Senate Report 111-113 - EXTENDING 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

[Senate Report 111-113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 251
111th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 111-113

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

EXTENDING 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

_______

December 23, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 1178]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1178) 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 amendments and recommends that the bill, as
amended, do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1178 is to provide federal recognition to
six tribes in the State of Virginia--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, and make
applicable to the tribal groups and their members all laws that
are generally applicable to American Indians and federally-
recognized Indian tribes.
There are currently no federally recognized Indian tribes
in Virginia.

Need for legislation

Although there is a federal regulatory process by which an
Indian group may obtain federal recognition (described below),
the ability of a tribal group to meet the regulatory
requirements is highly dependent upon the availability of
documentary evidence and records. The six Virginia tribal
groups proposed for recognition in S. 1178 have suggested that
the unique history of the State of Virginia and its relations
with these groups prevents them from being able to meet the
level of documentary evidence required by the Department of the
Interior.
The Department of the Interior's recent decision against
the federal acknowledgment of the Little Shell Tribe of
Chippewa Indians of Montana suggests that the Department may
view a gap in evidentiary documentation of more than ten years
for a group's continuous existence since 1900 as being
insufficient to meet the mandatory criteria set forth in the
regulations. This interpretation by the Department makes it
difficult, perhaps impossible, for the six Virginia tribal
groups to obtain documentary evidence sufficient to meet the
Department's requirements.
Many of the courthouses that housed records and documents
related to these tribal groups burned during the Civil War.\1\
Thus, records up to the late 1800's are difficult to find for
these groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., A Brief History of the Six Indian
Tribes Requesting Federal Acknowledgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in 1924, the State of Virginia passed the
Racial Integrity Law, thereby requiring all segments of the
population to be registered at birth in one of two categories:
``white'' or ``colored.'' The ``colored'' category was mandated
for all non-white persons regardless of race or ethnicity.
Officials from the State's Bureau of Vital Statistics
interpreted the law as allowing them to go back and change a
person's birth certificate if they believed that there was
evidence that the person was not fully white.
The primary target of the Racial Integrity Law was the
African American community.\2\ However, proponents of the
agenda heralded by the Eugenics Movement saw the Virginia
Indian community as a threat. This was because the Racial
Integrity Law allowed persons of white and Virginia Indian
ancestry, as long as it was not more than \1/16\ of Indian
blood quantum, to be classified as ``white.''\3\ Supporters of
the law (including Dr. Walter Plecker, the Registrar for
Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics), saw the exception in
the law for Indians as an opportunity for persons of mixed
heritage of African American and Native American ancestry to
move eventually out of the category of ``colored'' and into the
category of ``white.'' Thus, officials from the State's Bureau
of Vital Statistics actively sought to denigrate and deny
persons of Virginia Indian descent the right to identify
themselves as ``Indians'' or ``white'' and forced them to be
declared ``colored.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Testimony of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., American Indian
Resource Center, Coordinator, before the United States Committee on
Indian Affairs, October 9, 2002.
\3\Section 5 of 1924 Racial Integrity Act.
\4\Testimony of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., American Indian
Resource Center, Coordinator, before the United States Committee on
Indian Affairs, October 9, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Racial Integrity Law remained in effect until it was
declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in
1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case (388 U.S. 1). In 1997,
Virginia Governor George Allen signed into law a bill allowing
Virginia Indians to correct their birth records. However, the
six tribes contend that the existence of the law for several
decades makes it unlikely that adequate documentation exists to
meet the Department's current interpretation of the federal
regulations governing acknowledgment of Indian groups.
Granting Federal recognition to the six Virginia groups has
strong support from the State of Virginia. On August 4, 2009,
the Committee received a letter in support of S. 1178 signed by
the current Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, and six of the previous
State Governors.\5\ In 1999, both chambers of Virginia's
General Assembly agreed to H.J. 754 urging Congress to grant
Federal recognition to the Virginia tribes. In February 2007,
both chambers of Virginia's General Assembly agreed to S.J.
332, a resolution acknowledging the involuntary servitude of
Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans and calling
for reconciliation among all Virginians. During the 109th
Congress, former Governor George Allen, who was a Senator,
introduced S. 480, which would have granted federal recognition
to the six groups in S. 1178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Governor Timothy M. Kaine also sent the Committee a letter on
August 4, 2009 indicating that the State tax policy experts concluded
that passage of S. 1178 would have a negligible, if any, impact on the
Commonwealth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

