[Senate Report 108-259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 500
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     108-259

======================================================================

 
  TO EXTEND FEDERAL RECOGNITION TO THE CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE, THE 
CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE--EASTERN DIVISION, THE UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE, 
   THE RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC., THE MONACAN INDIAN NATION, AND THE 
                         NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE

                                _______
                                

                  May 6, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1423]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1423) to extend Federal recognition to the 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--
Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock 
Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond 
Indian Tribe, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with amendment(s) and recommends that the bill (as 
amended) do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of 
Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2003 (S. 1423) is to extend 
Federal recognition and the rights and benefits associated with 
such recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division, the Upper 
Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan 
Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe--all Indian 
tribes recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

                               BACKGROUND

Brief history of the Virginia Indian tribes

    When English settlers established the Jamestown Colony in 
1607, there were approximately 40 Indian tribes extant in what 
is now the Commonwealth of Virginia (the ``Commonwealth'').
    Three groups--the Cherokees in the far southwest corner of 
the state and the Nottoways and Meherrins in south-central 
Virginia--spoke Iroquoian languages. Therewere two major 
alliances of Siouan-speakers, the Monacans and the Mannahoacs, in the 
Virginia Piedmont, and approximately 30 tribes in the Tidewater area 
which spoke Algonquian dialects.
    To sustain their communities the Virginia tribes relied on 
farming (corn, beans, and squash) and gathering wild plants, 
fishing, and hunting. All had fairly formalized political 
organizations, though they lacked writing skills. The Powhatans 
had a hereditary paramount chief, a position held by Powhatan 
himself. Given their distance from the record-making English of 
Jamestown, less is known about the Monacans in 1607. However, 
the Monacans or their not-so-distant ancestors were mound-
builders which may indicate they had chiefs as well.
    The Indian chiefs of Virginia led their people in 
alternately resisting and accommodating the flood of English 
settlers that poured into Virginia's Tidewater area in the 17th 
century. Thus in 1677, the Powhatans, Monacans and others 
signed a treaty with the English crown that guaranteed to the 
tribes land to live on and civil rights equal to those of 
English citizens.\1\ The 1677 treaty is still in force and two 
reservations continue to survive in Virginia. Unfortunately, 
most of the tribes were forced to move from their lands due to 
in-migration from English settlers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The last treaty that governed the relations of the Virginia 
tribes and the Colony of Virginia was the 1677 Middle Plantation 
Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Monacans lived far enough west that no reservation land 
was ever surveyed for them before the influx of English 
settlers in the 1720 to 1760 period. Instead of engaging the 
settlers the Monacans quietly withdrew westward to the foot of 
the Blue Ridge mountains. By this time the Powhatans' territory 
had been reduced to three small reservations, the smallest 
occupied by ancestors of the Chickahominies and Upper 
Mattaponis, among others.
    In 1705, the Rappahannocks were relocated a few miles away 
from their original reservation. The Nansemonds, assigned a 
poor, sandy tract in 1664 far from their Nansemond River home, 
declined to inhabit the land and by 1685 had sold their land. 
In the late 17th or early 18th century they migrated to the 
northern rim of the Great Dismal Swamp. Sometime in the late 
18th or early 19th century, the ancestors of the Chickahominies 
and Upper Mattaponis left the Mattaponi Reservation and 
established separate enclaves for reasons that remain unknown.
    The Virginia Indian populations were small enough that 
after 1722 their concerns were not addressed in peace 
negotiations between Virginia and the Iroquois.
    After the American Revolution, the Commonwealth of Virginia 
assumed the responsibility of the English Crown under the 1677 
\2\ treaty that guaranteed the rights of the ``reservation 
Indians''. Unfortunately, having been pushed off their lands 
prior to the American Revolution, the landless Indian 
communities generally did not show up in either the colonial or 
