
backlog of at the most 4 petitions, not the 120 cases often cited. 
While I concede that the process is imperfect, the most rational 
solution is to fix it. Continually seeking to bypass it only ignores 
the problems and forces us to address it over and over again. In 
addition, it undermines the role of the BIA, is unfair to both the 
recognized and unrecognized tribes, and raises constitutional concerns.
  This committee must decide if it will continue to support the 
utilization of an equitable and standardized method of determining 
which Indian groups should be recognized by the Federal Government, or 
if it will return us to the pre-1978 days of piecemeal and arbitrary 
recognition through individual bills such as S. 1357. While it is 
clearly within our power to recognize Indian tribes, we have tried our 
hand at it before, Because we did it so badly and so politically, 
however, leaders from both parties on the committees of jurisdiction 
and from throughout Indian country insisted on a better way--the 
administrative FAP process of the BIA. Passage of bills like S. 1357 is 
contrary to the recommendations of the America Indian Policy Review 
Commission, opposed by the overwhelming majority of tribe's and 
contrary to logic. We have seen that passage by the House of the Lumbee 
recognition bill late last Session has opened the floodgates of 
recognition legislation. S. 1357 can only serve to undermine further an 
already beleaguered recognition process, to encourage other groups to 
circumvent that process, and to place recognition in an arena where 
emotional arguments, influential sponsors, and the partisan nature of 
Congress replace merit and fact.
  The overwhelming number of tribes in this country oppose bills like 
S. 1357. I strongly urge the House to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following document to be included in the 
Record, and reserve the balance of my time.

      Summary Status of Acknowledgment Cases [As of May 16, 1994.]

       Petitions on active status (petitions on active) Total: 9.
       BAR's action items: 6.
       Proposed findings in progress: 6.
       Final determinations pending: 0.
       Petitioner's action items: 3.
       Commenting on proposed finding: 3.
       Petitions ready for active (petitions ready) Total: 4.
       Other petitions (other petitions) Total: 100.
       Incomplete petitions (not ready) 26.
       Letters of intent to petition 74.
       In litigation (Cases being litigated) Total: 2.
       Cases resolved (Cases resolved) Total: 30.
       By Department: 25.
       Through acknowledgment process: 22.
       Acknowledged: 9.
       Denied acknowledgment: 9.
       Status clarified by legislation at department's request: 1.
       Status clarified by other means: 2.
       By Congress: 4.
       Legislative restoration: 1.
       Legislative recognition: 3.
       By other means: 1.
       Merged with another petitioner: 1.
       Legislative action required (to permit processing under 25 
     CFR 83) (Cases requiring legislation) Total: 7.
       Historical Note:
       Petitions on hand when acknowledgment staff organized Oct 
     1978: 40.
       New petitioners since Oct 1978: 110.
       Total petitions received to date: 150.
       Includes eight groups that initially petitioned as part of 
     other groups but have since split off to petition separately.
                                  ____


                Petitions Active, Ready or in Litigation

                          [As of May 16, 1994]


                             active status

       Proposed finding in progress: 6.
     Members
       17616: United Houma Nation, Inc., LA (#56) (Active 5/20/92; 
     in draft)
       356: Duwamish Indian Tribe, WA (#25) (Active 5/1/92; in 
     draft)
       c250: Huron Potawatomi Band, MI (#9) (Active 7/27/93)
       313: Jena Band of Choctaws, LA (#45) (Active 7/27//93):
       Chinook Indian Tribe, Inc., WA (#57) (Active 1/28/94)
       c2500: Pokagon Potawatomi Indians of Indiana & Michigan, IN 
     (#75/78) (Active 1/28/94)
       Petitioner Commenting on Proposed Finding: 3.
       836: Snohomish Tribe of Indians, WA (#12) (Active 1/7/81: 
     proposed negative finding pub'd 4/11/83; edited staff notes 
     provided 3/25/91; comment period reopened 12/1/91, extended 
     indefinitely at petitioner's request pending resolution of 
     Samish litigation)
       313: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, WA (#20) (Active 5/21/90; 
     proposed positive finding pub'd 5/6/93; comment period 
     extended to 9/30/94)
       c2500: Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc., NJ (#58) (Active 
     7/14/92); proposed negative finding pub'd 12/8/93, comment 
     period extended to 10/7/94)
       Final Determination Pending: 0.


                              ready status

       Ready, waiting for active consideration: 4.
       Petitioners have corrected deficiencies and/or stated their 
     petition should be considered ``ready'' for active 
     consideration. Priority among ``ready''petitions is based on 
     the date the petition is determined ``ready'' by the Branch 
     of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR).
     Ready date and name of petitioner
       11/19/91: MOWA band of Choctaw, AL (#86) (doc'n recv'd 14/
     28/88; OD ltr 2/15/90; rspns recv'd 11/8/91; complete 11/19/
     91)
       4/23/93: Yuchi Tribal Organization, OK (#121) (doc'n recv'd 
     9/9/91); OD ltr 9/14.92; partial rspns 3/23/93; complete 4/
     23/93)
       9/24/93: Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, CA (#84) (doc'n 
     recv'd 2/24/88; OD ltr 1/25/90; rspns recv'd 9/24/93, 
     complete)
       4/04/94: Cowlitz Tribe of Indians, WA (#16) (doc'n recv'd 
     2/1/83); OD ltr 6/15/83); rspn recv'd 2/10/87; 2nd OD ltr 10/
     21/88; rspns recv'd 2/24/94, complete)
       In Litigation:
       Samish Indian Tribe, WA (#14) (Denied Acknowledgment eff. 
     5/6/87).
       Miami Nation of Indians of IN (#66) (Denied Acknowledgment 
     eff. 8/17/92).
                                  ____


                           Petitions Resolved

                          [As of May 16, 1994]