History of recognizing Indian tribes

The recognition of an Indian group as a federally
recognized Indian tribe is an important action. It is an
affirmation by the United States of a tribe's right to self-
government and the existence of a formal government-to-
government relationship between the United States and the
tribe. Once a tribe is federally recognized, it and its members
have access to federal benefits and programs, and the tribal
government incurs a responsibility to its members as the
primary governing body of the community.
Before Congress ended the practice of treaty-making with
Indian tribes in 1871, treaties were the usual manner of
establishing a government-to-government relationship between
the United States and an Indian tribe. Since the abolishment of
treaty-making, the United States has recognized Indian tribes
by executive order, legislation, and administrative decisions
by the Executive Branch.
Additionally, federal courts may clarify the status of an
Indian group, though in many cases the courts defer to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
In order to provide a uniform and consistent process in
which to recognize an Indian group, the Department of the
Interior developed an administrative process in 1978 through
which Indian groups could petition for acknowledgment of a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
The standards for this process are set forth in Title 25 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 83, ``Procedures for
Establishing That An American Indian Group Exists As An Indian
Tribe.''
The regulations establish seven mandatory criteria; each of
which must be met before a group can achieve status as a
federally recognized Indian tribe. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900;
(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group
comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community
from historical times until the present;
(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from
historical times until the present;
(4) The group must provide a copy of its present governing
documents and 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;
(6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed
principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged
North American Indian tribe; and
(7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject
of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or
forbidden the federal relationship.
The regulations have remained essentially unchanged since
1978, with the exception of revisions clarifying the evidence
needed to support a recognition petition (1994), updated
guidelines on the process (1997), and a notice regarding BIA's
internal processing of federal acknowledgment petitions (2000
and 2008).
There have been numerous complaints about the process since
1978, but the primary complaints have been about the high cost
of gathering documentary evidence to meet the seven criteria
and the length of time it takes the Department to review a
petition. Out of hundreds of petitioners that have filed
petitions under the process, as of November 4, 2009, the
Department has 45 petitions. Of that number, 16 petitioners
were acknowledged as Indian tribes, and 29 petitioners were
denied acknowledgment.
Due to the problems associated with the Federal
acknowledgment process, an increasing number of tribal groups
have asked Congress to recognize or restore their status as
federally-recognized Indian tribes. Congress retains the
authority to recognize tribal groups, as Congress did with the
Loyal Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Graton Rancheria of
California in 2000 as a part of the Omnibus Indian Advancement
Act.\6\ According to a report issued by the Congressional
Research Service in September 2003, Congress has recognized,
restored or otherwise changed the status of 28 tribal groups
since the Federal Acknowledgment Process was created in 1978.
Extending back to 1960, a total of 47 groups have had their
tribal status clarified by congressional action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Pub. L. 106-568 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of Virginia Indian groups

When English settlers established the Jamestown Colony in
1607, there were approximately 40 Indian tribes existing in
what is now the Commonwealth of Virginia. The last treaty that
governed the relations between the tribes in Virginia and the
State (then the Colony of Virginia) was the 1677 Middle
Plantation Treaty. S. 1178 will recognize six tribal groups. A
brief history of each tribal group is described below.

