[Senate Report 112-201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 491
112th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     112-201

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

 
  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

                                _______
                                

                 August 2, 2012.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 379]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 379) 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 and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of S. 379 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.

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. 379 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.
    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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., A Brief History of the Six Indian 
Tribes Requesting Federal Acknowledgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 eventually 
move 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 
had strong support from the State of Virginia. During the last 
Congress, the Committee received a letter in support of S. 
1178, an identical bill to S. 379, signed by then Virginia 
Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, and six of the previous State 
Governors.\5\ In 1999, both chambers of Virginia's General 
Assembly agreed to HJ 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. 379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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 
Commonweath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         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, the tribe and its 
members have access to Federal benefits and programs, and the 
tribal government incurs a formal 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 
recognizing 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 for 
recognizing 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 petitioning group has been identified as an 
American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis 
since 1900;
    (2) A predominant portion of the group comprises a distinct 
community and has existed as a community from historical times 
until the present;
    (3) The group 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 (constitution and bylaws) and membership criteria;
    (5) The group's membership consists of individuals who 
descend from a historical Indian tribe or tribes, which 
combined and functioned as a single autonomous political 
entity;
    (6) The membership of the group is composed principally of 
persons who are not members of any other acknowledged North 
American Indian tribe; and
    (7) Neither the group 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), a notice regarding BIA's 
internal processing of federal acknowledgment petitions (2000), 
and a notice to provide guidance and direction to make the 
process more streamlined and efficient (2008).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\73 Fed. Reg. 30146-48 (May 23, 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. Since the Federal Acknowledgment Process regulations 
were established in 1978, the Department has issued 49 
decisions under the process. Of that number, 17 petitioners 
were acknowledged as Indian tribes, and 32 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 in the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.\7\ 
Since 1982, Congress has restored or recognized 9 Indian 
tribes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See Pub. L. 106-568 (2000).
    \8\http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc013624.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 379 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.\9\ 
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.\10\ The Monacans moved westward from 1607 to 
1720 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\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.
    \10\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.
    \11\``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.\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Samuel R. Cook, Monacans and Miners: Native American and Coal 
Mining Communities in Appalachia (Lincoln: University of Nebraska 
Press, 2000), 49-56.
    \13\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. 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. 
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'' in order to participate in Virginian 
society.
    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, 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.
    In 1868, one of the Johns 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),\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\``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\16\ 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 
lead by John Smith raided a Nansemond town, and threatened more 
destruction unless the Nansemond paid 400 bushels of corn to 
his men.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\``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.
    \17\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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 601(2) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\S. Report No. 108-259 (2004).
    \20\``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.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\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.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 601(17).
    \23\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 and 
900 people.\24\ Although the Chickahominy were allies with the 
Powhatan Confederacy, they were fairly independent and had 
their own form of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\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.\25\ In the Treaty of 
1614 with Jamestown's governor Sir Thomas Dale, the tribe 
promised 300 warriors to fight against the Spanish.\26\ The 
Chickahominy received the right to self-governance in return. 
In 1623, and again in 1627, the Chickahominy were victims of 
raids.\27\ 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. 
In 1677, representatives of the Tribe signed the Treaty of 
Middle Plantation between several tribes and the King of 
England.\28\ In 1702, the tribe was forced from its reservation 
and lost the lands in 1718.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\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).
    \26\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(2) (2011).
    \27\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.
    \28\Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008.
    \29\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.\30\ Charles City 
County census records show modern-day Chickahominy surnames in 
the area beginning in 1831.\31\ New Kent County records began 
documenting Chickahominy people in an 1840 Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(8) (2011).
    \31\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(10) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1901, the tribe established the Samaria Baptist Church 
and bought nearby land for tribal use.\32\ In the early 1900s 
they also established the Samaria School for their childrens' 
education up until 8th grade, paying teacher salaries out of 
donated funds.\33\ 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\S. 379, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(11) (2011).
    \33\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians: 
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary (Nov. 12, 2009), 
http://www.wm.edu/as/anthropology/research/airc/vaindians/tribes/
chickahominy/index.php.
    \34\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(12) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 101(15)-(20) (2011) 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.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(25) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chickahominy Indians built a tribal center in 1974 
funded by tribal members through monthly pledges.\38\ Their 
assertion of tribal government came to a head in 1983 when they 
received State recognition by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
Currently there are about 750 Chickahominy living within 5 
miles of the tribal center and hundreds more in other parts of 
the country.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(28) (2011).
    \39\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians: 
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary (Nov. 12, 2009), 
http://www.wm.edu/as/anthropology/research/airc/vaindians/tribes/
chickahominy/index.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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 201(11) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 was built in 1922 in 
spite of the dissenting members.\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\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.\42\ August 
Hermann mapped the area in 1676, labeling several ``Indian 
houses'' in the same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\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).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\H.R. Rep. No. 110-124, at 6 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1726 the Virginia Colony stopped funding interpreters in 
their dealings with the Upper Mattaponi. However, not all the 
interpreters left. James Adams stayed with the Upper Mattaponi, 
giving his surname to many of today's tribal members.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301 (10)-(12) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 301(13) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(14)-(16) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(17)-(18) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\S. 379, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(19)-(21) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Upper Mattaponi won state recognition in 1983, 
confirming their Indian ancestry and identity in the eyes of 
Virginian government.
            The Rappahanock 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\``Virginia Indian Council: Virginia Indian Tribes.'' 
Rappahannock Tribe. 12/10/2007. VCI (Nov 5, 2009), http://
indians.vipnet.org/tribes/rappahannock.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\51\ Captain John Smith encountered 
several Rappahanncok villages during his 1607 capture in 
Chickahominy territory.\52\ 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.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. 
p25.
    \52\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. 
p28.
    \53\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. 
p36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Captain William Claiborne attempted to establish treaty 
relations with the Rappahannocks in 1645 because the tribe had 
not participated 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(8)-(14) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 1669 Virginia census records 30 Rappahannock and 50 
Nantaughtacund (which both Speck and Mooney believe is 
reference to the Rappahannock).\55\ 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 
and 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.\56\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
    \56\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 Baptist 
Church.\57\ St. Stephens was the primary tribal church until 
Rappahannock Indian Baptist Church was established in 1964.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(30)-(36) (2011).
    \58\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 401(38) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. In December 1923, 
Chief George Nelson testified before Congress asking for 
$50,000 to establish an Indian school in Virginia.\59\ 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.\60\ 
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.\61\ In 1965, the Rappahannock 
students were moved to Marriott High School, a white public 
school, by order of the Governor of Virginia.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(46)-(48) (2011).
    \60\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 401(66) (2011).
    \61\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University 
Press, 1990 at 241.
    \62\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 401(68) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    S. 379, the Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition 
Act of 2011, was introduced on February 17, 2011, by Senators 
Webb and Warner. A companion bill, H.R. 783, has also been 
introduced in the House of Representatives. Similar legislation 
was introduced in the 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, and 111th 
Congresses. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a 
hearing on such similar legislation during the 110th Congress. 
Additionally, during the 111th Congress, the Committee 
conducted a business meeting concerning the legislation and 
reported it favorably. Since the Committee had previously held 
a legislative hearing and mark-up on the similar bills in 
previous Congresses, the Committee proceeded directly to mark-
up of S. 379.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribes of Virginia 
Federal Recognition Act of 2011.''