                       resolved by department: 25

       Acknowledged through 25 CFR 83: 9.
     Members:
       297: Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa, MI (#3) 
     (eff. 5/27/80).
       175: Jamestown Clallam Tribe, WA (#19) (eff. 2/10/81).
       200: Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe, LA (#1) (eff. 9/25/81).
       199: Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band, CA (#51) (eff. 
     1/3/83).
       1170: Narragansett Indian Tribe, RI (#59) (eff. 4/11/83).
       1470: Poarch Band of Creeks, AL (#13) (eff. 8/10/84).
       521: Wampanoag Tribal Council of Gay Head, MA (#76) (eff. 
     4/11/87).
       188: San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, A2 (#71) (eff. 3/28/
     90).
       972: Mohegan Indian Tribe, CT (#38) (eff. 5/14/94).
       Denied acknowledgment through 25 CFR 83: 13.
       1041: Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe-East of the MS, GA (#8) 
     (eff. 12/21/81).
       2696: Creeks East of the Mississippi, FL (#10) (eff. 12/21/
     81.
       34: Munsee-Thames River Delaware, CO (#26) (eff. 1/3/83).
       324: Principal Creek Indian Nation, AL (#7) (eff. 6/10/85).
       1530: Kaweah Indian Nation, CA (#70a) (eff. 6/10/85).
       1321: United Lumbee Nation of NC and America, CA (#70) 
     (eff. 7/2/85).
       823: Southeastern Cherokee Confederacy (SECC), GA (#29) 
     (eff. 11/25/85).
       609: Northwest Cherokee Wolf Band, SECC, OR (#29a) (eff. 
     11/25//85).
       87: Red Clay Inter-tribal Indian Band, SECC, TN (#29b) 
     (eff. 11/25/85).
       304: Tchinouk Indians, OR (#52) (eff. 3/17/86).
       590: Samish Indian Tribe, Inc., WA (#14) (eff. 5/6/87).
       275: MaChis Lower AL Creek Indian Tribe, AL (#87) (eff. 8/
     22/88).
       4381: Miami Nation of Indians of IN, Inc., IN (#66) (eff. 
     8/17/92).
       Status clarified by legislation at Department's request: 1.
       c224: Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 
     Indians, MI (#6) (legis clarification of recog'n status 9/8/
     88).
       Status Clarified by Other Means: 2.
       650: Texas Band of Traditional Kickapoos, TX (#54) 
     (Determined part of recognized tribe 9/14/81; petition 
     withdrawn).
       32: Ione Band of Miwok Indians, CA (#2) (Status confirmed 
     by Assistant Secretary 3/22/94).


                        resolved by congress: 4

       Legislative Restoration: 1
       328: Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw 
     Indians, OR (#17) (legis restoration 10/17/84).
       Legislative Recognition: 3
       651: Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, OR (#72) (legis 
     recogn 12/29/82).
       55: Western (Mashantucket) Pequot Tribe, CT (#42) (legis 
     recogn 10/18/83 in association with eastern land claims 
     suit).
       611: Aroostook Band of Micmacs, ME (#103) (legis recog'n 
     11/26/91).


                       resolved by other means: 1

       Petition withdrawn (merged with another petition): 1.
       Potawatomi Indians of IN & MI, Inc., MI (#75) and 
     Potawatomi Indian Nation, Inc. (Pokagon), MI (#78) merged; 
     now Pokagon. (#78).

                      Legislative Action Required

       Cases requiring legislation to permit processing under 25 
     CFR 83: 7.
       Lumbee Regional Development Association (LRDA/Lumbee) 
     (#65).
       Hatteras Tuscarora Indians, NC (#34).
       Cherokee Indians of Robeson and Adjoining Counties, NC 
     (#44).
       Tuscarora Indian Tribe, Drowning Creek Res., NC (#73).
       Waccamaw Siouan Development Association, Inc., NC (#88).
       Cherokee Indians of Hoke County, Inc., NC (#91).
       Tuscarora Nation of North Carolina, NC (#102).
       Historical note:
       Petitions on hand when Acknowledgment staff organized Oct 
     1978: 40.
       New petitioners since Oct 1978: 110.
       Total Petitions received to date (as of 4/29/94): 150.
       Includes 8 groups that initially petitioned as part of 
     other groups but have since split off to petition 
     independently.
                                  ____


                Register of Documented, Ready Petitions

                          [As of May 16, 1994]

       Note: Priority among petitions that are documented and 
     ``ready'' for active consideration is based on the date the 
     petition is determined complete and ``ready'' by the Branch 
     of Acknowledgement and Research (BAR).
       Date ready, name of petitioner, and date active--
       11/19/1991: MOWA Band of Choctaw, AL (#86).
       4/23/1993: Yuchi Tribal Organization, OK (#121)
       9/24/1993: Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, CA (#84)
       4/04/1994: Cowlitz Tribe of Indians, WA (#16).

   Register of Incomplete Petitions and Letters of Intent to Petition

                          [As of May 16, 1994]

