Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9455-H9462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INDIAN FEDERAL RECOGNITION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1998

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1154) to provide for administrative procedures to
extend Federal recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1154

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 ``Indian Federal Recognition
Administrative Procedures Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish an administrative procedure to extend
Federal recognition to certain Indian groups;
(2) to extend to Indian groups which are determined to be
Indian tribes the protection, services, and benefits
available from the Federal Government pursuant to the Federal
trust responsibility;
(3) to extend to Indian groups which are determined to be
Indian tribes the immunities and privileges available to
other acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their status as
Indian tribes with a government-to-government relationship
with the United States;
(4) to ensure that when the Federal Government extends
acknowledgment to an Indian tribe, it does so with a
consistent legal, factual, and historical basis;
(5) to establish a commission which will act in a
supporting role to petitioning groups applying for
recognition;
(6) to provide clear and consistent standards of
administrative review of documented petitions for
acknowledgment;
(7) to clarify evidentiary standards and expedite the
administrative review process by providing adequate resources
to process petitions; and
(8) to remove the acknowledgment process from the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and invest it in the Commission on Indian
Recognition.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Acknowledgment; acknowledged.--The term
``acknowledgment'' or ``acknowledged'' means a determination
by the Commission on Indian Recognition that an Indian group
constitutes an Indian tribe with a government-to-government
relationship with the United States, and whose members are
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.
(2) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Commission on Indian Recognition established pursuant to
section 4.
(4) Community.--The term ``community'' means any group of
people which, in the context of the history, geography,
culture, and social organization of the group, sustains
consistent interactions and significant social relationships
within its membership and whose members are differentiated
from and identified as distinct from nonmembers.
(5) Continuously; continuous.--The term ``continuously'' or
``continuous'' means extending from the given date to the
present substantially without interruption; proof of any
matter required shall be deemed without substantial
interruption if such proof is available at least for every
fifth year.
(6) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of the Interior.
(7) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition''
means the detailed, factual exposition and arguments,
including all documentary evidence, necessary to demonstrate
that arguments specifically address the mandatory criteria
established in section 5.
(8) Historical; historically.--The term ``historical'' or
``historically'' means dating from first sustained contact
with non-Indians.
(9) Indian group; group.--The term ``Indian group'' or
``group'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
pueblo, village or community within the United States that
the Secretary does not acknowledge to be an Indian tribe.
(10) Indian tribe; tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' or
``tribe'' means any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
pueblo, village or community within the United States
included on the Secretary's annual list of acknowledged
tribes.
(11) Indigenous.--The term ``indigenous'' means native to
the United States in that at least part of the petitioner's
traditional territory extended into what is now within the
boundaries of the United States.
(12) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means
an undocumented letter or resolution which is dated and
signed by the governing body of an Indian group and submitted
to the Commission indicating the group's intent to submit a
petition for acknowledgment as an Indian tribe.
(13) Member of an indian group.--The term ``member of an
Indian group'' means an individual who is recognized by an
Indian group as meeting its membership criteria.
(14) Member of an indian tribe.--The term ``member of an
Indian tribe'' means an individual who--
(A) meets the membership requirements of the tribe as set
forth in its governing document;
(B) in the absence of a governing document which sets out
these requirements, has been recognized as a member
collectively by those persons comprising the tribal governing
body and has consistently maintained tribal relations with
the tribe; or
(C) is listed on the tribal membership rolls as a member,
if such rolls are kept.
(15) Petition.--The term ``petition'' means a petition for
acknowledgment submitted or transferred to the Commission
pursuant to section 5.
(16) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any group
which has submitted a petition or letter of intent to the
Commission requesting acknowledgment as an Indian tribe or
has a petition or letter of intent transferred to the
Commission under section 5(a).
(17) Previous federal acknowledgment.--The term ``previous
Federal acknowledgment'' means any action by the Federal
Government the character of which is clearly premised on
identification of a tribal political entity and clearly
indicates the recognition of a government-to-government
relationship between that entity and the Federal Government.
(18) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means the
reextension of acknowledgment to any previously acknowledged
tribe which may have had its acknowledged status abrogated or
diminished by reason of congressional legislation expressly
terminating that status.
(19) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(20) Treaty.--The term ``treaty'' means any treaty--
(A) negotiated and ratified by the United States on or
before March 3, 1871, with, or on behalf of, any Indian group
or Indian tribe;
(B) made by any government with, or on behalf of, any
Indian group or Indian tribe, from which Federal Government
subsequently acquired territory by purchase, conquest,
annexation, or cession; or
(C) negotiated by the United States with, or on behalf of,
any Indian group, whether or not the treaty was subsequently
ratified.
(21) Tribal roll.--The term ``tribal roll'' means a list
exclusively of those individuals who have been determined by
the tribe to meet the tribe's membership requirements as set
forth in its governing document or, in the absence of a
governing document setting forth those requirements, have
been recognized as members by the tribe's governing body. In
either case, those individuals on a tribal roll must have
affirmatively demonstrated consent to being listed as
members.
(22) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the
48 contiguous States, Alaska, and Hawaii; and does not
include territories or possessions.

SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN RECOGNITION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of the Interior the Commission on Indian
Recognition. The Commission shall report directly to the
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--(A) The Commission shall consist of 3
members appointed by the Secretary.
(B) In making appointments to the Commission, the Secretary
shall give careful consideration to--
(i) recommendations received from Indian tribes;
(ii) recommendations from Indian groups and professional
organizations; and
(iii) individuals who have a background in Indian law or
policy, anthropology, or history.
(2) Affiliations.--
(A) No more than 2 members of the Commission may be members
of the same political party.