Commonwealth records in 18th and early 19th century Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Supra Note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Essentially, the Commonwealth government assumed that the 
1677 treaty no longer applied to the tribes that are the 
subject of S. 1423, and they were not accorded the rights 
specified in that treaty. No enabling legislation to that 
effect was passed, and the Commonwealth's position was not 
challenged--a fact that would have serious, negative 
repercussions for the Virginia tribes in the 20th century.
    It is probable that landless Indian communities, such as 
the tribes that are the subject of S. 1423 and the individual 
Indians within those communities, did have a presence in their 
local communities and would have shown up in the local records 
in Virginia. Unfortunately, most of those local records were 
destroyed during the Civil War period from 1861-1865.
    There are also other problems associated with finding 
references to Indian people in the records of local governments 
within the Commonwealth. In the 18th and early19th centuries, 
Indian people began adopting Anglo-American names, language, and 
customs in order to survive which made them less outwardly ``Indian'' 
to their neighbors. Indeed, by 1727 official interpreters to Indian 
communities were no longer necessary as most Indian people who 
interacted with the Commonwealth government spoke English.
    Another hindrance to appearing in local records was the 
socio-economic status of most Virginia Indians. Until late in 
the 19th century they lived in a social stratum of people who 
tended to rent land, contract common-law marriages, and die 
intestate, i.e. without a will.
    People in such circumstances got into the records mainly if 
they ran afoul of the law, something the Virginia Indians did 
not do; they were law-abiding citizens and thus were nearly, 
but not completely, ``invisible''.
    When more detailed records began to be compiled, especially 
beginning with the 1850 U.S. Census, geographical clusters of 
Indian families appear, living largely where the six tribes 
reside today. Local records show them choosing spouses from 
within their own communities to a very large degree.
    In 1833, the Nansemond Indian community became ``visible'' 
for another reason: a state law was passed--at the behest of 
their local member of the Virginia House of Delegates--creating 
a special racial category in which they could be certified by 
the local county court. See Acts of the Virginia Assembly 1832-
33, p. 51. The category was officially called ``Persons of 
Mixed Blood, Not Being Free Negroes or Mulattoes'' and the 
county clerk responsible for completing and filing the required 
certificates simply classified the Nansemonds as ``Indians''.
    Community institutions such as churches and schools changed 
after the Civil War. Whereas before the war, churches in 
Indian-inhabited areas had been tri-racial and included 
segregated seating, after the war they became segregated 
altogether, with non-white congregations separated entirely.
    Indians who attended African-American churches were labeled 
``colored'' (i.e. African-American) themselves. The 
Commonwealth's public schools were poorly funded before the war 
and admitted only whites. Indeed, between 1831 and 1865, it was 
illegal to teach non-whites to read.
    During Reconstruction, the administration of public schools 
became a serious matter for each county and segregated schools 
were established in many areas of Virginia. While ``white'' 
schools did not admit Indians, ``colored'' schools did, but any 
Indian children attending them, and their families, lost any 
credibility they had as ``Indians''. Counties were reluctant to 
fund Indian schools if the Indian population was small or if 
the local white population was skeptical about the Indians' 
lineage.
    After the Civil War, it became increasingly difficult for 
Virginia's Indians to live quietly among their own people and 
preserve their traditions and they were obliged to begin 
responding actively and publicly to new pressures from outside. 
For Virginia's Indians, therefore, the post-Civil War era was a 
time when they struggled against great obstacles to establish 
separate Indian churches and schools.
    The Chickahominy Tribe, being relatively large as well as 
closely clustered, founded a church, a county-funded school, 
and incorporated as a tribe in the early 20th century. For 
others of the six tribes, the church came first. For instance 
the Nansemond and Monacan churches were established in the mid-
19th and early 20th centuries, respectively, by sympathetic 
whites. The other groups formed their own Baptist congregations 
and joined the predominantly white Dover Baptist Association.
    For still other tribes, the creation of formal organization 
came first, as in the case of the Rappahannocks and Upper 
Mattaponis who were encouraged in the 1920s to formalize their 
tribal government by Dr. Frank Speck, an anthropologist from 
the University of Pennsylvania.
    The Rappahannocks were the last to achieve a county-funded 
school, because they were spread thinly over no fewer than 