       Administrative note: Priority numbers assigned to petitions 
     under the ``old regs'' have been retained to avoid the 
     confusion that renumbering would be likely to create. For the 
     purpose of this Register, petitioners are listed in numerical 
     sequence based on the chronological order in which the Branch 
     of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR) received the petition 
     and/or letter of intent to petition. Gaps in numbering 
     represent petitions that have already been resolved or are 
     now in active status.
       Priority No. and name of petitioner.
       4\1\: Shinnecock Tribe, NY (2/8/78).
       5: Piro/Manso/Tiwa Indian Tribe of the Pueblo of San Juan 
     de Guadalupe (formerly Tiwa Indian Tribe), NM (doc'n recv'd 
     3/24/92; OD ltr 8/25/93).
       9a\1\: GunLake Village Band & Ottawa Colony Band of Grand 
     River Ottawa Indians, MI (6/24/92).
       11: Steilacoom Tribe, WA (doc'n recv'd 10/27/84; OD ltr 11/
     30/87; response 3/25/94).
       15\1\: Mashpee Wampanoag, MA (doc'n recv'd 8/16//90; OD ltr 
     7/30/91).
       18\1\: Little Shell Band of North Dakota, ND (#18, 11/11/
     75).
       21\1\: Mono Lake Indian Community, CA (7/9/76).
       22\1\: Washo/Paiute of Antelope Valley, CA (7/9/76).
       22a\1\: Antelope Valley Paiute Tribe, CA (7/9/76).
       23: Four Hole Indian Orgn/Edisto Tribe, SC (partial doc'n 
     recv'd 1983).
       24: Maidu Nation, CA (partial doc'n recv'd 5/30/90).
       27\1\: Cherokee Indians of Georgia, Inc., GA (8/8/77).
       28\1\: Piscataway-Conoy Confederacy & Sub-Tribes, Inc., MD 
     (2/22/78).
       30: Clifton Choctaw, LA (doc'n recv'd c.9/28/90; OD ltr 8/
     13/91).
       31: Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of MT (OD ltr 4/
     18/85; partial response 11/2/87, 10/26/89; ``not ready'' 8/
     17/90).
       32\1\: Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians, FL (6/2/78).
       33\1\: Delaware-Muncie, KS (#33, 6/19/78).
       35: Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut, CT (doc'n recv'd 
     5/5/89; OD ltr 3/13/90).
       36\1\: Tsimshian Tribal Council, AK (7/2/78).
       37\1\: Choctaw-Apache Community of Ebarb, LA (7/2/78).
       39\1\: Coree (aka Faircloth) Indians, NC (8/5/78).
       40\1\: Nanticoke Indian Association, DE (8/8/78).
       41: Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokees, Inc. (aka 
     Dahlonega), GA (doc'n recv'd 2/5/80; OD ltr 8/22/80).
       41a\1\: Cane Break Band of Eastern Cherokees, GA (1/9/79).
       43\1\: Tuscola United Cherokee Tribe of FL & AL, Inc., FL 
     (1/19/79).
       46\1\: Kah-Bay-Kah-Nong (Warroad Chippewa), MN (2/12/79).
       47\1\: Kern Valley Indian Community, CA (2/27/79).
       48\1\: Shawnee Nation U.K.B., IN (formerly Shawnee Nation, 
     United Remnant Band, OH) (3/16/79).
       49\1\: Hattadare Indian Nation, NC (3/16/79).
       50\1\: North Eastern U.S. Miami Inter-Tribal Council, OH 
     (4/9/79).
       53\1\: Santee Tribe, White Oak Indian Community, SC (6/4/
     79).
       55: Delawares of Idaho (doc'n recv'd 6/14/79; OD ltr 9/24/
     79; partial response 12/10/79).
       60\1\: Alleghenny Nation (Ohio Band, OH) (11/3/79).
       61\1\: United Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., VA (11/16/79).
       62\1\: Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribal Association, Inc., VA 
     (11/26/79).
       63: Haliwa-Saponi, NC (doc'n recv'd 10/19/89; OD ltr 4/20/
     90).
       64\1\: Consolidated Bahwetig Ojibwas and Mackinac Tribe, MI 
     (12/4/79).
       67\1\: Brotherton Indians of Wisconsin, WI (4/15/80).
       68: St. Frnacis/Sokoki Band of Abenakis of VT (OD ltr 6/14/
     83; ``ready'' 8/1/86; petitioner says ``not ready'' 9/18/90).
       69a: Nipmuc Tribal Council of MA (Hassanamisco Band) (doc'n 
     recv'd 7/20/84; OD ltr 3/1/85; response 6/12/87; 2nd OD ltr 
     2/5/88).
       69b: Nipmuc Tribal Council of MA (Chaubunagungamaug Band) 
     (doc'n recv'd 7/20/84; OD ltr 3/1/85; response 6/12/87; 2nd 
     OD ltr 2/5/88).
       74\1\: Coharie Intra-Tribal Council, Inc., NC (3/13/81).
       77\1\: Cherokees of Jackson County, Alabama, AL (9/23/81).
       79\1\: Schaghticoke Indian Tribe, CT (12/14/81).
       80\1\: Coastal Band of Chumash Indians, CA (3/25/82).
       81: Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe, CT (doc'n recv'd 4/12/93; 
     OD ltr 8/26/93; response 4/1/94).
       82: American Indian Council of Mariposa County (aka 
     Yosemite), CA (doc'n recv'd 4/19/84; OD ltr 5/1/85; rspn 12/
     12/86; 2nd OD ltr 4/11/88).
       83: Shasta Nation, CA (doc'n recv'd 7/24/84; OD ltr 5/30/
     85; response 6/8/86; 2nd OD ltr 10/22/87).
       85: Tolowa Nation, CA (doc'n recv'd 5/12/86; OD ltr 4/6/
     88).
       89: Seminole Nation of FL (aka Traditional Seminole) (doc'n 
     recv'd 11/10/82; OD ltr 10/5/83, lacks genealogy; prtl rspn 
     12/7/83.
       90: North Fork Band of Mono Indians, CA (doc'n recv'd 5/
     154/90; OD ltr 10/28/91).
       92\1\: Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, CA (1/4/84).
       93: Hayfork Band of Nor-El-Muk Wintu Indians, CA (doc'n 
     recv'd 9/27/88; OD ltr 2/26/90).
       94\1\: Christian Pembina Chippewa Indians, ND (6/26/84).
       95\1\: Cherokee-Powhattan Indian Association, NC (9/7/84).
       96\1\: San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, CA (10/18/84).
       97\1\: Wintu Indians of Central Valley, California, CA (10/
     26/84).
       98\1\: Wintoon Indians, CA (10/26/84).
       99\1\: Chukchansi Yokotch Tribe of Coarsegold, CA (5/9/85).
       100\1\: Northern Cherokee Tribe of Indians, MO (7/26/85).
       100a\1\: Chickamauga Cherokee Indian Nation of AR & MO (9/
     5/91).
       100b\1\: Northern Cherokee Nation of Old Louisiana Terr. MO 
     (2/19/92).
       101\1\: Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, Inc., 
     MI (9/12/85).
       104: Yokayo, CA (doc'n recv'd 3/9/87; OD ltr 4/25/88).
       105\1\: Pahrump Band of Paiutes, NV (11/9/87).
       106\1\: Wukchumni Council, CA (2/22/88).
       107\1\: Cherokees of SE Alabama, AL (5/27/88).
       108: Snoqualmoo of Whidbey Island, WA (doc'n recv'd 4/16/
     91; OD ltr 8/13/92).
       109\1\: Choinumni Council, CA (7/14/88).
       110\1\: Coastanoan Band of Carmel Mission Indians, CA (9/
     16/88).
       111\1\: Ohlone/Coastanoan Muwekma Tribe, CA (5/9/89).
       112: Indian Canyon Band of Coastanoan/Mutsun Indians of CA 
     (doc'n recv'd 7/27/90; OD ltr 8/23/91).
       113\1\: Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of CT (6/20/89).
       114\1\: Canoncito Band of Navajos, NM (7/31/89).
       115\1\: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, MI (9/
     27/89).
       116\1\: Salinan Nation, CA (10/10/89).
       117: Oklewaha Band of Seminole Indians, FL (doc'n recv'd 2/
     12/90; OD ltr 4/24/90).
       118\1\: Revived Ouachita Indians of AR & America (4/25/90).
       119\1\: Meherrin Indian Tribe, NC (8/2/90).
       120\1\: Amah Band of Ohlone/Coastanoan Indians, CA (9/18/
     90).
       122\1\: Etowah Cherokee Nation, TN (1/2/91).
       123\1\: Upper Kispoko Band of the Shawnee Nation, IN (4/10/
     91).
       124\1\: Piqua Sept of Phio Shawnee Indians, OH (4/16/91).
       125\1\: Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, MI (6/4/91).
       126\1\: Lake Superior Chippewa of Marquette, Inc., MI (12/
     31/91).
       127\1\: Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians, NJ (1/3/92).
       128\1\: Tsnungwe Council, CA (9/22/92).
       129\1\: Mohegan Tribe and Nation, CT (10/6/92).
       130\1\: Waccamaw-Siouan Indian Association, SC (10/16/92).
       131\1\: Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, CA (11/16/92).
       132\1\: Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, CA (12/3/92).
       133\1\: Council for the Benefit of Colorado Winnebagos, CO 
     (1/26/93).
       134\1\: Chicora-Siouan-Indian-People, SC (2/10/93).
       135\1\: Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes, 
     MI (5/4/93).
       136\1\: Chukchansi Yokotch Tribe of Mariposa, CA (5/25/93).
       137: Wintu Tribe, CA (doc'n recv'd 8/25/93; OD ltr 12/8/
     93).
       138\1\: Caddo Adais Indians, Inc., LA (9/13/93).
       139\1\: Salinan Tribe of Monterey County, CA (11/15/93).
       140\1\: Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council, CA (3/21/94).
       1451\1\: Langley Band of the Chickamogee Cherokee Indians 
     of the Southeastern U.S., AL (4/15/94).