[[Page H9456]]

(B) No more than 1 member of the Commission may be an
employee of the Department of the Interior.
(3) Terms.--(A) Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for a term of 4 years, except as provided in
subparagraph (B).
(B) As designated by the Secretary at the time of
appointment, of the members first appointed--
(i) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
(ii) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; and
(iii) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 4 years.
(4) Vacancy.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in
which the original appointment was made. Any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term
for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be
appointed only for the remainder of that term. A member may
serve after the expiration of that member's term until a
successor has taken office.
(5) Compensation.--(A) Each member of the Commission not
otherwise employed by the United States Government shall
receive compensation at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day, including traveltime, such member
is engaged in the actual performance of duties authorized by
the Commission.
(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a member of the
Commission who is otherwise an officer or employee of the
United States Government shall serve on the Commission
without additional compensation, but such service shall be
without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(C) All members of the Commission shall be reimbursed for
travel and per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses during
the performance of duties of the Commission while away from
home or their regular place of business, in accordance with
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(6) Chairperson.--At the time appointments are made under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall designate 1 of such
appointees as Chairperson of the Commission.
(c) Meetings and Procedures.--
(1) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall hold its first
meeting no later than 30 days after the date on which all
initial members of the Commission have been appointed.
(2) Quorum.--2 members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business.
(3) Rules.--The Commission may adopt such rules (consistent
with the provisions of this Act) as may be necessary to
establish its procedures and to govern the manner of its
operations, organization, and personnel.
(4) Principal office.--The principal office of the
Commission shall be in the District of Columbia.
(d) Duties.--The Commission shall carry out the duties
assigned to the Commission by this Act, and shall meet the
requirements imposed on the Commission by this Act.
(e) Powers and Authorities.--
(1) Chairman.--Subject to such rules and regulations as may
be adopted by the Commission, the Chairman of the Commission
is authorized to--
(A) appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title, or of any other provision of
law, relating to the number, classification, and General
Schedule rates) of an Executive Director of the Commission
and of such other personnel as the Chairman deems advisable
to assist in the performance of the duties of the Commission,
at a rate not to exceed a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code; and
(B) procure, as authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, temporary and intermittent services to
the same extent as is authorized by law for agencies in the
executive branch, but at rates not to exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(2) Commission.--The Commission may--
(A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times;
(B) take such testimony;
(C) have such printing and binding done;
(D) enter into such contracts and other arrangements,
subject to the availability of funds;
(E) make such expenditures;
(F) secure directly from any officer, department, agency,
establishment, or instrumentality of the Federal Government
such information as the Commission may require for the
purpose of this Act, and each such officer, department,
agency, establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and
directed to furnish, to the extent permitted by law, such
information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly
to the Commission, upon request made by the Chairman of the
Commission;
(G) use the United States mails in the same manner and
under the same conditions as other departments and agencies
of the United States; and
(H) take such other actions as the Commission may deem
advisable to carry out its duties.
(3) Members.--Any member of the Commission may administer
oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing before the
Commission.
(f) Assistance From Other Federal Agencies.--Upon the
request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head of any
Federal department, agency, or instrumentality is authorized
to make any of the facilities and services of such
department, agency, or instrumentality available to the
Commission and detail any of the personnel of such
department, agency, or instrumentality to the Commission, on
a nonreimbursable basis, to assist the Commission in carrying
out its duties under this section.
(g) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate 12 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(h) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the
Commission.

SEC. 5. PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION AND LETTERS OF INTENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) Submission.--Any Indian group may submit to the
Commission a petition requesting that the Commission
recognize that the Indian group is an Indian tribe.
(2) Hearing.--Indian groups that have been denied or
refused recognition as an Indian tribe under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary shall be entitled to an
adjudicatory hearing, under section 9 of this Act, before the
Commission. For purposes of the adjudicatory hearing, the
Assistant Secretary's final determination shall be considered
a preliminary determination under section 8(b)(1)(B) of this
Act.
(3) Groups and entities excluded.--The provisions of this
Act do not apply to the following groups or entities, which
shall not be eligible for recognition under this Act--
(A) Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos, communities,
and Alaska Native entities which are recognized by the
Secretary as of the date of enactment of this Act as eligible
to receive services from the Bureau;
(B) splinter groups, political factions, communities, or
groups of any character which separate from the main body of
an Indian tribe that, at the time of such separation, was
recognized as being an Indian tribe by the Secretary, unless
it can be clearly established that the group, faction, or
community has functioned throughout history until the date of
such petition as an autonomous Indian group; and
(C) any Indian group whose relationship with the Federal
Government was expressly terminated by an Act of Congress.
(4) Transfer of petitions.--(A) No later than 30 days after
the date on which all of the initial members of the
Commission have been appointed, the Secretary shall transfer
to the Commission all petitions pending before the
Department. The Secretary shall also transfer all letters of
intent previously received by the Department that request the
Secretary, or the Federal Government, to recognize or
acknowledge an Indian group as an Indian tribe.
(B) On the date of such transfer, the Secretary and the
Department shall cease to have any authority to recognize or
acknowledge, on behalf of the Federal Government, any Indian
group as an Indian tribe.
(C) Petitions and letters of intent transferred to the
Commission under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall,
for purposes of this Act, be considered as having been
submitted to the Commission in the same order as they were
submitted to the Department.
(b) Petition Form and Content.--Except as otherwise
provided in this section, any petition submitted under
subsection (a) by an Indian group shall be in any readable
form that clearly indicates that the petition is requesting
the Commission to recognize the petitioning Indian group as
an Indian tribe. Each petition shall contain specific
evidence establishing the following mandatory criteria:
(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1934.
(A) Evidence to be relied upon in determining a group's
Indian identity may include 1 or a combination of the
following, as well as other evidence of identification by
other than the petitioner itself or its members. Proof of any
1 of the following for a given time is conclusive evidence of
Indian identity for that time.
(i) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal
authorities.
(ii) Relationships with State governments based on
identification of the group as Indian.
(iii) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local
government in a relationship based on the group's Indian
identity.
(iv) Identification as an Indian entity by anthropologists,
historians, or other scholars.
(v) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers and
books.
(vi) Identification as an Indian entity in relationships
with Indian tribes or with national, regional, or State
Indian organizations.
(B) A petitioner may establish that, for any given period
of time for which evidence of identification as Indian is
lacking, such absence of evidence corresponds in time with
official acts of the Federal or relevant State government
which prohibited or penalized the expression of Indian
identity. For such periods of time, the absence of evidence
identifying the petitioner as an Indian entity shall not be
the basis for declining to acknowledge the petitioner.
(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning groups
comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community
on a substantially continuous basis since 1934.
(A) The criterion that the petitioner meets the definition
of community set forth in section 3 may be demonstrated by 1
or more of the following:
(i) Significant rates of marriage within the group or, as
may be culturally required, patterned out-marriages with
other Indian populations.
(ii) Significant social relationships connecting individual
members.
(iii) Significant rates of informal social interaction
which exist broadly among the members of a group.
(iv) A significant degree of shared or cooperative labor or
other economic activity among the membership.

