[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.
____________________