     \1\Letter of intent only.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, first let me state that the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs has opposed all Federal recognition bills over the 
years. The President would sign this bill. I have a bill with the 
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] that we will pass in September that 
fixes this process that does not work. There exists today at the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs what many individuals consider to be one of the most 
inefficient agencies in Government.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], the excellent work that he 
has done over the years in his subcommittee has attested to that. Our 
subcommittee has attested to that. We have held three hearings over the 
years on this tribe. It is a legitimate claim that they have that they 
are native Americans.
  We have the power to act. We are acting and we should not penalize 
them because the process is broken.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee], the author of this legislation.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support passage of S. 1357, a bill to reaffirm the Federal status of 
the Little Traverse Bay bands of Odawa Indians, and the Little River 
band of Ottawa Indians. In addition, I strongly support passage of S. 
1066, a bill to reaffirm the Federal status of the Pokagon band of 
Potawatomi Indians.
  Mr. Chairman, I use the words ``reaffirm'' and ``restore'' rather 
than ``recognize'' because historical documentation proves that these 
tribes have, in fact, had formal government-to-government relations 
with the United States from the time Americans first entered the Great 
Lakes region to the present.
  It is simply the legal status of that relationship that we seek to 
clarify through this legislation.
  These bills merely seek to confirm de jure the legal status of these 
tribes, which has been continuously recognized de facto by other 
federally recognized tribal governments, State and local governments, 
and for many purposes the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  The House Natural Resources, and the Senate Indian Affairs Committees 
have each spent 3 years looking at the facts and have determined that 
these Michigan tribes deserve formal recognition by the Federal 
Government. Moreover, both committees realized that the Federal 
acknowledgment process is not designed to address situations of this 
nature. It was instead designed to address recognition of tribes which 
had never had a treaty relationship with the United States. That is why 
it is appropriate and necessary for these tribes to seek reaffirmation 
of their political relationship with the Federal Government through 
this legislation. In addition, at the current rate of progress 
recognition from the BIA could take 50 years.
  It is important to note that these are small tribes, comprising less 
than 1,000 members each. Their members are of extremely high native 
American blood quantum and their historical evidence is strong. All of 
these tribes have gathered hundreds of documents, including their 
ethno-histories and submitted them to the committees. It is interesting 
to note that all of the major pieces of historical information which 
these tribes have used to justify their existence has come directly 
from the Interior Department files.
  Mr. Chairman, I know these Indians. My grandparents, who emigrated 
from Ireland and settled in northern Michigan, traded directly with the 
grandparents of these Indians. At that time, the Indians were able to 
move around more easily before they were forced into increasingly 
smaller areas. As the grandson of those immigrants, I am well aware of 
these Indians' rich history and tribal culture. I feel a strong sense 
of responsibility to correct this injustice for the grandchildren of 
those who helped my family. I often say that we should all visit the 
National Archives to read the treaties that the United States entered 
into with Germany, Japan, Great Britain, and the treaties that the 
United States entered into with the Indians.
  Mr. Chairman, too many generations of tribal leaders have been forced 
to struggle just to get the Government to recognize and enforce the 
promises made to their tribes. The time to acknowledge our obligations 
to these tribes is long overdue. These bills will permit this and 
future generations of tribal leaders to address the more pressing 
problems of providing for the economic and social welfare of their 
people. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this most 
important legislation.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that there are no two 
Members that I have a deeper amount of respect for than the gentlemen 
from Michigan [Mr. Upton] and [Mr. Kildee].
  As the chairman of the oversight committee for the Department of the 
Interior and specifically for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I have had 
a personal interest in this matter for some time. I also happen to be 
the Congressman from the largest native American congressional district 
in the United States. We have over 30 bands and tribes located within 
my district, so I have some personal knowledge on what the gentlemen 
are trying to do today.
  There are two arguments that are being made by the gentlemen from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] and [Mr. Upton].
  First, that the bands were previously recognized by the Federal 
Government through treaties drawn up in the 1800's, so this is not 
really a recognition but a process of what is called reaffirmation; and 
second, the Federal acknowledgment process is arbitrary and unworkable, 
and must be bypassed.
  Let me address these two arguments.
  With respect to the reaffirmation, there is no precedent in Indian 
law for the concept of congressional reaffirmation. Tribes are either 
recognized or not, terminated or restored, period.
  Mr. Chairman, there are countless tribes that cannot meet the Federal 
criteria for recognition, despite the fact that they are descended from 
treaty signatories. It has been affirmed by the courts also that the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs has a responsibility to inquire de novo as to 
the maintenance of the group's tribal existence. This process of 
reaffirmation has never been supported by the courts, and the Congress 
has never moved in that direction.
  With respect to the second argument, that the Federal acknowledgment 
process is arbitrary and unworkable, let me suggest that I agree that 
the process is not a sacred cow, and that I think it can be streamlined 
and even changed in order to take into account such facts and give them 
the requisite weight for deliberation on the merits.

  However, we must deal with the process and not the uniqueness of 
these two issues. Claiming that the Federal acknowledgement process is 
flawed in these two cases is even less credible when we look at these 
two tribes, because the Pokagon are presently under active 
consideration by the process that they now claim they want to go 
around, and second, the Odawa Tribe has never even started through the 
process, so how can they make the argument that it is unworkable and 
arbitrary?
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to my colleagues that a 
democracy at its most fundamental level is a system of government 
whereby elected leaders govern according to a set of procedures and 
processes that are orderly, based upon common principles that can be 
modified if they do not meet the test of law, or serve the citizens in 
a fair and equitable way. I believe it is premature to do the kind of 
governmental end run that we are now contemplating today with these two 
pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these bills and 
to allow the process to move forward, which I am confident, based on 
the arguments made by the two gentlemen from Michigan, will be in the 
favor of these Michigan tribes.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just correct the record. The Congress has 
recognized tribes through the congressional process. The Micmac Tribe 
of Maine, we restored the Ponca of Nebraska, the Coquille, the Auburn 
Rancheria just last week, the Lumbees recently. We have taken steps. We 
have the authority to do this. We are changing and fixing the process.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the first time we have had a Subcommittee on 
Native American Affairs, and in this first year we have a bill that I 
have with the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] that we are going to 
move in September that changes the acknowledgment process in the BIA 
that does not work. That is the point. The reason we are here is that 
the BIA process does not work. It does not even move. They do not have 
enough people there. That is why we are here, and why should native 
Americans have to wait around for bureaucrats to get their act 
together? That is why we are here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Stupak].
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a 
tremendous injustice brought about by a treaty in 1836, which not only 
affected the Little Traverse Bay Band and the Odawa Band, but the Burt 
Lake Band who also signed the treaty. The treaty ceded most of the 
western half of lower Michigan and a portion of the Upper Peninsula, 
while granting the tribe a thousand acre tract of land adjacent to Burt 
Lake in northern lower Michigan.
  Some 158 years later, the Federal Government has still not kept its 
half of the bargain and never created a reservation for the band. To 
secure their own land, the tribe pooled their resources in the 1840's 
and purchased a tract of land, which was placed in a trust with the 
Governor. They were again betrayed when the Governor of the State of 
Michigan gave away the land through an illegal tax sale around the turn 
of the century. The final insult occurred when a local lumber baron 
burned the remaining village to the ground, leaving the tribe homeless 
and destitute.
  In 1914, the United States filed suit as guardian of the band to 
recover the remaining lands. In its complaint the Federal Government 
recognized the Burt Lake Band as an Indian tribe. The final decision by 
the Federal court noted that the Burk Lake Band was a full-fledged 
Indian tribe with a government-to-government relationship.
  After the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, a number of tribes in 
Michigan's Lower Peninsula petitioned the Department of the Interior to 
be recognized under the terms of the act. Officials at the Department 
of the Interior rejected their petition based on lack of sufficient 
funds to provide services to the tribe.
  Mr. Chairman, the Burt Lake Band has never been terminated by treaty 
or act of Congress. It is therefore imperative that we reaffirm the 
relationship through legislation, and I have introduced a bill which 
would accomplish this goal. I ask Chairman Richardson and Chairman 
Kildee for their consideration of this legislation. I look forward to 
working with them and other Members on this issue in the future. With 
these assurances, I will not be offering any amendment today. I urge my 
colleagues to support Senate bill 1357.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me just comment that I noted in the tribes 
that the chairman of the committee listed that they were all recognized 
as part of land claim settlements. Moreover, the Lumbees, which were 
alluded to, have not been recognized. The bill is still in the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most distasteful 
experiences that I have had on the floor of the House, because I have 
tremendous regret for the way I conducted myself last week in terms of 
my absolute aggravation that the House would be considering either bill 
on the Consent Calendar, Suspension Calendar, and I offer my apologies 
for both the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee and Mr. Upton and to 
their staffs, because they are two extraordinarily fine people, and I 
think part of my frustration is that they are kind of caught up in 
something that is much larger than their two bills.