[[Page H9457]]

(v) Evidence of strong patterns of discrimination or other
social distinctions by nonmembers.
(vi) Shared sacred or secular ritual activity encompassing
most of the group.
(vii) Cultural patterns shared among a significant portion
of the group that are different from those of the non-Indian
populations with whom it interacts. These patterns must
function as more than a symbolic identification of the group
as Indian. They may include, but are not limited to,
language, kinship organization, or religious beliefs and
practices.
(viii) The persistence of a named, collective Indian
identity continuously over a period of more than 50 years,
notwithstanding changes in name.
(ix) A demonstration of political influence under the
criterion in paragraph (3)(B) shall be conclusive evidence
for demonstrating community for that period of time.
(x) Other evidence as considered appropriate by the
Secretary.
(B) A petitioner shall be considered to have provided
sufficient evidence of community at a given point in time if
evidence is provided to demonstrate any 1 of the following:
(i) More than 50 percent of the members reside in a
geographical area or areas no more than 50 miles from a
historic land base(s) or site(s) of the petitioner.
(ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in the group are
between members of the group.
(iii) At least 50 percent of the group members maintain
distinct cultural patterns such as, but not limited to,
language, kinship organization, or religious beliefs and
practices.
(iv) There are distinct social institutions encompassing
more than 50 percent of the members, such as kinship
organizations, formal or informal economic cooperation, or
religious organizations.
(v) The group has met the criterion in paragraph (3) using
evidence described in paragraph (3)(B).
(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from 1934
until the present.
(A) This criterion may be demonstrated by 1 or more of the
evidence listed below or by other evidence of political
influence or authority:
(i) The group is able to mobilize significant numbers of
members and significant resources from its members for group
purposes.
(ii) Most of the membership considers issues acted upon or
actions taken by group leaders or governing bodies to be of
importance.
(iii) There is widespread knowledge, communication, and
involvement in political processes by most of the group's
members.
(iv) There are internal conflicts which show controversy
over valued group goals, properties, policies, processes, or
decisions.
(B) A petitioning group shall be considered to have
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the exercise of
political influence or authority at a given point in time by
demonstrating any 1 of the following:
(i) A continuous line of group leaders, acknowledged and
accepted as such by State or local governments or nonmembers
in general, with a description of the means of selection.
(ii) Group leaders or other mechanisms exist or existed
which allocate group resources such as land, residence
rights, and the like on a consistent basis.
(iii) Group leaders or other mechanisms exist or existed
which settle disputes between members or subgroups by some
means.
(iv) Group leaders or other mechanisms exist or existed
which exert strong influence on the behavior of individual
members, such as the establishment or maintenance of norms
and the enforcement of sanctions to influence behavior.
(v) Group leaders or other mechanisms exist or existed
which organize or influence economic subsistence activities
among the members, including shared or cooperative labor.
(C) A group that has met the requirements in paragraph (3)
at a given point in time shall be considered to have provided
sufficient evidence to meet this criterion at that point in
time.
(4) A copy of the group's present governing document,
including its membership criteria. In the absence of a
written document, the petitioner must provide a statement
describing in full its membership criteria.
(5) The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who
descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical
Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(A) A petitioner shall be presumed to descend from a
historical Indian tribe or combined tribes upon proof by the
petitioner that its member descend from an Indian entity in
existence in 1934. This presumption may be rebutted by
affirmative evidence offered by any interested party that the
Indian entity in existence in 1934 does not descend from a
historical Indian tribe or combined tribes.
(B) The following evidence shall be deemed by the
Commission to prove descent from a historical Indian entity
for the time for which such evidence is available:
(i) Rolls prepared by the Secretary on a descendancy basis
for purposes of distributing claims money, providing
allotments, or other purposes.
(ii) State, Federal, or other official records or evidence
identifying present members or ancestors of present members
as being descendants of a historical tribe or combined
tribes.
(iii) Church, school, and other similar enrollment records
identifying present members or ancestors of present members
as being descendants of a historical tribe or combined
tribes.
(iv) Affidavits of recognition by tribal elders, leaders,
or the tribal governing body identifying present members or
ancestors of present members as being descendants of a
historical tribe or combined tribes.
(v) Reports, research, or other like statements based upon
firsthand experience of historians, anthropologists, and
genealogists with established expertise on the petitioner or
Indian entities in general identifying present members or
ancestors of present members as being descendants of a
historical tribe or combined tribes.
(C) A petitioner may also demonstrate this criterion by
other records of evidence identifying present members or
ancestors of present members as being descendants of a
historical tribe or combined tribes.
(D) The petitioner must provide an official membership
list, separately certified by the group's governing body of
all known current members of the group. This list must
include each member's full name (including maiden name),
date of birth, and current residential address. The
petitioner must also provide a copy of each available
former list of members based on the group's own defined
criteria, as well as a statement describing the
circumstances surrounding the preparation of the current
list and, insofar as possible, the circumstances
surrounding the preparation of former lists.
(6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed
principally of persons who are not members of any
acknowledged North American Indian tribe. However, under
certain conditions a petitioning group may be acknowledged
even if its membership is composed principally of persons
whose names have appeared on rolls of, or who have been
otherwise associated with, an acknowledged Indian tribe. The
conditions are that the group must establish that it has
functioned since 1934 until the present as a separate and
autonomous Indian tribal entity, that its members do not
maintain a bilateral political relationship with the
acknowledged tribe, and that its members have provided
written confirmation of their membership in the petitioning
group.
(c) Previous Acknowledgment.--
(1) In general.--Evidence which demonstrates previous
Federal acknowledgment includes, but is not limited to--
(A) evidence that the group has had or is the successor in
interest to a tribe that has had treaty relations with the
United States;
(B) evidence that the group has been or is the successor in
interest to a tribe that has been denominated a tribe by Act
of Congress or Executive order;
(C) evidence that the group has been or is the successor in
interest to a tribe that has been treated by the Federal
Government as having collective rights in tribal lands or
funds.
(2) Presumption of continuousness.--A petitioner that can
demonstrate previous Federal acknowledgment by a
preponderance of the evidence shall be required to
demonstrate the existence of current political authority as
defined by subsection (b)(3), with a time depth limited to 10
years preceding the date of the petition. Upon such
demonstration, a presumption of continuous existence since
previous Federal acknowledgment shall arise. Unless such
presumption is rebutted by evidence offered by an interested
party proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
previously recognized group has abandoned tribal relations,
such group shall be recognized.
(d) Recognition of Groups Meeting Criteria.--The Commission
shall recognize as an Indian tribe a petitioning group that
demonstrates the criteria set out in this section by a
preponderance of the evidence. Such recognized tribes shall
be entitled to the same privileges, immunities, rights, and
benefits of other federally recognized tribes. Neither shall
the Department of the Interior nor any other Federal agency
purport to diminish, condition, or revoke the privileges,
immunities, rights, and benefits of Indian tribes recognized
by any means before the effective date of this Act or under
the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 6. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION AND LETTERS OF INTENT.