three counties. Very few of the tribal schools offered high 
school-level courses and, as a result, many Indian students 
could not earn a high school diploma or had totravel to out-of-
state Indian high schools to earn a diploma.
    Passage of Virginia's ``Racial Integrity Law'' in 1924 
brought the most difficult challenges to Virginia Indian 
efforts to maintain their native cultures and preserve their 
tribal integrity. Enactment of the law, which forced all 
segments of Virginia's population to register as either white 
or colored at birth was the creation of Dr. Walter Plecker, at 
the time the head of the Commonwealth's Bureau of Vital 
Statistics. Through the Racial Integrity Law, Dr. Plecker made 
it illegal for individuals to classify themselves or their 
newborn children as ``Indian''.
    Dr. Plecker took further steps in his effort to implement 
his policies by changing the birth records of many Virginia 
Indians, altering the records so that the Indian individuals 
would be identified as colored. These policies and activities 
did irreparable harm to the historical documentation of 
Virginia's Indians and worse, left many individuals of Indian 
heritage unaware of their ancestors and culture. The Racial 
Integrity Law remained on the statute books for 46 years and 
resulted in the destruction of thousands of records that traced 
and recorded the ancestry of Virginia's tribes.
    In the years leading up to and including the years of World 
War II--when the racial classification of draftees into the 
segregated U.S. Armed Forces created an especially awkward 
situation--the Chickahominy chief and several friends of the 
Virginia tribes wrote to John Collier, Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs in Washington, seeking the intervention of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Virginia Indians.
    Collier replied that because the Federal government had no 
legal responsibility for the Virginia tribes due to the lack of 
a treaty or other legal instrument with the U.S. government, he 
had no power to intervene though he did write a series of 
strong letters to the Vital Statistics Registrar as a private 
citizen.
    Pressure on Virginia Indians to blend into the colored 
category continued well into the Civil Rights Era. It is proof 
of the genuineness of their feelings of being Indian that once 
``whiteness'' could be legally claimed by anyone, Virginia 
Indians persisted in claiming Indian lineage.
    One consequence of the Civil Rights Era was an end to all 
racially-segregated schools, and the Virginia tribes lost their 
Indian-only schools. Though they could now get high school 
diplomas from the integrated schools, they had lost a major 
symbol of their ethnic separateness and institution they could 
claim as their own.
    They compensated by securing Federal grants to improve 
homes and school programs, as well as becoming active in 
several pan-Indian organizations. However, the new major symbol 
of the Indian communities became buildings used as tribal 
centers, whether these were newly built or former Indian 
schoolhouses that were reclaimed and renovated. The centers 
have become not only places for tribal meetings and school 
activities, but also focal points for events that are open to 
the public, such as powwows, fish fries, and country music 
festivals.
    Thanks to the educational and job opportunities opened up 
in the Civil Rights Era, the six Virginia tribes seeking 
Federal acknowledgment in S. 1423 have nearly full employment 
today. The majority of them are working-class people, with an 
increasing number of white-collar employees. Like other 
Americans in similar economic circumstances, they often find 
themselves falling between two categories--not being poor 
enough for government assistance, nor prosperous enough to pay 
for privately-secured educational and medical expenses.
    The six Virginia Indian tribes seeking Federal 
acknowledgment through this legislation have encountered 
several periods of serious adversity since the Jamestown Colony 
was founded. The most striking thing about the history of the 
Virginia tribes is that their responses to adversity have been 
overwhelmingly constructive ones: they lost all but the 
smallest remnant of their aboriginal territory, and yet they 
have abided by treaties and in the 20th century they have shown 
themselves, by the number of their men in military service both 
in and out of war-time, to be very patriotic citizens indeed.
    The Virginia tribes were put under tremendous pressure to 
be something other than Indian in the last two centuries, yet 
rather than accommodating these pressures, their leaders became 
adept at networking and using the mass media to try to preserve 
their Indian status. The Indian communities lost the tribal 
schools they had struggled so long and hard to attain, so they 
replaced them with tribal centers where they could sponsor 
outreach events for the general public.
    The early Jamestown Colony wanted Virginia's native people 
to become good, functioning citizens of an English-speaking 
community. This is precisely what the Virginia tribes have 
done, while remaining Indian throughout history.