                              {time}  1320

  I do not know if either tribe, the one the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Upton] is promoting or the other gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee] is promoting deserve to be federally recognized. I cannot 
really speak to the merits of that issue and, candidly, no one in 
Congress can. That is why it should not be before Congress.
  My concern, based on this issue, is the fact that when we are talking 
about Federal recognition of a tribe that we have no basis to really 
determine its validity. We are providing sovereign nation status to 
that tribe. They become a nation within a nation. They can get 
automatic Federal aid, and they also--and this is the centerpiece of 
unfortunately what motivates some, but these tribes--they get the right 
for major gambling facilities if they so choose. And I do not mean to 
connect these two tribes, but Federal recognition gives the Indians 
that have been recognized the opportunity to have gaming facilities.
  So what you have now is a greater interest in this issue. You have 
gambling interests going to Indian tribes getting them to continue to 
seek Federal recognition in the hope of cashing in, and when I talk 
about cashing in, I am talking about literally hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  The chairman, in bringing this bill out, made reference to the fact 
that the BIA is not working. In part it is not working because it is 
understaffed, and in part the process needs to be streamlined. But to 
say there are 137 letters of intent waiting to go through the process 
strikes me as a little misleading, with all due respect, to what really 
has happened.
  There is a process, a step-by-step process to determine the validity 
of whether a tribe petitioning should be a Federal tribe, and of those 
who have gone through the process, only four have sought to seek the 
process to the point where they are pending, their applications are 
pending, waiting for active consideration, and there are four on active 
consideration, one of which is the Pokagon tribe, which will be 
considered very shortly.
  To say that there are 137 tribes waiting is misleading, because they 
have not done the process that the law requires them to do . Some have 
not done it because it takes a while, and some have not done it, in my 
judgment, because they cannot meet the test that was set up in the 1978 
law.
  The seven BIA criteria for recognition are fairly important. They 
need to establish a historic tie that goes back to before whites 
settled in the United States. They need to show that they have 
consisted and existed both politically and economically and socially 
for those times. They need to provide a list of who is in the tribe. 
They need to document the continuation of their tribe before the 
Europeans settled in the United States.
  This is not easy. Some cannot do it, so they simply seek to bypass 
the process.
  What gives us the qualifications here to determine whether they truly 
are a tribe? I have not looked at the records, yet we are being asked 
to vote on this.
  I have personal experience in my own State, and that is why I have 
become alert to this act, because we have the Golden Hill Paugussett 
Tribe seeking to be federally recognized, and they are slowly going 
through the process. The process requires them to put forward a 
petition of intent. It requires them to put forward their application. 
The BIA then sends it back with technical deficiencies. It used to be 
called obvious deficiencies. It is to help the tribe to know when they 
are not meeting the test what areas are they weak in so that the tribe 
can come back and make these corrections. Then the tribe looks at that 
and comes forward with an application, meaning trying to meet where 
they have the so-called technical deficiencies or obvious deficiencies.
  Of those tribes that have gone through the process there are only 
eight that are either on waiting or on active consideration, not the 
100-plus that have been mentioned in this committee.
  My sense is that we should not pass any Federal recognition bills 
until we revise the process to get it to work the way the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] suggested it should work. I plead with 
this House to understand that behind this process, if we bypass the 
BIA, that there will be more Members who are going to come before this 
committee and say bypass the process, and some of those requests, not 
all, not these certainly, but some of them will be because people want 
gambling, and there is so much money that is being spread around that 
the process will be totally perverted.
  I plead with the staff who may be listening to this debate, I will 
ask for a rollcall vote on every Indian bill that comes before us. 
There will be a time when people look back and say, ``How did this 
process get to where it is? Where were you as a Member of Congress?''
  This should be a ``no'' vote. We should go through the BIA process.
  [Mr. Richardson addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of our 
subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico for bringing this 
legislation for consideration. And I also want to commend the gentlemen 
from Michigan, Mr. Kildee and, Mr. Upton, as sponsors of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of S. 1357, a bill to 
reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationships of the Little Traverse 
Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 
as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is yet another example of the difficulties native 
American Indians have in being recognized as tribes and preserving 
their land and culture. The current system takes too long, is 
arbitrary, and unfair. Some tribes receive recognition and some do not, 
not based on whether they are Indian tribes or not, but rather on 
whether someone in their tribe, or some governmental agency has kept 
written records of their existence. Some tribes cannot meet the 7 
criteria because they cannot afford the legal fees. Some tribes cannot 
meet the 7 requirements because even the bureaucrats at BIA could not 
properly advise the tribes of such requirements.
  This is another example of the process we put American Indians 
through. After forcibly moving Indians from their ancestral lands, 
trying to exterminate them, signing treaties on which the United States 
later reneged, here we are today with two more bills to give Federal 
recognition to tribes which should have been recognized long ago.
  While I am pleased to rise in support of the groups we consider for 
Federal recognition today, others such as the Lumbees continue to 
languish for over 100 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Native American 
Affairs held a hearing on this very issue last month and we gained some 
valuable insight into the current problems in the Federal process of 
recognition. I hope that holding the hearing, together with our 
continued push to recognize tribes which the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
refuse to acknowledge as Indian, will move the Congress forward so that 
we can address this problem on a more permanent basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I recall when we held hearings on the recognition 
process, the gentleman who authored the BIA regulations on how to get 
an Indian tribe federally recognized--even he admitted the current 
regulatory process is a nightmare. Yes, we have an administrative 
process--but the process simply does not work.
  So, the Congress still has the authority to take corrective action as 
we are doing today in this Chamber. The other body, going through, the 
same deliberative manner, has moved to approve these pieces of 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Senate bill, S. 
1357.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to make 
the point again that this is a procedural issue. This is not an issue 
of whether these tribes were involved in something in the past. It is a 
process issue, and what we are doing here is we are saying whoever in 
this Congress can gather up enough votes is able to have this process 
accomplished regardless of the criteria. Now, that is not the right way 
to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly I agree the process does not work and have 
indeed a bill in that will change that, but in the meantime, we have 
tribes standing in the aisles waiting to do this political process 
rather than the process of determining eligibility.
  Let me clear up a little bit on numbers. We are talking about 137 
here. There are actually four who have documents ready for petitions. 
There are 137 on the BIA's own paper who have incomplete petitions and 
letters of intent only. So that is not an accurate statement to suggest 
that there are 137 who are prepared to be considered and have not been 
considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
legislation which formally recognizes the tribal government and people 
of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay 
Band of Odawa Indians. By formally reaffirming the government-to-
government relationship between the government of the tribes and the 
Government of the United States, this legislation will ensure that the 
tribes receive the just and equitable treatment that they deserve. Fair 
and equitable treatment has been absent from our Government's policy 
toward these tribes in the past--it is time to restore honor and 
decency to our Nation's treatment of these native Americans.
  Opponents of this bill will argue that they should attempt to weave 
their way through the bureaucracy, which all sides agree is woefully 
inadequate.
  Like most of us here, I came to Washington to help replace 
bureaucracy with common sense. This bill accomplishes this goal. While 
the answer will ultimately lie in repairing the Federal acknowledgement 
process, we should not let these bands become victims of the 
bureaucracy.
  I urge my colleagues to support recognition for these native 