The Monacan Indian Nation

The Monacan Indians are a part of forty Siouan groups in
the Virginia piedmont region extending into the Carolinas.\7\
Recent ethnohistorical work has shown that the Monacan Indians
reached from the James and Rappahannock River fall lines in the
east to the Shenandoah Valley in the west, and as far south as
the Roanoke River.\8\ The Monacans moved westward from 1607-
1720s in two groups, with one staying in Ft. Christanna before
moving on to Pennsylvania and later Canada, while the other
group stayed in Amherst County, Virginia.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\L. Daniel Mouer, ``Powhatan and Monacan Regional Settlement
Hierarchies: A Model of Relationship between Social and Environmental
Structures,'' Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia 36, no. 1 (1981): 1-21.
\8\Jeffrey Hantman, ``Between Powhatan and Quirank''; Jeffrey
Hantman, ```Ancestral Monacan Society': Cultural and Temporal
Boundaries in Indian History in Virginia,'' paper presented at the
Society for American Archeology, 63rd annual meeting, March 1998; L.
Daniel Mouer, ``A Review of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the
Monacans,'' in Piedmont Archeology, Publication no. 10, ed. J. Mark
Witkofski and Lyle E. Browning (Richmond: Archaeological Society of
Virginia, 1983), 21-39.
\9\``Monacan Indian Nation,'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov. 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up until the mid-1700s the Monacans had fairly sparse
contact with English settlers. That changed as traders traveled
further along the James River in the 1750s. The Monacan Indians
had purposely lived in the Tobacco Row Mountains in order to
avoid contact with Europeans.\10\ However, encroaching
agriculture made this nearly impossible. By the end of the
Civil War, local farmers had begun to plant orchards in the
Tobacco Row Mountains, taking away the Monacans' home area.
Without land and without jobs, many Monacans worked the
orchards and tobacco fields as tenant farmers in a ``rigid,
semi-feudal system [that] exploited Indian labor
disproportionately'' due to their lack of status.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Samuel R. Cook, Monacans and Miners: Native American and Coal
Mining Communities in Appalachia (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 2000), 49-56.
\11\Samuel R. Cook, ``The Monacan Indian Nation: Asserting Tribal
Sovereignty in the Absence of Federal Recognition.'' Wicazo SA Review.
Fall, 2002. P 91-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Monacans escaped this fate by ``passing'' as white in
order to obtain land deeds, such as the case of the Johns
Settlement at Bear Mountain. Under the Virginia Race Law of
1823, any child of an Indian, and any descendants of a Negro,
up to the great-grandchild would be counted as mulatto.\12\
Since free people of color (which is how Virginia labeled its
Natives until the Racial Integrity Act of 1924) could not own
land or vote, they had to legally renounce their ethnicity and
register as ``white'' to participate in Virginian society.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov. 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. This is
apparent in the 1790 national census in which Benjamin Evans and Robert
Johns (both Monacans) were recorded as ``white'' with mulatto children
instead of ``Indian.'' The families had been previously recorded
through tax records beginning in 1782.
\13\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov. 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1831, William Johns purchased 52 acres on Bear Mountain,
and another 400 acres in 1833. By 1850, 29 families related to
this Monacan community\14\ according to census records. When
the land was divided in 1856, the Amherst County clerk's office
recorded Monacan surnames of Beverly, Branham, Johns, Pinn and
Terry as receiving parcels of the Johns Settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov. 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1868, one of the Settlement parcels was donated to the
community to be used for a meeting place. Two years later in
1870 a wooden structure was built which the community used for
its church services with itinerant ministers, serving about 350
Indians. In 1896 a local newspaper article featured the Monacan
community, describing ``the older [members of the tribe] as
typical Indians, of a rich copper color, high cheek-bones,
long, straight black hair, tall and erect in form.'' Locals
commented that it had been called `the Indian community' as
long as anyone could remember.
The Episcopal Church established St. Paul's Mission at the
base of Bear Mountain in 1908. The mission became a unifying
factor of the Monacan community, providing a place of worship,
social gathering place and the only source of education for
many Monacan Indians from 1908 until its close in 1963 due to
integration.
In 1920, the United States Census listed 304 Indians in
Amherst County.
Throughout the 20th century, the Monacans became more
active as a tribe politically and culturally. Some of these
actions are exemplified by the Monacans' application for and
receipt of job training assistance in the 1970s under the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA),\15\ giving
their tribal members a better chance at obtaining jobs. In
1979, the Monacan Co-operative Pottery was established at the
Amherst Mission, eventually producing pieces sold to the
Smithsonian Institution. The tribe helped found the Mattaponi-
Pamunkey-Monacan Consortium in 1981 in order to obtain funds
from Department of Labor programs for Native Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Cook, Monacans and Miners, 116-118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Monacan Indian Nation obtained State recognition in
1989. They established a non-profit corporation in 1993 to
formalize their community and create rules for its governance
in lieu of federal recognition as a sovereign nation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov. 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nansemond Indian Tribe