(a) Petitioner.--Not later than 30 days after a petition is
submitted or transferred to the Commission under section
5(a), the Commission shall send an acknowledgement of receipt
in writing to the petitioner and shall have published in the
Federal Register a notice of such receipt, including the
name, location, and mailing address of the petitioner and
such other information that will identify the entity who
submitted the petition and the date the petition was received
by the Commission. The notice shall also indicate where a
copy of the petition may be examined.
(b) Letters of Intent.--As to letters of intent, publish in
the Federal Register a notice of such receipt, including the
name, location, and mailing address of petitioner. A
petitioner who has submitted a letter of intent or had a
letter of intent transferred to the Commission under section
5(a) shall not be required to submit a documented petition
within any time period.
(c) Others.--The Commission shall also notify, in writing,
the Governor and attorney general of, and each recognized
Indian tribe within, any State in which a petitioner resides.
(d) Publication; Opportunity for Supporting or Opposing
Submissions.--The Commission shall publish the notice of
receipt of the petition in a major newspaper of general
circulation in the town or city nearest the location of the
petitioner. The notice shall include, in addition to the
information described in subsection (a), notice of
opportunity for other parties to submit factual or legal
arguments in support of or in opposition to, the petition.
Such submissions shall be provided to the petitioner upon
receipt by the Commission. The petitioner shall be provided
an opportunity to respond to such submissions prior to a
determination on the petition by the Commission.

SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE PETITION.

(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--Upon receipt of a documented petition, the
Commission shall conduct a review to determine whether the
petitioner is entitled to be recognized as an Indian tribe.

[[Page H9458]]

(2) Consideration.--The review conducted under paragraph
(1) shall include consideration of the petition, supporting
evidence, and the factual statements contained in the
petition.
(3) Research.--The Commission may also initiate other
research for any purpose relative to analyzing the petition
and obtaining additional information about the petitioner's
status and may consider any evidence which may be submitted
by other parties.
(4) Access to other federal resources.--Upon request by the
petitioner, the Library of Congress and the National Archives
shall each allow access to the petitioner to its resources,
records, and documents, for the purpose of conducting
research and preparing evidence concerning the status of the
petitioner.
(b) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, petitions shall be considered on a first come,
first served basis, determined by the date of the original
filing of the petition with the Commission, or the Department
if the petition is transferred to the Commission pursuant to
section 5(a). The Commission shall establish a priority
register including those petitions pending before the
Department on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Priority.--Petitions that are submitted to the
Commission by Indian groups that meet 1 or more of the
requirements set forth in section 5(c) shall receive priority
consideration over petitions submitted by any other Indian
group.

SEC. 8. PRELIMINARY HEARING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the receipt
of a petition by the Commission, the Commission shall set a
date for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing,
the petitioner and any other concerned party may provide
evidence concerning the status of the petitioner.
(b) Determination.--
(1) In general.--Within 30 days after the conclusion of the
preliminary hearing under subsection (a), the Commission
shall make a determination either--
(A) to extend acknowledgement to the petitioner; or
(B) that the petitioner proceed to an adjudicatory hearing.
(2) Published in federal register.--The Commission shall
publish the determination in the Federal Register.
(c) Information To Be Provided Preparatory to an
Adjudicatory Hearing.--
(1) In general.--If the Commission determines under
subsection (b) that the petitioner proceed to an adjudicatory
hearing, the Commission shall--
(A) immediately make available to the petitioner all
records relied upon by the Commission and its staff in making
the preliminary determination to assist the petitioner in
preparing for the adjudicatory hearing, and shall also
include such guidance as the Commission considers necessary
or appropriate to assist the petitioner in preparing for the
hearing including references to prior decisions of the
Commission or to recognition decisions made under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary that will provide direction in
preparing for the adjudicatory hearing; and if prior
recognition decisions are referred to, the Commission will
make all records relating to such decisions available to the
petitioner in a timely manner; and
(B) within 30 days after the conclusion of the preliminary
hearing under subsection (a), notify the petitioner in
writing, which notice shall include a list of any
deficiencies or omissions on which the Commission relied in
making its determination.
(2) List of deficiencies.--The list of deficiencies and
omissions provided under paragraph (1)(B) shall be the
subject of the adjudicatory hearing. The Commission may not
add to this list once it is issued.

SEC. 9. ADJUDICATORY HEARING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the
conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the Commission shall
afford the petitioner described in section 8(b)(1)(B) an
adjudicatory hearing. The hearing shall be on the list of
deficiencies and omissions provided under section 8(c)(1)(B)
and shall be conducted on the record pursuant to sections
554, 556, and 557 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Testimony From Staff of Commission.--The Commission
shall require testimony from its acknowledgement and research
staff that worked on the preliminary determination and that
are assisting the Commission in the final determination under
subsection (d) and may require the testimony of other
witnesses. Any such testimony shall be subject to cross-
examination by the petitioner.
(c) Evidence by Petitioner.--The petitioner may provide
such evidence as the petitioner deems appropriate.
(d) Decision by Commission.--Within 60 days after the end
of the hearing held under subsection (a), the Commission
shall--
(1) make a determination as to the extension or denial of
acknowledgment to the petitioner;
(2) publish its determination under paragraph (1) in the
Federal Register; and
(3) deliver a copy of the determination to the petitioner,
and to every other interested party.

SEC. 10. APPEALS.

(a) In General.--Within 60 days after the date the
Commission's decision is published under section 9(d), the
petitioner may appeal the determination to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
(b) Attorney Fees.--If the petitioner prevails in the
appeal described in subsection (a), it shall be eligible for
an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs under the
provisions of section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or
section 2412 of title 28 of such Code, as the case may be.

SEC. 11. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS.

(a) Eligibility for Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon recognition
by the Commission that the petitioner is an Indian tribe, the
Indian tribe shall be eligible for the services and benefits
from the Federal Government that are available to other
federally recognized Indian tribes by virtue of their status
as Indian tribes with a government-to-government relationship
with the United States, as well as having the
responsibilities and obligations of such Indian tribes. Such
recognition shall subject the Indian tribes to the same
authority of Congress and the United States to which other
federally recognized tribes are subject.
(2) Availability.--Recognition of the Indian tribe under
this Act does not create an immediate entitlement to existing
programs of the Bureau. Such programs shall become available
upon appropriation of funds by law. Requests for
appropriations shall follow a determination under subsection
(b) of the needs of the newly-recognized Indian tribe.
(b) Needs Determination.--Within 6 months after an Indian
tribe is recognized under this Act, the appropriate area
offices of the Bureau and the Indian Health Service shall
consult and develop in cooperation with the Indian tribe, and
forward to the respective Secretary, a determination of the
needs of the Indian tribe and a recommended budget required
to serve the newly recognized Indian tribe. The recommended
budget shall be considered along with recommendations by the
appropriate Secretary in the budget-request process.