Federal acknowledgment process criteria

    On October 9, 2002, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a 
hearing on S. 2694, the predecessor bill to S. 1423. The 
testimony indicated that the tribes would likely meet all of 
the mandatory criteria set forth in the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP).\3\ See 25 C.F.R. 
Sec. 83.1 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Much of this evidence has been compiled by Helen C. Rountree, 
Ph.D. She first began researching the history of Virginia Indian tribes 
in the 1960s. She is considered one of the foremost modern scholars on 
the Virginia Indian Tribes, and began publishing her research in 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing also pointed out the severe difficulties 
encountered by tribes that have been in nearly continuous 
contact with non-Indians for almost 400 years. Many 
circumstances beyond the control of these tribes led to the 
destruction of much physical evidence important to their 
petitions for acknowledgment under the FAP.
    First, information presented at the hearing provided 
significant evidence of the historical and continuing existence 
of the Indian tribes in Virginia. Colonial documents provide a 
compelling story of the survival of these tribes as they were 
pushed off their reservations and had their treaty rights 
ignored.\4\ Many records, it was shown, were destroyed during 
the Civil War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See supra Note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the Civil War and into the early 20th Century, 
available records indicate continuing recognition of the tribal 
communities as Indian. Birth records and marriage registers 
note Indian identity and also indicate significant rates of 
marriage within the tribes. United States Census records from 
1850, 1910 and 1930 also report these communities as Indian.
    The sum of this evidence indicates strongly that the six 
tribes meet the criteria contained in 25 C.F.R. Sec. 83.7(a) 
and Sec. 83.7(b), which require proof of identity as Indian 
entities and as distinct communities.
    Second, at the hearing the tribes presented substantial 
evidence of their historical and current political influence. 
The retention of their close-knit communities is significant, 
especially in light of the increasing hostility toward non-
white communities in Virginia after the Civil War. After the 
Civil War, and culminating in the Racial Integrity Law, as 
described above, the Commonwealth passed a series of laws 
designed to restrict the civil rights of nonwhites. The 
consequence of these laws is that many vital records of the 
members of the tribes were destroyed or altered by state 
officials.
    The response of the tribes to these challenges was to 
reorganize their communities more formally. They adopted 
corporate charters, and began electing leaders by ballot. They 
also built and funded separate, Indian-only churches and 
schools. Significantly, while the tribal schools were not able 
to provide a high school degree, a number of the Indian 
students were accepted into Indian high schools in Cherokee, 
North Carolina, and Bacone College, in Muscogee, Oklahoma.
    Following desegregation, when the tribes could no longer 
operate separate schools, the tribes built community centers 
where they could once again celebrate their cultures and 
traditions. They began holding pow-wows and other traditional 
seasonal celebrations. They also became involved with other 
Indian tribes and organizations. Very importantly, they also 
began reviving their relationshipswith the Commonwealth. These 
efforts led to reacknowledgment of these relationships by Virginia in 
1983, and passage of a legislative resolution in 1999 by the Virginia 
Senate and House of Delegates in support of the tribes' Federal 
recognition efforts.
    These efforts provide powerful evidence of the tribes' 
political cohesion and organization, meeting the criteria in 25 
C.F.R. Sec. 83.7(c) and Sec. 83.7(d). This evidence also 
bolsters the evidence needed by the tribes to prove their 
identity as Indian entities and distinct communities.
    Finally, the Virginia tribes have to the greatest degree 
possible maintained accurate records of their membership. 
Fortunately, studies by James Mooney in the late 19th Century 
and James Coates in the early 20th provided bases for 
membership rolls. These rolls provide the tribes with an 
accurate base roll from which to maintain lists of members, and 
provide evidence that the tribes meet the criteria of 25 C.F.R 
Sec. 83.7(f). The efforts of the Virginia tribes to accurately 
document their personal records was greatly aided by then 
Virginia Governor George Allen, who obtained legislation in 
1997 that acknowledged the role of the Commonwealth in altering 
vital records and allowing individual Indians to correct their 
vital records where possible. Since the Virginia tribes have 
never sought to be identified as members of any other Indian 
tribes, nor has any Federal legislation expressly denied them 
Federal recognition, Sec. 83.7(8) and Sec. 83.7(h) are also 
satisfied.
    In light of this substantial evidence, and the unique 
history and circumstances they have borne over the past 400 
years, it is the considered view of the Committee that the six 
Virginia tribes affected by this legislation are, and have 
always been, Indian tribes warranting acknowledgment by the 
Federal government.