When the English first arrived in Virginia in 1607, the
Nansemond people numbered around 1,200 people\17\ and made up
part of the Powhatan Confederacy. Their original land was
located 30 miles from Jamestown, making a large amount of
interaction with English settlers inevitable. In 1608, a group
of Englishmen led by John Smith raided a Nansemond town, and
threatened more destruction unless the Nansemond paid 400
bushels of corn to his men.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\``The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.''
Nansemond and Powhatan History. 2009. Nansemond Tribal Association. Nov
13, 2009. http://www.nansemond.org/joomla/
index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=30.
\18\Waugaman, Sandra F. and Danielle-Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D. We're
Still Here: Contemporary Virginia Indians Tell Their Stories, Richmond,
VA: Palari Publishing, 2006 (revised edition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tribe split into two groups by 1646, with one group
remaining on their homeland and adopting the English farming
lifestyle. These became the Christianized Nansemonds. In 1669,
the Virginia census records show two distinct Nansemond groups
of Indians.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 601(2) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-Christianized, ``traditionalist'' group attacked
the English in 1644 and then fled westward to the Nottaway
River where Virginia had assigned the Nottaway Indians a
reservation. By 1664, the Nansemond Indians were given a poor
tract of land as their reservation, which they later sold
off.\20\ The reservation was sold in 1792 since this group of
Nansemond had abandoned it in 1744 to live with the Nottaway
tribe on their reservation. Unfortunately this group eventually
dispersed or died out, with the last Nansemond living on the
Nottoway reservation dying in 1806.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\S. Report No. 108-259 (2004).
\21\``The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the Christianized Nansemonds had moved near
Dismal Swamp to avoid contact with the English and to find more
productive lands. During the 1830s when Virginia passed more
rigid racial laws, the Nansemond lobbied their delegate to pass
a law exempting them, which they achieved in 1833. They were
able to register as ``of mixed blood, not being negro or
mulatto.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Methodist Church established a mission for the
Nansemond in 1850, eventually adding a schoolhouse in the 1890s
to better educate their children.\23\ The Nansemond had
historically promoted education within their ranks, even
sending one of their boys to Bafferton Indian School at the
College of William and Mary in 1711. In 1922 the Nansemond
received funding for an Indian school from the County, which
served their community for a few years. Although short-lived,
the school was a great victory in a time when only two races
were recognized in the State of Virginia and few supported
funding a third segregated school system.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 601(17).
\24\Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to James Mooney's 1901 census, the Nansemond
tribe had 180 members. The Nansemond first attempted to obtain
recognition in the 1920s with the encouragement of
anthropologist Frank Speck. The tribe obtained State
recognition in 1985.

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe

When Jamestown was established, the Chickahominy lived
nearby in present-day New Kent County. This proximity allowed
for much interaction between the two groups. The Chickahominy
were an Algonquian speaking people numbering between 600-900
people.\25\ Although allies with the Powhatan Confederacy, the
Chickahominy were fairly independent and had their own form of
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov. 13, 2009. http://
virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving members of the Paspaheg tribe found refuge with
the Chickahominy during August 1610 after the family of Chief
Wowinchopunk was murdered by settlers.\26\ In the Treaty of
1614 with Jamestown's governor Sir Thomas Dale, the tribe
promised 300 warriors to fight against the Spanish.\27\ The
Chickahominy received the right to self-governance in return.
In 1623, and again in 1627, the Chickahominy were victims of
raids.\28\ In 1646 the Chickahominy signed a treaty granting
them a reservation in Pamunkey Neck near the present-day
Mattaponi Reservation and in present-day King William County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal
Recognition Act and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan
Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006).
\27\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(2) (2009).
\28\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov. 13, 2009. http://
virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1677, representatives of the Tribe signed the Treaty of
Middle Plantation between several tribes and the King of
England.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1702, the tribe was forced from its reservation and lost
the lands in 1718.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov. 13, 2009. http://
virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around 1750 the Chickahominy began moving back to their
land in New Kent and Charles City Counties.\31\ Charles City
County census records show modern-day Chickahominy surnames in
the area beginning in 1831.\32\ New Kent County records began
documenting Chickahominy people in an 1840 Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(8) (2009).
\32\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(10) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1901, the tribe established the Samaria Baptist Church
and bought nearby land for tribal use.\33\ In the early 1900s
they also established the Samaria School for their children's
education up until 8th grade, paying teacher salaries out of
donated funds.\34\ The tribe also created a tax on Chickahominy
men from 1901 until 1935 to fund the building of the school,
buy supplies and pay the teacher's salary. The tribe's school
was integrated in 1968 as a primary school for the county.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(11) (2009).
\34\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians:
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009.
http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php.
\35\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(12) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to be married as Chickahominy Indians instead of
as ``colored'' under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924,
some tribal members were able to travel out of State. The
parents of tribal member Stephen Adkins, for example, were
fortunate in being able to do this, and were married on
February 20, 1935 in Washington, D.C., thereby avoiding the
loss of their Native identity.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal
Recognition Act and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan
Referral Act, 109 Cong. Sec. 576 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1920s, the governors of Virginia wrote letters of
introduction for the Chickahominy chiefs, who had official
business in Washington, D.C. In 1934, Chickahominy Chief O.O.
Adkins wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier,
requesting funding for construction of a school, medical
facilities, a library and agricultural tools. Collier responded
that Congress had passed the Indian Reorganization Act on June
18th of that year, but hadn't appropriated the funding. Chief
O.O. Adkins again sought Collier's help in 1942 when
Chickahominy men demanded proper racial designations before
entering the Selective Service. Although Collier's office could
not officially intervene ``as a matter largely of historical
accident,'' Collier did ask Richmond News-Leader editor Douglas
S. Freeman to help the Virginia Indians obtain proper racial
designations on their birth records.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 101(15)-(20) (2009) and
Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interactions between the Chickahominy Indians and the
Federal government continued through later years. In 1961,
Senator Sam Ervin, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate,
requested information from Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins about
Indians' constitutional rights ``in [his] area'' in
Virginia.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(25) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chickahominy Indians built a tribal center in 1974
funded by tribal members through monthly pledges.\39\ Their
assertion of tribal government came to a head in 1983 when they
received State recognition by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(28) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently there are about 750 Chickahominy living within 5
miles of the tribal center and hundreds more in other parts of
the country.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians:
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009.
http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division