Americans, and pass this legislation.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, for the 
record, since we do have some disagreement as to what has happened in 
the process: Is it your testimony that there are more than four 
individuals waiting on the active list to be considered by the BIA?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. There are 130 tribes that have sent letters of 
petition to the BIA seeking to be recognized.
  Mr. SHAYS. Is it not true, Mr. Chairman, that just sending a petition 
is just a note to let them know they then intend to apply? Have these 
tribes applied?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. That is the beginning of the process.
  Mr. SHAYS. That is the beginning of the process. With due respect, 
have they continued the process?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes. They have been persistent. Our subcommittee, if 
the gentleman will let me answer the question, the answer is yes, there 
is a continuing process. These tribes, because they get no response, 
then come to our subcommittee to petition a procedure.
  Now, let me also state that there is only one tribe right now, the 
Mowa Native Americans of Alabama, that we are considering in our 
subcommittee at this time, one
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, sir, I do need to be very clear as to 
what I am asking. And the question I am asking is there is a process 
that has to follow. First, the tribe submits a petition for 
recognition. This should contain documents to prove it meets the seven 
criteria for recognition such as a membership list and constitution.
  Now, what is your testimony, that 137 tribes have done that?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. We have right now 137 requests.
  Mr. SHAYS. That is not what I asked, sir.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. One hundred thirty-seven requests for recognition.
  Mr. SHAYS. Is that to the committee or to the BIA?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Different tribes. No. This is to the BIA; different 
tribes have ways of making a petition. Now, this 137 letters is not 
just letters. They are documents. They are tribal histories. There are 
videos. There are many ways that they make their petition.
  Now, if the gentleman is trying to make the point that only 4 right 
now are actively being considered, that is the problem, the BIA only 
has the capacity, knowledge, will, or whatever to consider 4 right now, 
when there are 137 tribes in this country that are simply seeking 
recognition. That is why we have this problem.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, there is a 
very direct process that has been required under the law that we are 
supposed to follow and the BIA is supposed to follow. They cannot act 
on an application that has not been submitted. A petition is not an 
application. It is simply not true. It is not true. It is not true that 
137 have submitted applications.
  This tribe has not gone through the process. It is not fair to blame 
the BIA. They have a law. We have a law that should be followed. It is 
a fact that this tribe has not put through an application. They have 
not put forward an application that the BIA can then come back and say, 
``You have obvious deficiencies,'' which is what has to happen. When 
they have the obvious deficiencies, they have not obviously then 
resubmitted their application for a review.
  To say there are 137 applications is totally and completely 
misleading to the floor, and in my judgment does an injustice. There is 
a process, and this process has not been followed.
  Instead of the process being followed, these 100-plus tribes are 
circumventing the BIA and coming directly to the floor of the House to 
try to have us determine whether they meet this criteria, and the 
criteria was set up by Congress.
  The petitions must establish they have been identified from historic 
times to the present as American Indians, as an American Indian 
community; evidence that a substantial portion of the petitioners 
inhabit a specific area or live in a community viewed as American 
Indian and distinct from other populations; statements of fact that the 
tribe has maintained tribal political influence over its members 
through time; they must also demonstrate they have Government documents 
stating how they govern themselves; they must have a membership list 
based on the tribe's own criteria. They have got to document that 
before the BIA. This tribe has not done that. That is a fact.
  The hundreds of other tribes waiting have not done that. They have 
not gone through the process. They are trying to circumvent the 
process, trying to circumvent the law, to get us just simply based on a 
Member's wish to determine a tribe.
  [Mr. RICHARDSON addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, more out of 
loyalty to my great-grandmother, who was of the Ottawa Tribe, named Red 
Heifer.
  You know, when my mother was living, she told me much about the 
tribe. The tribe was in northern Illinois when my great-grandmother was 
born. They had no reservation because they were a very small tribe, 
farmers primarily, who moved about. So they never had a tribal 
reservation. They moved about. My mother as a child lived on a 
reservation, whether it was in the territory of New Mexico or Arizona 
someplace out west, she did not know because they did not have a 
reservation.
  So I think it is altogether proper that we in Congress recognize 
there is a culture and value here that we who are not native Americans 
ought to help restore. So this is a small way in which to recognize 
some of these smaller tribes who have not had any recognition.
  I am going to vote for it, and I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to read just a little bit out of the committee 
report with respect to these numbers. These are the materials that were 
put forth by the BIA: Petitions ready for action, petitions ready, 
total four. That means those are the tribes that have completed the 
process and provided the information that is necessary.
  Other petitions, 100. Incomplete petitions, not ready, 26. Letters of 
intent, 74.
  Now, when you are talking about the process, a letter of intent is 
not the process. A letter of intent is the very first step. Your 
certainly cannot expect BIA to certify a tribe without knowing the 
background. That is their job. By the way, I think many of them are 
very good at what they do and certainly better than the Congress.
  Ask Members of Congress what they know about this tribe in terms of 
its background. Nothing. And nothing in committee, because we did not 
talk about that. We talked about the process, and that is what this is 
all about. I wonder if the chairman is willing to concede that all 100 
of these tribes ought to be handled on the floor, considered on the 
floor? If not, why not? Why should we take these 2 and not the other 
100? It is a question of process, it is a question of fairness. What we 
are saying here is that while we have the political buddies we want to 
do something with, but we are not willing to do it for the other 100. 
That is not fair, not right, not equitable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply am perplexed at the responses. I apologize for 
dragging this debate out. I am perplexed at the responses I am 
receiving on the other side.
  In the committee's own report we know there are 6 active items, we 
know there are three that have been determined by the BIA, and there 
are responses from the tribes. We know that there are four petitions 
waiting for consideration. I am not reading this from my own documents. 
I am reading this from the committee's own report.
  Then we come to another list: Other petitions, total 100. This is an 
interesting list. Incomplete petitions, not ready, 26; letters of 
intent to petition, 74. A letter of intent, as the chairman knows, is 
simply saying that we intend to apply. The BIA cannot act on the 
petition until they have the petition; 74 have not applied.
  In litigation, two. Then there have been a number of cases that have 
been resolved, 30.
  The bottom line is that 74 have simply said they intend to apply. How 
can the BIA act on an intention? It has to act on an application.
  So I really caution the gentleman when he talks about over 100, it 
misleads those of us who do not pretend to be experts.
  Somehow we think the BIA has failed. The BIA has not failed if they 
do not have even an application to act on.
  I submit for the record that what this points out in debate is that 
we simply have to revise the process. Do not blame the BIA. They are 
following the law. They were asked to develop regulations, and they 
have done it. If you do not like the process, change the process. The 
ends do not justify the means here.
  That is my problem. I do not have any basic problem with Mr. Kildee's 
bill or Mr. Upton's bill. They may in fact be Indians. I do not know.
  I have a problem with the process, and in my judgment, that comes 
close to being absurd, outrageous, and very dangerous.
  [Mr. RICHARDSON addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his work. I agree 
with all that he has said. Certainly the BIA and this administration 
need a great deal of repair.
  But the fact is we are working on that. The choice is pretty simple. 
If you agree on a process, we ought to fix the BIA process and these 
tribes ought to go through it. If on the other hand you agree we ought 
to politically do it because someone asked us to bring it here, what 
about the other 135? Are we going to let them go? How do you 
differentiate? Mr. Kildee is here, and that is fine. I have no trouble 
with that. But what makes his tribe different than the other 137?
  We ought to fix the process, go through the process, and that is what 
I think this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill will be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by sections, and each section is considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                                S. 1357