                      SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS

    The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 
Recognition Act of 2003 would extend Federal acknowledgment to 
the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe 
Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock 
Tribe, Inc., the Monocan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond 
Indian Tribe.
    The legislation contains a Findings section for each of the 
six tribes, outlining the unique history of each tribe and an 
account of the challenges they overcame to maintain their 
Indian heritage.
    The Definitions portion of the bill provides the meaning of 
three terms used throughout the bill to clarify the intent of 
the measure and to whom it pertains. These terms are (1) 
``Secretary''; (2) ``tribal member''; and (3) ``tribe''.
    For each tribe, the legislation includes a Federal 
Recognition section, extending Federal recognition to the 
respective tribes and making them eligible for all services and 
benefits provided by the Federal government to Federally 
recognized tribes. Additionally, the bill defines a service 
area for each of the six tribes.
    The bill provides that, upon enactment, each tribe must 
submit its most recent membership roll and governing documents 
to the Secretary of the Interior.
    The governing body of each tribe will be the governing body 
in place at the date of enactment of the bill and any 
subsequent governing body will be elected in accordance with 
the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
that tribe.
    For five of the six tribes, the legislation provides a 
twenty-five year period of time for land to be taken into trust 
by the Secretary of the Interior. A geographic description of 
the land is included for the five tribes based on existing 
parcels of land owned by the tribes. The bill directs the 
Secretary to take this land into trust.
    Because the Nansemond Indian tribe does not currently own 
any land, the legislation does not direct the Secretary to take 
any land into trust for the tribe, but authorizes the Secretary 
to consider future requests from the tribe.
    The legislation includes provisions which prohibitgaming by 
any of the six tribes under section 209(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, Pub. L. 100-497 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.). The 
intent and effect of these provisions are to prohibit gaming beyond 
those games already permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. It would 
also condition any such gaming on the satisfaction of a number of 
requirements including the consent of the Governor of Virginia.
    Last, the legislation includes a ``hold harmless'' clause 
providing that the bill does not expand, reduce or affect any 
hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering or water rights of the 
tribes or their members.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 
Recognition Act was introduced as S. 2694 on June 27, 2002, by 
Senator Allen for himself and Senator Warner. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
    On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, a hearing on S. 2694 was 
conducted by the Committee on Indian Affairs. Appearing before 
the Committee in support of the legislation were Congressman 
James Moran and Senator Warner of Virginia. Both voiced strong 
support for the measure and provided strong testimony endorsing 
passage of S. 2694.
    Also testifying was Michael Smith, Director of Tribal 
Services at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In voicing concerns 
with the legislation providing Federal recognition of the 
Virginia tribes and the application submitted by them, Mr. 
Smith acknowledged that the administrative process for Federal 
recognition is flawed and cannot meet the needs of petitioning 
tribes in a timely manner.
    Additionally, Director Smith conceded that there may be 
circumstances beyond the control of the Virginia tribes that 
would make the administrative process virtually impossible to 
complete.
    Finally, Reverend Jonathan Barton of the Virginia Council 
of Churches and Dr. Danielle Moretti-Langholtz of the 
Department of Anthropology at the College of William and Mary 
testified to the strong support of the local communities for 
extending Federal recognition and to the historical accuracy of 
both the legislation and the pending petition to the Bureau 
Acknowledgment and Research.
    On July 17, 2003 the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of 
Virginia Federal Recognition Act was introduced as S. 1423 by 
Senator Allen for himself and Senator Warner. On October 29, 
2003 the measure was ordered to be reported favorably out of 
the Indian Affairs Committee by a voice vote.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title

    This Act may be cited as the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 
Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2003.