The early history of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern
Division is the same as that of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe,
as the two tribes acted as one until the early 1900s.
Two fires consumed all New Kent County records prior to
1870, but an enclave of Indians in New Kent County are shown in
the Virginia Census of 1870. These are the ancestors of the
Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 201(11) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe established the
Samaria Indian Baptist Church. However, two factions formed
within the tribe soon, splitting over whether to press the
state for a reservation and whether to establish a new church.
The Tsena Comocko Indian Baptist Church in 1922 was built in
1922 in spite of the dissenting members.\42\ Unable to resolve
their differences, the group forming the new church organized
themselves as the Chickahominy Eastern Division Indians. The
Eastern Division began forming its government in 1920,
eventually incorporating under State law in 1925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990. p. 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the tribe was split, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--
Eastern Division started a one-room schoolhouse in New Kent
County called the Boulevard Indian School. In 1950, the tribal
school was closed and the children started attending the
Samaria Indian School again, but that school was closed in 1967
when Virginia integrated its public school system.
Although they had split from the Chickahominy tribe, the
Chickahominy Eastern Division stayed linked to the
Chickahominy. Both groups used the same school facilities, with
Eastern Division children attending Samaria Indian School after
the 1-room Indian school in New Kent County closed in 1950.
They also had to find new schools when the Samaria Indian
School was desegregated in 1967.
In the late 1970's, the tribe was awarded a grant from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to buy 2
mobile homes to be used as office and classroom space. Another
grant from the Administration of Native Americans was used for
the purchase and improvement of office equipment and supplies.
The tribe received State recognition in 1983.
Today the tribe numbers 130 people in New Kent County.