SEC. 12. ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES.

(a) List of Recognized Tribes.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually on
or before every January 30 thereafter, the Commission shall
publish in the Federal Register a list of all Indian tribes
which are recognized by the Federal Government and receiving
services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(b) Annual Report.--Beginning 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Commission shall submit a report to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate a report on its
activities, which shall include at a minimum the following:
(1) The number of petitions pending at the beginning of the
year and the names of the petitioners.
(2) The number of petitions received during the year and
the names of the petitioners.
(3) The number of petitions the Commission approved for
acknowledgment and the names of the acknowledged petitioners.
(4) The number of petitions the Commission denied for
acknowledgment and the names of the petitioners.
(5) The status of all pending petitions and the names of
the petitioners.

SEC. 13. ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

Any petitioner may bring an action in the district court of
the United States for the district in which the petitioner
resides, or the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, to enforce the provisions of this Act, including
any time limitations within which actions are required to be
taken, or decisions made, under this Act and the district
court shall issue such orders (including writs of mandamus)
as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 14. REGULATIONS.

The Commission is authorized to prescribe such regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes
of this Act. All such regulations must be published in
accordance with the provisions of title 5, United States
Code.

SEC. 15. GUIDELINES AND ADVICE.

(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after petitions
and letters of intent have been transferred to the Commission
by the Secretary under section 5(a)(4)(A), the Commission
shall make available suggested guidelines for the format of
petitions, including general suggestions and guidelines on
where and how to research required information, but such
examples shall not preclude the use of any other format.
(b) Research Advice.--The Commission, upon request, is
authorized to provide suggestions and advise to any
petitioner for his research into the petitioner's historical
background and Indian identity. The Commission shall not be
responsible for the actual research on behalf of the
petitioner.

SEC. 16. ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS.

(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may award grants to Indian groups seeking Federal recognition
to enable the Indian groups to--
(A) conduct the research necessary to substantiate
petitions under this Act; and
(B) prepare documentation necessary for the submission of a
petition under this Act.
(2) Other grants.--The grants made under this subsection
shall be in addition to any other grants the Secretary of
Health and Human Services is authorized to provide under any
other provision of law.
(b) Competitive Award.--Grants provided under subsection
(a) shall be awarded competitively based on objective
criteria prescribed in regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.

SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to
any petitioner is held invalid, the invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can
be given effect without regard to the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this Act shall
be severable.

SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Commission.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for the Commission for the purpose

[[Page H9459]]

of carrying out the provisions of this Act (other than
section 16), $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $1,500,000
for each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years.
(b) Secretary of HHS.--There are authorized to be
appropriated for the Administration for Native Americans of
the Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of section 16, $3,000,000 for
each fiscal year.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154, the proposed Indian Federal Recognition
Administrative Procedures Act of 1998, is a bill intended to speed up
the Federal recognition process and to update the existing procedures
for extending Federal recognition to Indian tribes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154 would revamp the Federal recognition process
for Indian groups by eliminating bias and conflict of interest and by
establishing an independent, 3-member commission to review tribal
recognition petitions.
Among other things, H.R. 1154 would require a petitioning tribe to
prove: 1, that it and its members have been identified as Indians since
1934; 2, that it has exercised political leadership over its members
since 1934; 3, that it has a membership roll; and 4, that it now exists
as a community.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill to the many Indian
bands around this Nation who have a legitimate right to Federal
recognition, but who have been denied that right because of a slow,
cumbersome, and enormously expensive process. If there ever was a
better example of justice being denied through justice delayed, I am
not aware of it.
Mr. Speaker, one tribe seeking recognition discovered recently, after
8 years of waiting, I say again, 8 years of waiting, that the
bureaucrats down at the Interior Department have done absolutely
nothing on the tribe's application for recognition because the
Department bureaucrats had ``misplaced'' the tribe's paperwork. It took
8 years to find that out. I do not know what else is not getting done
down at that Department, but I do know that the time has come to
straighten out this mess.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge the passage of the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young) for his eloquent statement pertaining to his support of this
bill. The gentleman suggested 8 years, but in fact, they have been
waiting for 100 years to seek recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thought this bill was coming up at a
different time, and we checked the cloakroom, and they said there were
other bills coming up before.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
asked me to speak on this bill and also to ask for a recorded vote. I
am concerned that it was taken out of order in a way that I think was
fundamentally unfair, because we checked with the House.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and I are concerned about this bill and the
implications that it may have allowing gambling, particularly Indian
gambling, to spread around the country. Gambling is spreading
throughout the United States at an unbelievable rate, and one way it is
spreading is through the speed at which Native American casinos are
opening up. These casinos just keep opening up, one after another.
Now, today, we are here talking about a bill that would make it
easier for tribal recognition. Once the tribes get recognized, we see
what happens. It does not take long for Indian gaming to be
established, and I think we need to give pause and give a lot more
attention to this issue.
H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures
Act, established a 3-member commission on Indian recognition, but those
3 commissioners were chosen by the Secretary of the Interior, and that
would be without the advice and the consent of the Senate. There would
be some real problems. For one, it could politicize the recognition
process. Native American groups and the gambling interests could put
the pressure on the administration, any administration to appoint the
commissioners they want.
As gambling is spreading and is bringing about the destruction upon
lives and communities, it is bringing with it increased crime,
destruction, the breakup of families, corruption and bankruptcies, so
much so that we had to appropriate money for more bankruptcy judges,
especially in areas with gambling, and increases in the breakdown of
the American family.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg)
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I will call for a
rollcall vote. But I think this is such an important issue, that I
would urge my colleagues not to rush through and allow a bill to pass
like this without full and adequate debate.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague Representative Christopher Shays asked me
to speak on this bill, and he also asked me to ask for a recorded vote,
so I want to alert my colleagues that I will be calling for a recorded
vote.
Mr. Shays and Representative John Shadegg and I are all concerned
about this bill and its implications. We believe that this is something
we ought to be debating fully, not rushing through.
I have a number of concerns with this bill. Gambling is spreading
throughout the United States at an unbelievable rate, and one of the
ways it is spreading is through the speed at which Native American
casinos are opening up. And these casinos just keep opening up, one
after another. And now we are here today talking about a bill that
could make it even easier for tribal recognition. Once the tribes get
recognized, we've seen what happens. It doesn't take long for Indian
gambling to be established. I think we need to pause and give a lot
more attention to this matter.
H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures
Act, establishes a three-member Commission on Indian Recognition. But
those three commissioners are chosen by the Secretary of the Interior,
and that would be without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
There could be some real problems with that. For one, it could
politicize the recognition process. Native American groups and the
gambling interests could put the pressure on the Administration to
appoint the commissioners they want.
As gambling is spreading, it is bringing destruction upon individual
lives and communities. It is bringing with it increases in crime and
the need for more law enforcement spending, increases in corruption,
increases in bankruptcies, so much so that we have had to appropriate
money for more bankruptcy judges--especially in areas with gambling,
increases in family breakdown and the need for more social services.
Gambling is bringing with it addiction, not only impacting adults, but
even young people, to the extent that the young people are becoming
addicted to gambling at more than twice the rate of that of adults.
Mr. Speaker, this issue has far-reaching consequences and there's
just too much at stake here for us to be considering this bill under
suspension. We need to thoroughly debate this issue and consider all
the critical implications, especially with regard to Indian gambling.
This issue needs thoughtful consideration, not 40 minutes of debate
with no amendments. I would urge defeat of this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With all due respect for my good friend from Virginia, this is about
recognition of American Indians who were here long before we were. We
have seen delays, and yes, there may have been some that maybe have
been misused, but that does not excuse the inactivity of an agency that
had the responsibility. All this bill does is try to expedite the
process so that delays do not occur.
Let us not kid ourselves. There are those in this body that do not
like American Indians. There are those in this body, in fact, that look
upon them