                   TITLE I--CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE


Sec. 101. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe.

Sec. 102. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 103. Federal recognition

    This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe. This section also includes 
applicable laws, an explanation of services and benefits and 
the establishment of a service area.

Sec. 104. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the Tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 105. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any futuregoverning bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 106. Reservation of the tribe

    Within twenty-five years of enactment, this section directs 
the Secretary to take into trust any land within the counties 
of Charles City, James City, or Henrico that the tribe seeks to 
transfer to the Secretary.
    Section 106 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 107. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

          TITLE II--CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE EASTERN DIVISION


Sec. 201. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division.

Sec. 202. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 203. Federal recognition

    This section would extend Federal acknowledgment to the 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division. This section also 
includes applicable laws, an explanation of services and 
benefits and the establishment of a service area.

Sec. 204. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the Tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 205. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any future governing bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 206. Reservation of the tribe

    Within twenty-five years of enactment, this section directs 
the Secretary to take into trust any land within the counties 
of New Kent, James City, or Henrico that the tribe seeks to 
transfer to the Secretary.
    Section 206 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 207. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

                    TITLE III--UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE


Sec. 301. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe.

Sec. 302. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 303. Federal recognition

    This section would extend Federal acknowledgment to the 
Upper Mattaponi Tribe. This section also includes applicable 
laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the 
establishment of a service area.

Sec. 304. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 305. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any future governing bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 306. Reservation of the tribe

    Within twenty-five years of enactment, this section directs 
the Secretary to take into trust any land within King William 
County that the tribe seeks to transfer to the Secretary.
    Section 306 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 307. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

                   TITLE IV--RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC.


Sec. 401. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.

Sec. 402. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 403. Federal recognition

    This section would extend Federal acknowledgment to the 
Rappahannock Tribe, Inc. The section also includes applicable 
laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the 
establishment of a service area.

Sec. 404. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 405. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any future governing bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 406. Reservation of the tribe

    This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any 
land within King and Queen County, Essex County, and Caroline 
County, Virginia, that the tribe transfers to the Secretary.
    Section 406 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 407. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

                     TITLE V--MONACAN INDIAN NATION


Sec. 501. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Monacan Indian Nation.

Sec. 502. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 503. Federal recognition

    This section would extend Federal acknowledgment to the 
Monacan Indian Nation. The section also includes applicable 
laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the 
establishment of a service area.

Sec. 504. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 505. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any future governing bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 506. Reservation of the tribe

    Within twenty-five years of enactment, this section directs 
the Secretary to take into trust a parcel of land consisting of 
approximately ten acres located on Kenmore Road in Amherst 
County, Virginia and a parcel of land consisting of 
approximately one hundred sixty-five acres located at the foot 
of Bear Mountain, in Amherst County, Virginia that the tribe 
seeks to transfer to the Secretary.
    Section 506 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 507. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

                    TITLE VI--NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE


Sec. 601. Findings

    This section provides Congressional Findings on the history 
of the Nansemond Indian Tribe.

Sec. 602. Definitions

    This section provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section 
are: Secretary, Tribal Member, and Tribe.

Sec. 603. Federal recognition

    This section would extend Federal acknowledgment to the 
Nansemond Indian Tribe. This section also includes applicable 
laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the 
establishment of a service area.

Sec. 604. Membership; governing documents

    This section provides that the tribe must provide the most 
recent membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary 
before the date of enactment of the legislation.

Sec. 605. Governing body

    This section establishes requirements for the tribe's 
governing body and any future governing bodies of the tribe.

Sec. 606. Reservation of the tribe

    Authorizes the Secretary to take into trust for the benefit 
of the tribe any land the tribe may acquire and transfers to 
the Secretary.
    Section 606 also establishes limitations on gaming by the 
tribe, by providing that no reservation of tribal land shall be 
deemed eligible to satisfy terms for an exception under section 
20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Sec. 607. Hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water rights

    This section states that nothing in the bill expands, 
reduces or affects existing hunting, fishing, trapping, 
gathering, or water rights of the tribe and its members.

            COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

    On October 29, 2003, the Committee on Indian Affairs, in an 
open business session, considered an amendment to S. 1423 to 
make a technical correction and the Committee, by a voice vote, 
favorably reported the bill as amended and recommended that the 
Senate pass the bill. Senator Craig Thomas requested that he be 
recorded as opposing the legislation.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The cost estimate for S. 1423 as calculated by the 
Congressional Budget office is set forth below:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 22, 2004.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1423, the Thomasina 
E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 
2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Walker.
            Sincerely,
                                      Elizabeth M. Robinson
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 1423--Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 
        Recognition Act of 2003

    Summary: S. 1423 would provide Federal recognition to six 
Indian tribes in the State of Virginia--the Chickahominy Indian 
Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Tribe, the 
Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahonnock Tribe, the Monacan 
Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. CBO estimates 
that implementing S. 1423 would cost the Federal Government 
about $100 million over the 2004-2009 period, assuming that the 
tribes receive services and benefits at a level similar to 
other currently recognized tribes and that the necessary funds 
are appropriated. Enacting S. 1423 would have no effect on 
direct spending or revenues.
    S. 1423 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no significant direct costs on State, local, 
or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1423 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within several budget 
functions including 450 (community and regional development) 
and 550 (health).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
    Estimated authorization level...............................       0       4       4       4       4       4
    Estimated outlays...........................................       0       3       4       4       4       4
Indian Health Service:
    Estimated authorization level...............................       0       5       5       5       6       6
    Estimated outlays...........................................       0       5       5       5       6       6
Other Federal Agencies:
    Estimated authorization level...............................       0      11      11      11      12      12
    Estimated outlays...........................................       0       8      11      11      12      12
Total:
    Estimated authorization level...............................       0      20      20      21      22      22
    Estimated outlays...........................................       0      14      19      21      21      22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: S. 1423 would provide Federal 
recognition to six Indian tribes in the State of Virginia. 
Although the bill does not specifically authorize the 
appropriation of funds, it would make members of such tribes 
eligible to receive services through the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), and other 
agencies that offer services to tribes. Thus, those Federal 
agencies would be required to include members of the tribes 
among those eligible for benefits and would need additional 
appropriated funds to provide such benefits. For this estimate, 
CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in 2004 and that the 
necessary amounts will be provided each year, beginning in 
2005.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

    As Federally recognized tribes, the Virginia tribes would 
be eligible for various programs administered by BIA, including 
child welfare services, adult care, child and family services, 
and general assistance. Based on information from the State of 
Virginia, CBO estimates that there are about 2,800 members of 
the affected tribes. Based on current per capita expenditures 
of about $1,500 for tribal members eligible to receive BIA 
services, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1423 would cost 
about $4 million each year over the next 5 years, subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.

Indian Health Service

    S. 1423 also would make members of the tribes affected by 
the bill eligible to receive health benefits from the IHS. 
Based on information from the IHS, CBO estimates that average 
spending per eligible individual would be about $1,850 in 2005. 
As noted above, the bill would make about 2,800 individuals 
eligible for benefits. Thus, CBO estimates that S. 1423 would 
cost about $5 million in 2005 and about $27 million over the 
2004-2009 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
funds.

Other agencies

    Several other agencies, including those of the Departments 
of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, 
provide services to federally recognized tribes. Based on 
information from the Office of Management and Budget, CBO 
estimates that the current per capita cost for other agencies 
that provide services to federally recognized tribes is about 
$3,800 per member. Therefore, CBO estimates that implementing 
S. 1423 would cost about $8 million in 2005 and $53 million 
over the 2004-2009 period for other agencies to provide 
services to the Virginia tribes, assuming the appropriation of 
the necessary amounts.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1423 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no significant direct costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Lanette J. Walker--
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Other Agencies; Eric Rollins--
Indian Health Service. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: 
Cecil McPherson.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

               REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1423, as 
amended, will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork 
requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    There have been no executive communications received on 
this legislation.

                        CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is show in roman). There are no changes to existing 
law made by the bill.

                                