The Upper Mattaponi Tribe

Captain John Smith first visited the Passaunkack village in
1608, which is in the location of the modern-day Upper
Mattaponi. On one of John Smith's maps from 1612, he locates
the village in the tribe's present-day location.\43\ August
Hermann mapped the area in 1676, labeling several ``Indian
houses'' in the same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov. 13, 2009. (http://
virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi Tribe shares its earlier history with
the Chickahominy Indian Tribe as they were forced together
through treaties with the English. The Upper Mattaponi sought
refuge with the Chickahominy after being attacked by Seneca
Indians in 1683, beginning many years of shared history. The
Virginia Colony assigned both tribes to a reservation in 1695,
which they later traded for ``the cliffs'' (an area currently
encompassed by the Mattaponi Indian Reservation).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\H.R. Rep. No. 110-124, at 6 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1726 the Virginia Colony stopped funding interpreters in
their dealings with the Upper Mattaponi--apparently enough
Indians knew English so the interpreters were no longer
necessary. However, not all the interpreters left. James Adams
stayed with the Upper Mattaponi, giving his surname to many of
today's tribal members.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(10)-(12) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson mentioned the Upper Mattaponi on their
King William County reservation in 1787, and referred to the
Chickahominy as ``blended'' with the Upper Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Indians.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 301(13) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal census in 1850 showed 10 Upper Mattaponi families
living in King William County, Virginia. King William County
records also indicate Upper Mattaponis residing in the county.
An 1863 Civil War map designated the area ``Indian land.'' King
William County court records list ``Indians'' marrying and
residing on the King William County reservation, undoubtedly
referring to the Upper Mattaponi.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(14)-(16) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refusing to enlist in the Confederate Army during the Civil
War, the Upper Mattaponis stayed neutral. Although not directly
involved in the war, gunboats typically sailed past the
reservation, and a slave ship was sunk nearby as well according
to Mattaponi oral tradition.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990, p. 198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropologist James Mooney mentions the Upper Mattaponi in
1901 after hearing about them during a visit to the Pamunkey
Tribe but didn't visit them himself. In 1928, University of
Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank Speck published a book on
modern Virginia Indians with a section on the Upper
Mattaponis.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(17)-(18) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi fought alongside other Virginia tribes
for an Indian designation instead of a ``colored'' designation
in the 1930 United States Census. The Upper Mattaponis achieved
a compromise in which their ancestry was recorded. However, the
census also contained an asterisk indicating that Indians did
not exist in Virginia. These arguments over race continued into
the 1940s, when the Armed Forces attempted to induct Upper
Mattaponis into the services as ``colored.'' In 1945, the tribe
also fought for its youth to be allowed to study at Federally-
funded Indian schools since the tribe could not provide for
their high school education.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(19)-(21) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi won state recognition in 1983,
confirming their Indian ancestry and identity in the eyes of
Virginian government.