[[Page H9460]]

as the less of all minorities and have no recognition nor standing in
our society. Their lands were stolen, their lands were taken, their
lands were sold, and as long as they are down in the dumps, then that
is where a lot of people want them to be.
I think it is very unfortunate, very unfortunate that the gambling
issue has been brought into this arena at this time. That is another
act, an act that was passed by this Congress overwhelmingly. An act
that has been used, yes, adequately in many areas, and in fact,
honorably in a lot of areas. If there has been some wrong or injustice
that occurred, then that is the responsibility of law, the
responsibility of enforcement officers, the responsibility, yes, of
this Congress, if it is necessary. But to say that this is an attempt
to take and legalize and further spread gambling is incorrect.
I am proud of my relationship and my work with American Indians. I
think they should and have been recognized, but not nearly enough, for
it is time for this body to understand we owe them, and we shall pay
them, and we shall recognize them.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
important legislation.
Since 1992, the Indian Health Service has transferred more than $400
million to 211 tribes in Alaska and 38 tribes in the lower 48 States
under the self-governance demonstration project.
The transfer of programming and budgeting authority to tribal
governments has proven to be successful.
Tribes have made significant progress in meeting the needs of their
people and promoting the growth of their communities. It is our
responsibility to support the tribes' efforts improving their health
care systems.
The demonstration project has allowed tribes to expand the range of
health care services to their membership. I strongly urge each of my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1154,
a bill I introduced to provide improved administrative procedures for
the Federal recognition to certain Indian groups.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue now for over six
years. In 1994, the House passed similar legislation but that effort
died in the Senate. Today, we are taking a major step to help address
the historical wrongs that the two hundred unrecognized tribes in this
nation have faced. The bill streamlines the existing procedures for
extending federal recognition to Indian tribes, removes the tremendous
bureaucratic maze and subjective standards the Bureau of Indian Affairs
has placed against recognizing Indian tribes, but also will provide due
process, equity and fairness to the whole problem of Indian
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, a broad coalition of unrecognized Indian tribes has
advocated reform for years for several reasons. First, the BIA's budget
limitations over the years have, in fact, created a certain bias
against recognizing new Indian tribes. Second, the process has always
been too expensive, costing some tribes well over $500,000, and most of
these tribes just do not have this kind of money to spend. I need not
remind my colleagues of the fact that Native American Indians today
have the worst statistics in the nation when it comes to education,
economic activity and social development. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the
recognition process for the First Americans has been an embarrassment
to our government and certainly to the people of America. If only the
American people can ever feel and realize the pain and suffering that
the Native Americans have long endured, there would probably be another
American revolution.

Mr. Speaker, the process to provide federal recognition to Native
American tribes simply takes too long. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has
been completing an average of 1.3 petitions per year. At this rate, it
will take over 100 years to resolve questions on all tribes which have
expressed an intent to the recognized.
Mr. Speaker, the current process does not provide petitioners with
due process--for example, the opportunity to cross examine witnesses
and on-the-record hearings. The same experts who conduct research on a
petitioner's case are also the ``judge and jury'' in the process.
In 1996, in the case of Greene v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 1278 (W.Dist.
Wash), the federal court found that the current procedures for
recognition were ``marred by both lengthy delays and a pattern of
serious procedural due process violations. The decision to recognize
the Samish took over twenty-five years, and the Department has twice
disregarded the procedures mandated by the APA, the Constitution, and
this Court,'' (p. 1288). Among other statements contained in Judge
Thomas Zilly's opinion were: ``The Samish people's quest for federal
recognition as an Indian tribe has a protracted and tortuous history .
. . made more difficult by excessive delays and governmental
misconduct.'' (p. 1281) And again at pp. 1288-1289, ``Under these
limited circumstances, where the agency has repeatedly demonstrated a
complete lack of regard for the substantive and procedural rights of
the petitioning party, and the agency's decision maker has failed to
maintain her role as an impartial and disinterested adjudicator . . .''
Sadly, the Samish's administrative and legal conflict--much of which
was at public expense--could have been avoided were it not for a
clerical error of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which 28 years ago,
inadvertently left the Samish Tribes's name off the list of recognized
tribes in Washington.
With a record like this, it is little wonder that many tribes have
lost faith in the Government's recent recognition procedures. Even
President Clinton recognizes the problem. In a 1996 letter to the
Chinook Tribe of Washington, the President wrote, ``I agree that the
current federal acknowledgment process must be improved.'' He said that
some progress has been made, ``but much more must be done.''
To those who say we should retain the current criteria, and not
permit tribes which have been rejected under the current administrative
procedure to apply for reconsideration, I say read the Greene case. It
is rare that a court is so critical of an executive agency, but in this
case there clearly is a problem. H.R. 1154 addresses the problem
directly.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154 will eliminate the above concerns by
establishing an independent three member commission which will work
within the Department of the Interior to review petitions for
recognition. This legislation will provide tribes with the opportunity
for public, trial-type hearings and sets strict time limits for action
on pending petitions. In addition, the bill streamlines and makes more
objective the federal recognition criteria by aligning them with the
legal standards in place prior to 1978, as laid out by the father of
Indian Law, Felix S. Cohen in 1942.

