[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&sectionid=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

    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 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

    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 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

    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 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

    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 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

    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.

                        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.

                                  