The Rappahannock Tribe

The Rappahannock people were probably the unfortunate tribe
that met the Englishman Captain Samuel Mace as he sailed up
what is now the Rappahannock River in 1603. The captain killed
a Rappahannock chief and brought a group of men back to
England. These men gave demonstrations of dugout canoes on the
Thames River back in England in December of 1603.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\``Virginia Indian Council: Virginia Indian Tribes.''
Rappahannock Tribe. 12/10/2007. VCI. Nov. 5, 2009. http://
indians.vipnet.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rappahannocks were a late acquisition into Powhatan's
Confederacy, differing culturally from the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey mainstay of the confederacy. They were first recorded
in Western society in 1605.\52\ Captain John Smith encountered
several Rappahanncok villages during his 1607 capture in
Chickahominy territory.\53\ On Smith's map, he represents the
Rappahannock people with 34 wigwams just north of the river as
opposed to 1 wigwam (representing 5 villages and 2 chief towns)
in their traditional homeland on the southern shore. However,
this placement makes practical sense in terms of defense
against the Powhatan.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p.
25.
\53\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p.
28.
\54\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p.
36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. William Clairborne attempted to establish treaty
relations with the Rappahannocks in 1645 since the tribe didn't
participate in the 1644 uprising led by the Pamunkey. In their
peaceful manner, the tribe continued to encounter English
settlers and even doing business with them. In 1651, the
Rappahannocks sold land to English settler Colonel Morre
Fauntleroy and signed a treaty with Lancaster County in
September of 1653. The tribe signed another treaty in 1656 with
the Rappahannock county (present-day Richmond and Essex
counties), setting out rewards for returning fugitives and
encouraging the Rappahannocks to make their children servants
in English houses.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(8)-(14) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1669 Virginia census records 30 Rappahannock and 50
Nantaughtacund (which both Speck and Mooney believe is
reference to the Rappahannock).\56\ The town referred to in
this census was actually a hunting village used by the
Rappahannock had lived in the 1670s. The Rappahannocks were
removed from their homeland in 1684 to a reservation
established for them in 1682 in modern day Caroline and King &
Queen counties. After Iroquois raids in 1683, the Virginia
Colonial Council moved the Rappahannock to the Nanzatico Indian
Town about 30 miles away from King George County. From 1687 to
1699 the Rappahannock migrated away from Nanzatico to
Portobacco Indian Town on the southern side of the Rappahannock
River. In 1705 the tribe was moved a few miles off their
original reservation.\57\ They were moved once again in 1706
along with the Portobaccos and Nanzaticos by Essex County back
to King and Queen County where they resettled on one of their
ancient hunting village sites (the 1682 reservation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
\57\S. Rep. No. 108-259 at 2 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Essex Baptist Church had a solid Rappahannock
presence in their congregation from 1819 until the 1880s. This
was a tribute to their presence in the region as well as their
Christianization and the beginning of their assimilation into
American culture. In 1870 Joseph Mastin established another
church, St. Stephens Baptist, to serve the Rappahannock in
Caroline County, taking members away from Upper Essex.\58\ This
remained the case until Rappahannock Indian Baptist Church was
established in 1964.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(30)-(36) (2009).
\59\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 401(38) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although unable to attend white public schools, the
Rappahannock created other educational opportunities for their
members. Rappahannock children were taught by a tribal member
in Caroline County until the tribe built their own formal
school in 1922 at Lloyds in Essex County. Chief George Nelson
testified in Congress asking for $50,000 to establish an Indian
school in Virginia.\60\ During the late 1940s and early 1950s,
the tribe set up a school at Indian Neck, with the state paying
a tribal member to teach 10 students in King and Queen County
to Sharon Indian School.\61\ The Rappahannock created a private
school in 1962 in a donated building in Essex County.
Unfortunately it was closed in 1964, and the children were then
bused to Sharon School until that school closed 3 years
later.\62\ At this point in 1965, the Rappahannock students
were moved to the white Marriott High School by order of the
Governor of Virginia.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(46)-(48) (2009).
\61\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 401(66) (2009).
\62\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990, p. 241.
\63\S. 1178, 111th Cong. Sec. 401(68) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Webb introduced S. 1178 on June 3, 2009 with
Senator Warner cosponsoring the bill. The Committee on Indian
Affairs ordered the bill to be reported favorably, with an
amendment, on October 22, 2009.
The Committee did not hold a hearing on S. 1178 in the
111th Congress, but the Committee has held hearings on similar
legislation in previous Congresses. In the 110th Congress, the
Committee held a hearing on H.R. 1294 on September 25, 2008.
This legislation was similar to S. 1178. H.R. 1294 passed the
House of Representatives on May 8, 2007. In the 109th Congress,
the Committee held a hearing on S. 480 on June 21, 2006. S. 480
was similar to S. 1178.
A similar bill, H.R. 1385, was introduced in the House of
Representatives by Representative James Moran on March 9, 2009.
That bill passed the House of Representatives by voice vote on
June 3, 2009. The Committee on Natural Resources in the House
of Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 1385 on March 18,
2009.

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT

During a business meeting of the Committee on October 22,
2009, Chairman Dorgan offered an amendment to S. 1178 on behalf
of the bill's sponsor, Senator Webb. The amendment was approved
by the Committee by voice vote.
The amendment ensures that although the State of Virginia
will have civil and criminal jurisdiction over the lands of the
six groups recognized in S. 1178, the groups will retain
jurisdiction over Indian child proceedings under the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 1178 (AS AMENDED)

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribes of Virginia
Federal Recognition Act of 2009.''

TITLE I--CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE

Section 101. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 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.

Section 104. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 105. Governing body

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

Section 106. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are located within
the counties of New Kent, Charles City, James City, or Henrico
that the tribe seeks to transfer to the Secretary. This section
also includes a prohibition on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 108. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have
jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on
lands owned by the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The
Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the
jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney
General and certification by the tribe. The section expressly
states that this section shall not affect the application of
section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.

Title II--Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern division

Section 201. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 203. Federal recognition

This section extends 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.

Section 204. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 205. Governing body

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

Section 206. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are within the
counties of New Kent, Charles City, James City, or Henrico that
the tribe seeks to transfer to the Secretary. This section also
includes a prohibition on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 208. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

TITLE III--UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE

Section 301. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 303. Federal recognition

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

Section 304. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 305. Governing body

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

Section 306. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are located within
the counties of King William, Caroline, Hanover, King and
Queen, and New Kent. This section also includes a prohibition
on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 308. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

TITLE IV--RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC.

Section 401. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 403. Federal recognition

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

Section 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 this legislation.