Some have expressed concern that this bill will open the door for
more tribes to conduct gambling operations on new reservations. While I
cannot say that no new gambling operations will result from this bill,
I do believe that this bill will have only a minimal impact in this
area. I would like to remind my colleagues that: unlike state-sponsored
gaming operations, Indian gaming is highly regulated by the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act; before gaming can be conducted, the tribes must
reach an agreement with the state in which the gaming would be
conducted; under IGRA (the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act) gaming can
only be conducted on land held in trust by the federal government; and
any gaming profits can only be used for tribal development, such as
water and sewer systems, schools, and housing.
The point I want to make is even if an Indian group wanted to obtain
recognition to start a gambling operation, they couldn't do it just for
that purpose. Ninety percent of the substance of the current criteria
are unchanged in the bill before us today. For a group to obtain
federal recognition, it would still have to prove his origins, cultural
heritage, existence of governmental structure, and everything else
currently required.
Should that burden be overcome, a tribe would need a reservation or
land held in trust by the federal government. This bill makes no effort
to provide land to any group being recognized.
If the land issue is overcome, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act, a tribe cannot conduct gaming operations unless it has an
agreement to do so with the state government. A prior Congress put this
into the law in an effort to balance the rights of the states to
control gambling activity within its borders, and the rights of
sovereign tribal nations to conduct activities on their land. The
difficulty in obtaining gaming compacts with states has been making the
national news for months because of the almost absolute veto power the
states have under current law. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this
reading of the law in Seminole Tribe of Florida versus Florida, 517
U.S. 44 (1996).
I want to emphasize this point--this is not a gambling bill, this is
a bill to create a fair, objective process by which Indian groups can
be evaluated for possible federal recognition.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect in every form, but it is the
result of many hours of consultations with all parties concerned. I
have sought to work with the tribes and with the Administration to come
up with sound, careful changes that recognize the historical struggles
the unrecognized tribes have gone through, yet at the same time
recognizes the hard work the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done lately
in making positive changes through regulations to address these
problems. We have reached agreement on almost every major issue, and
these changes have been incorporated into the bill being considered
today. The bill has the support of the National Coalition of Indian
Sovereignty (263 member groups), and Mr.

[[Page H9461]]

Bud Shapard, a former BIA official who wrote the problematic
regulations.

I requested a hearing on this bill but this is not an issue that
generated enough Member interest to warrant a hearing. We have,
however, in the past held oversight hearings on this issue, and
legislative hearings on similar legislation in prior congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation
to Mr. Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs; Mr. Derril
Jordan, Associate Solicitor for the Division of Indian Affairs, and
members of their staffs for working closely with our committee staffs
on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don
Young, the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the Senior
Democratic Member of the full committee, the gentleman from California,
Mr. Miller, for their support of this bill. And I want to thank Mr.
Lloyd Jones, Chief of Staff of the Resources Committee; Mr. Tim
Glidden, the majority counsel; Mr. Chris Stearns, minority counsel; my
Legislative Director, Mr. Martin Yerick, and my good friend and
attorney for the Lumbee Nation, Ms. Arlinda Locklear for her
perseverance and tremendous patience in working with all the parties
involved in the development of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support and vote
for this bill now under consideration.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to strongly support
this major piece of legislation that has been nearly six years in the
making. I wish to compliment Congressman Faleomavaega for all of the
hard work and energy he has spent on this bill in the last four years.
I know that he has personally met with a number of Indian tribes
seeking recognition and was involved with the important White House
meeting with a broad coalition of non-recognized tribes in January of
1995. His staff, in particular, Marty Yerick, has worked countless
hours along with my committee staff to get this bill to a point where
it now enjoys tribal and Administration support. I would also like to
compliment the attorneys who have helped with this process, including
Arlinda Locklear, and many of the staff at the Native American Rights
Fund.
As you know, the past two Congresses have not been a hotbed of
legislative activity that could be said to actually benefit Native
Americans. Just about anyone can who has been watching Congress lately
can see that Indian tribes, the leadership of the Resources Committee,
and the Administration have been spending a lot of energy fighting
measures that would erode tribal sovereignty. Compared with the 103rd
Congress, and Congresses before that, there has been a dearth of pro-
Indian legislation. In fact, I am hard-pressed to name more than one
major piece of Indian legislation signed into law these last two
Congresses. But, fortunately, this is different. This is a major piece
of legislation that will have resounding impact across the country.
This is legislation that is historic and long overdue. We have a
chance, as a Congress to finally make some positive strides in terms of
our relationship with the Native American tribes of this country and I
hope that we take full advantage of the few chances that we get
whenever they come our way.
As previously described, this bill revamps the federal recognition
process for Indian tribes that is now handled by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in the Department of the Interior. We are making this change
for five significant reasons. First, the BIA is inherently biased
against adding new tribes to its existing budget. Second, the process
is too expensive--costs per tribe range from $300,000 to $500,000.
Third, the process is too lengthy--the BIA completes an average of 1.3
petitions a year, meaning it will take more than a century to finish
pending applications. Fourth, the process does not provide petitioners
with due process (i.e. cross examination, and an on-the-record hearing.
Fifth, the same experts who conduct research on a petitioner's case are
also the judge and jury in the process. In a recent case, a federal
court found that the BIA's procedures were ``marred by both lengthy
delays and a pattern of serious procedural due process violations.''
H.R. 1154 would eliminate bias and conflict of interest by
establishing an independent three member commission outside of the BIA
to review tribal recognition petitions. H.R. 1154 also provides tribes
with the opportunity for formal, on-the-record hearings. Records relied
upon by the Commission will be made available in a timely manner to
petitioners. In addition, H.R. 1154 affirms the precedential value of
prior BIA recognition decisions and makes the records of those
decisions readily available to petitioners. The bill also sets strict
timelines for action on pending petitions.
In addition, H.R. 1154 streamlines and objectifies the recognition
criteria by aligning them with the legal standards in place prior to
1978 laid out by Assistant Solicitor Felix S. Cohen in the 1942
Handbook of Federal Indian Law. H.R. 1154 would require a petitioning
tribe to prove: (1) that it and its members have been identified as
Indians since 1934; (2) that it has exercised political leadership over
its members since 1934; (3) that it has a membership roll; and (4) that
it exists as a community by showing at least one of the four following
requirements: (a) distinct social boundaries; (b) exercise of communal
rights with respect to resources or subsistence activities; (c)
retention of a native language or other customs; or (d) that it is
state-recognized tribe.
The Administration had informally indicated certain objections to the
criteria of H.R. 1154 as introduced. Principally, the Administration
viewed H.R. 1154 as a dramatic departure from the criteria in the
acknowledgment regulations which, if enacted, would disservice the goal
of consistency in policy in this area. Thus, Congressman Faleomavaega
invited representatives of the Department of the Interior to discuss
how the goal of reform could be accomplished without a complete break
from the regulations. As a result of this discussion, two sets of
changes were made to the H.R. 1154 criteria at mark up.
The first set of changes relate to the structure of the criteria. The
acknowledgment regulations contain seven mandatory criteria, while H.R.
1154 contained fewer mandatory criteria and allowed petitioners options
for proof as to some criteria. In the interest of maintaining
consistency, the substitute bill adopts the structure of the
regulations--it requires that tribes prove the same mandatory criteria
that the present acknowledgment regulations require. However, the
substitute bill uses 1934 as the starting point in time for the
mandatory criteria just as did the original bill.
The second set of changes relate to the terms of the mandatory
criteria. Since the goals of reform are to shorten the review process,
make the process more open, and make the outcome of the process more
predictable, it was necessary to tighten the criteria themselves and
eliminate the need for subjective determinations. To that end, the
criteria are redefined as follows in the substitute bill:
1. Indian identity--defined substantially the same as in the
acknowledgment regulations, with the exception that absence of evidence
of Indian identity resulting from official acts or policy of the
Federal or relevant state government shall not be the basis for
declining acknowledgment.
2. A distinct community--defined substantially the same as in the
acknowledgment regulations. This criterion did not appear in H.R. 1154
as introduced, but was added in the substitute so that the criteria
track those of the acknowledgment regulations. Experience with this
criterion under the regulations, though, shows that it requires
subjective determinations by staff, with results that appear
inconsistent from one petitioner to the next. The substitute bill deals
with this problem by adding quantifiable indicia that shall be deemed
conclusive proof of community, such as measurable geographic proximity
and in-marriage rates. In addition, community can be demonstrated in
the substitute bill by certain forms of proof of political influence,
just as under the acknowledgment regulations. As a result, in some
cases criteria 2 and 3 will merge into one.
3. Political influence--defined substantially the same as in the
acknowledgment regulations. As with community, though, this criterion
requires subjective determinations by staff. Again, the substitute bill
deals with this problem by adding objective indicia that shall be
deemed conclusive proof of community, such as a continuous line of
leaders recognized by a state government.
4. A copy of the group's governing document--defined substantially
the same as in the acknowledgement regulations.
5. Descent from historic tribe(s)--defined substantially the same as
in the acknowledgment regulations. This criterion has been troublesome
in application since it essentially requires a petitioner to
demonstrate tribal existence from the time of first sustained white
contact, even though the other criteria expressly require proof of each
since 1900 only. The substitute bill deals with this problem by
establishing a presumption of continuous existence that arises from
proof of descent from an Indian entity since 1934. In addition, the
substitute bill lists types of evidence that are acceptable for proof
of descent, evidence that includes first hand professional research or
reports about the group in addition to genealogical records.
6. Petitioner's members are not members of other tribes--defined
substantially the same as in the acknowledgment regulations.
7. Proof that the tribe has not been terminated by Congress--appears
as the seventh mandatory criterion in the acknowledgment regulations.
This requirement does not appear as a mandatory criterion in the
substitute bill. However, section 5(a)(3) of the substitute bill
expressly excludes terminated tribes from the act.
The net affect of changes made to the criteria in the substitute bill
are twofold. First, it