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Little Traverse Bay Bands of 
     Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 
     Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the 
     Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are descendants of, and 
     political successors to, signatories of the 1836 Treaty of 
     Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit.
       (2) The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 
     the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay 
     Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also 
     descendants of the signatories to the 1836 Treaty of 
     Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, have been 
     recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian 
     tribes.
       (3) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians consists 
     of at least 1,000 eligible members who continue to reside 
     close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the Little 
     Traverse Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and 
     1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as Emmet and 
     Charlevoix Counties, Michigan.
       (4) The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians consists of at 
     least 500 eligible members who continue to reside close to 
     their ancestral homeland as recognized in the Manistee 
     Reservation in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and reservation 
     in the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, which area is now known as 
     Manistee and Mason Counties, Michigan.
       (5) The Bands filed for reorganization of their existing 
     tribal governments in 1935 under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 
     U.S.C. 461 et seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Indian 
     Reorganization Act''). Federal agents who visited the Bands, 
     including Commissioner of Indian Affairs, John Collier, 
     attested to the continued social and political existence of 
     the Bands and concluded that the Bands were eligible for 
     reorganization. Due to a lack of Federal appropriations to 
     implement the provisions of such Act, the Bands were denied 
     the opportunity to reorganize.
       (6) In spite of such denial, the Bands continued their 
     political and social existence with viable tribal 
     governments. The Bands, along with other Michigan Odawa/
     Ottawa groups, including the tribes described in paragraph 
     (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948. 
     The Association subsequently pursued a successful land claim 
     with the Indian Claims Commission.
       (7) Between 1948 and 1975, the Bands carried out many of 
     their governmental functions through the Northern Michigan 
     Ottawa Association, while retaining individual Band control 
     over local decisions.
       (8) In 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association 
     petitioned under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et 
     seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization 
     Act''), to form a government on behalf of the Bands. Again in 
     spite of the Bands' eligibility, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     failed to act on their request.
       (9) The United States Government, the government of the 
     State of Michigan, and local governments have had continuous 
     dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Bands 
     from 1836 to the present.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk 
will designate section 3. The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Bands'' means the Little Traverse Bay Bands 
     of Odawa Indians and the Little River Bank of Ottawa Indians;
       (2) the term ``member'' means those individuals enrolled in 
     the Bands pursuant to section 7; and
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 3? If not, the Clerk 
will designate section 4. The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Federal Recognition.--Federal recognition of the Little 
     Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band 
     of Ottawa Indians is hereby reaffirmed. All laws and 
     regulations of the United States of general application to 
     Indians or nations, tribes, or bands of Indians, including 
     the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.; commonly 
     referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''), which are 
     not inconsistent with any specific provision of this Act 
     shall be applicable to the Bands and their members.
       (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The Bands and their members shall be 
     eligible for all services and benefits provided by the 
     Federal Government to Indians because of their status as 
     federally recognized Indians, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such services and benefits shall be 
     provided after the date of the enactment of this Act to the 
     Bands and their members without regard to the existence of a 
     reservation or the location of the residence of any member on 
     or near any Indian reservation.
       Service areas.--
       (A) Little traverse bay bands.--For purposes of the 
     delivery of Federal services to the enrolled members of the 
     Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the areas of the 
     State of Michigan within 70 miles of the boundaries of the 
     reservations for the Little Traverse Bay Bands as set out in 
     Article I, paragraphs ``third'' and ``fourth'' of the Treaty 
     of 1855, 11 Stat. 621, shall be deemed to be within or near a 
     reservation, notwithstanding the establishment of a 
     reservation for the tribe after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. Services may be provided to members outside the 
     named service area unless prohibited by law or program 
     regulations.
       (B) Little river band.--For purposes of the delivery of 
     Federal services to enrolled members of the Little River Band 
     of Ottawa Indians, the Counties of Manistee, Mason, Wexford 
     and Lake, in the State of Michigan, shall be deemed to be 
     within or near a reservation, notwithstanding the 
     establishment of a reservation for the tribe after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act. Services may be provided to 
     members outside the named Counties unless prohibited by law 
     or program regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--All rights and privileges of the Bands, 
     and their members thereof, which may have been abrogated or 
     diminished before the date of the enactment of this Act are 
     hereby reaffirmed.
       (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Bands, or 
     of their members, that existed prior to the date of enactment 
     of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided in any 
     other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable 
     claim the Bands might have to enforce any right or privilege 
     reserved by or granted to the Bands which were wrongfully 
     denied to or taken from the Bands prior to the enactment of 
     this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. TRANSFER OF LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANDS.

