[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.

                          ____________________