[[Page H9462]]

utilizes the basic framework of the acknowledgment regulations by
requiring that petitioners demonstrate the same mandatory criteria.
This provides for some consistency in policy with the last twenty
years' administration under the acknowledgment regulations. Second, it
limits the time period for which petitioners must demonstrate the
criteria and minimizes the need for subjective evaluation of data by
staff. This provides for a speedier process and one that produces
consistent results from one petitioner to the other. Finally, the
substitute includes new provisions that more accurately reflect the
historic experience of non-federally recognized tribes and insure that
tribes will not pay the cost for federal and state efforts to suppress
or outlaw tribalism at various times in history.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud and actually, somewhat relieved that we have
finally gotten back to the point we were two Congresses ago, passing
recognition legislation out of the House. I hope that the Senate will
take prompt action on this bill and send this to the President this
year. I believe that this is a historic opportunity to right some of
the wrongs visited upon the nearly two-hundred tribes that still seek
recognition. By making the process by which the Executive Branch
acknowledges their existence fairer and clearer, we will ensure that
this country resumes the government-to-government relationship and
trust responsibility owed many of these tribes.
Mr. McINTYRE. I rise today in strong support of HR 1154--the Indian
Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997. I would like
to thank Congressman Eni Faleomavaega for his hard work and support of
this measure, as well as the Chairman of the Resources Committee,
Congressman Don Young. Both of these men have been very helpful and
encouraging to me as I have sought in moving this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing in Congress
approximately 40,000 Native Americans known as the Lumbees--the largest
tribe east of the Mississippi River! The Lumbee people are important to
the success of everyday life in my home country of North Carolina--
Robeson County. Their contributions to our society are numerous and
endless--from medicine and law to business and banking, from the farms
and factories to the schools and the churches, from the government,
military, and community service to entertainment and athletic
accomplishments, the Lumbees have made tremendous contributions to our
county, state, and nation. For 100 years, these Native Americans have
sought recognition. However , the Lumbee Tribe is the largest non-
federally recognized tribe in the nation. Throughout the 20th Century,
the tribe has renewed its appeal for federal recognition. Twice, the
U.S. House of Representatives has passed a free standing bill for
Lumbee recognition only to have it die in the Senate. This is about
fundamental fairness; it is about stopping discrimination. It's time
for discrimination to end and recognition to begin!
Mr. Speaker, shortly after my taking office in January, 1997, I met
with local Native American leaders in my district, and we concluded
that the congressional and federal procedures currently in place have
not been working, and a new approach is needed to give the Lumbee
people their much deserved Federal recognition. And this would help not
only the Lumbee, but potentially other tribes as well. That approach is
HR 1154.
Mr. Speaker, HR 1154 streamlines and takes the politics out of the
federal recognition process. By establishing an independent commission
with strict time lines to evaluate and approve Native American
applications, all non-federally recognized tribes will have a fair shot
at receiving federal recognition.
Mr. Speaker, again let me thank Congressman Faleomavaega and Chairman
Young for their effort on this bill. I look forward to working with
them and our colleagues in the Senate to enact this important piece of
legislation without further delay.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1154, as amended.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________