       (a) Little Traverse Bay Bands.--The Secretary shall acquire 
     real property in Emmet and Charlevoix Counties for the 
     benefit of the Little Traverse Bay Bands. The Secretary shall 
     also accept any real property located in those Counties for 
     the benefit of the Little Traverse Bay Bands if conveyed or 
     otherwise transferred to the Secretary, if at the time of 
     such acceptance, there are no adverse legal claims on such 
     property including outstanding liens, mortgages or taxes 
     owed.
       (b) Little River Band.--The Secretary shall acquire real 
     property in Manistee and Mason Counties for the benefit of 
     the Little River Band. The Secretary shall also accept any 
     real property located in those Counties for the benefit of 
     the Little River Band if conveyed or otherwise transferred to 
     the Secretary, if at the time of such acceptance, there are 
     no adverse legal claims on such property including 
     outstanding liens, mortgages or taxes owed.
       (c) Additional Lands.--The Secretary may accept any 
     additional acreage in each of the Bands' service area 
     specified by section 4(b) of this Act pursuant to his 
     authority under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et 
     seq.; commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization 
     Act'').
       (d) Reservation.--Subject to the conditions imposed by this 
     section, the land acquired by or transferred to the Secretary 
     under or pursuant to this section shall be taken in the name 
     of the United States in trust for the Bands and shall be a 
     part of the respective Bands' reservation.

  Are there any amendments to section 6?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Bands shall submit to the Secretary membership 
     rolls consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for 
     membership in such Bands. The qualifications for inclusion on 
     the membership rolls of the Bands shall be determined by the 
     membership clauses in such Bands' respective governing 
     documents, in consultation with the Secretary. Upon 
     completion of the rolls, the Secretary shall immediately 
     publish notice of such in the Federal Register. The Bands 
     shall ensure that such rolls are maintained and kept current.

  The CHAIRMAN. are there any amendments to section 7?

                              {time}  1350


               amendment offered by Mr. Thomas of Wyoming

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendent offered by Mr. Thomas of Wyoming: On page 8 strike 
     lines 23 through 25; and on page 9, strike lines 1 through 8, 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(a) List of Present Membership.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Bands shall 
     submit to the Secretary a list consisting of all individuals 
     who were members of the respective Bands as of the date of 
     enactment.
       ``(b) List of Those Eligible for Membership.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Bands shall submit to the Secretary a list consisting of 
     all individuals who were members of the respective Bands as 
     of the date of enactment.
       ``(b) List of Those Eligible for Membership.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Bands shall submit to the Secretary membership rolls 
     consisting of all individuals eligible for membership in such 
     Bands. The qualifications for inclusion on the membership 
     rolls of the Bands shall be determined by the membership 
     clauses in the Bands' governing documents, in consultation 
     with the Secretary. Upon completion of the rolls, the 
     Secretary shall immediately publish notice of such in the 
     Federal Register. The Bands shall ensure that such rolls are 
     maintained and kept current.''.

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly explain my 
amendment, which I introduce at the express request of the Department 
of the Interior.
  This amendment would require each of the Bands, with 90 days of 
enactment, to submit a list of their members as of the date of 
enactment to the Secretary. This information is important to the 
Department because it gives them a base membership roll from which to 
work, and makes easier the complex job of defining tribal membership 
during the transition period from nonrecognized to recognized tribe.
  If we pass this legislation, the Secretary is charged with assisting 
the bands in a whole host of involved processes: formulating a 
constitution and governing body, defining membership criteria, assuming 
into trust tribal lands. This task is made easier, and conflicts and 
misunderstandings avoided, if the Secretary can ascertain during this 
interim period who is and is not a member of the bands.
  Mr. Chairman, we may hear today that this can be accomplished through 
agency regulations. Why, then, has the Department specifically 
requested this change? Why, then, has a similar provision been included 
in every recognition bill that has been introduced in this Congress: 
H.R. 334, the Lumbee bill, in section 4(b)(1); H.R. 2366, the Jena 
bill, in section 9(a); and H.R. 923 and H.R. 3605, the Mowa Choctaw 
bill, in section 7(a).
  Mr. Chairman, some may try to avoid discussing the merits of this 
amendment by off-handedly dismissing the Department's request as an 
attempt to delay passage of this bill. Such an assertion is completely 
belied by the record. The Department first made its request in 
testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian affairs on February 10, 
1994, well before S. 1066 even passed the other body.
  This added requirement is not a burden to the bands, since it can be 
compiled from information that they should already have. Conversely, it 
is of great benefit to the Department. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas], and let me say that I want to extend my accolades to him for 
the great work he has done on our subcommittee over the last 2 years. 
Let me ask the gentleman:
  We both discussed a technical corrections bill that we would be doing 
in September. If I commit to the gentleman that this specific concern 
that he has, the membership list, can be addressed in that technical 
corrections bill, and I assure the gentleman that we would pass it in 
September, would my good friend, in the interest of expediting this 
process, be willing to withdraw his amendment at this time?
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly about it, and I 
know the gentleman from New Mexico does as well. Should this pass, then 
we need the tools for implementation, and certainly the gentleman does 
follow through on his agreements, and, if that is the situation, we can 
accomplish it that way, and I would be happy to do what the gentleman 
has suggested.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will designate section 8.
  The text of section 8 is as follows:

     SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY.

       (a) Constitution.--
       (1) Adoption.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by 
     secret ballot, elections for the purposes of adopting new 
     constitutions for the Bands. The elections shall be held 
     according to the procedures applicable to elections under 
     section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 476; 
     commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'').
       (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as new 
     constitutions are adopted under paragraph (1), the governing 
     documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be the interim governing documents for the Bands.
       (b) Officials.--
       (1) Election.--Not later than 6 months after the Bands 
     adopt constitutions and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), 
     the Bands shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the 
     purpose of electing officials for the Bands as provided in 
     the Bands' respective governing constitutions. The elections 
     shall be conducted according to the procedures described in 
     the Bands' constitutions and bylaws.
       (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Bands 
     elect new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the Bands' 
     governing bodies shall be those governing bodies in place on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, or any new governing 
     bodies selected under the election procedures specified in 
     the respective interim governing documents of the Bands.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8?
  Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Mazzoli) having assumed the chair, Mr. Menendez, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the Senate bill (S. 
1357) to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the Little 
Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa 
Indians as distinct federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 501, he reported the Senate bill 
back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 372]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--180

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torricelli
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Carr
     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     Ford (TN)
     Laughlin
     Machtley
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     Montgomery
     Oxley
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Thompson
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1416

  Mr. KIM and Mr. FISH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BROWDER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above reported.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________