Section 405. Governing body

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

Section 406. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are located within
the counties of King and Queen, Spotsylvania, Richmond,
Lancaster, King George, Essex, Caroline, New Kent, King
William, James City, and Surry. This section also includes a
prohibition on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 408. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

TITLE V--MONACAN INDIAN NATION

Section 501. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 503. Federal recognition

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

Section 504. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 505. Governing body

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

Section 506. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are located within
the counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta,
Campbell, Nelson, and Rockbridge. This section also includes a
prohibition on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 508. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

TITLE VI--NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE

Section 601. Findings

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

Section 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.''

Section 603. Federal recognition

This section extends 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.

Section 604. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 605. Governing body

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

Section 606. Reservation of the tribe

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before
January 1, 2007. It also authorizes the Secretary to take into
trust lands owned by the Tribe in fee that are located within
the boundaries of the city of Suffolk, the City of Chesapeake,
or Isle of Wight County, Virginia. This section also includes a
prohibition on gaming.

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 608. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

On October 22, 2009, the Committee on Indian Affairs
convened a business meeting to consider S. 1178 and other
measures. During the business meeting, the Committee voted, by
a voice vote, to report S. 1178, with an amendment, favorably
to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass. Vice
Chairman John Barrasso and Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo
requested to be recorded as opposing the legislation.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 1178 as calculated by the
Congressional Budget Office is set forth below:

S. 1178--Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009

Summary: S. 1178 would provide federal recognition to six
Indian tribes in Virginia--the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the
Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper
Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan
Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. Federal
recognition would make the tribes eligible to receive benefits
from various federal programs. CBO estimates that implementing
this legislation would cost $52 million over the 2010-2014
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting
S. 1178 would not affect direct spending or revenues.
S. 1178 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1178 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 450
(community and regional development) and 550 (health).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars 2010--
------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 2 2 2 2 2 10
Estimated Outlays.............................. 1 2 2 2 2 9
Indian Health Service:
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 8 8 9 9 10 44
Estimated Outlays.............................. 7 8 9 9 10 43
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.............. 10 10 11 11 12 54
Estimated Outlays.......................... 8 10 11 11 12 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1178 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2010. S. 1178 would
provide federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia.
Such recognition would allow the tribes, with membership
totaling about 3,400 people, to receive benefits from various
programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
the Indian Health Service (IHS). Based on the average per
capita expenditures by those agencies for other Indian tribes,
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1178 would cost $52 million
over the 2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary funds.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIA provides funding to federally recognized tribes for
various purposes, including child welfare services, adult care,
community development, and general assistance. In total, CBO
estimates that providing BIA services would cost $9 million
over the 2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary funds. This estimate is based on per capita
expenditures for other federally recognized tribes located in
the eastern United States.

Indian Health Service

S. 1178 also would make members of the tribes eligible to
receive health benefits from the IHS. Based on information from
the IHS, CBO estimates that about 56 percent of tribal
members--or about 1,900 people--would receive benefits each
year. CBO assumes that the cost to serve those individuals
would be similar to funding for current IHS beneficiaries--
about $4,000 per individual in 2009. Assuming appropriation of
the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation,
CBO estimates that IHS benefits for the tribes would cost $43
million over the 2010-2014 period.

Other Federal agencies

In addition to BIA and IHS funding, certain Indian tribes
also receive support from other Federal programs within the
Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor,
and Agriculture. Based on their status as tribes recognized by
Virginia, the tribes specified in the bill are already eligible
to receive funding from those departments. Thus, CBO estimates
that implementing S. 1178 would not add to the cost of those
programs.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1178
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Previous CBO estimate: On April 29, 2009, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian
Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on April
22, 2009. At that time, CBO estimated that implementing H.R.
1385 would cost $65 million over the 2010-2014 period.
The two bills are very similar. Based on new information
from the tribes, CBO now estimates that membership of the
tribes that would be affected by H.R. 1385 or S. 1178 totals
about 3,400 (about 800 less than estimated for H.R. 1385). As a
result, CBO expects that fewer tribal members would be eligible
to receive benefits from certain federal programs under both
bills. Thus, CBO currently estimates that implementing either
bill would cost $52 million over the 2010-2014 period.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave--Bureau of
Indian Affairs; Robert Stewart--Indian Health Service; Impact
on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell;
Impact on the private sector: Marin Randall.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, 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. 1178 will
have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

There have been no executive communications received by the
Committee with regard to S. 1178.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, enactment of S. 1178 would affect
no changes in existing law.