                   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. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 108. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 208. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 308. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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, Richmond, Lancaster, King 
George, Essex, Caroline, New Kent, King William, and James 
City. This section also includes a prohibition on gaming.

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

    This section states that enactment of S. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 408. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 508. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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. 379 does not 
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, 
and water rights of the tribe or its members.

Section 608. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    This section states that the Commonwealth 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 AND TABULATION OF VOTE

    The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs addressed S. 379 in 
a business meeting on July 28, 2011. The bill was ordered 
reported favorably without amendment to the full Senate (en 
bloc with S. 546 and S. 1218) by voice vote.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following cost estimate, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, dated October 12, 2011, was 
prepared for S. 379:

S. 379--Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011

    Summary: S. 379 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 $68 million over the 2012-2016 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting 
S. 379 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    S. 379 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. 379 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--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                2012    2013    2014    2015    2016   2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
    Estimated Authorization Level............................       3       3       3       3       3        16
    Estimated Outlays........................................       2       3       3       3       3        15
Indian Health Services:
    Estimated Authorization Level............................      10      10      11      11      11        53
    Estimated Outlays........................................       9      10      11      11      11        52
Total Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level............................      13      14      14      14      15        70
    Estimated Outlays........................................      11      13      14      14      15        68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
379 will be enacted early in fiscal year 2012, that the 
necessary amounts will be appropriated each year, and that 
outlays will follow historical patterns for assistance to other 
tribes.
    S. 379 would provide federal recognition to six Indian 
tribes in Virginia. Such recognition would allow the tribes, 
with membership totaling about 4,100 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. 379 
would cost $68 million over the 2012-2016 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 $15 million over the 2012-2016 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. 379 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 55 
percent of tribal members--or about 2,300 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 $3,500 per individual in 2011. Assuming of 
the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation, 
CBO estimates that IHS benefits for the tribes would cost $52 
million over the 2012-2016 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. 379 would not 
increased spending from those programs.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 379 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMBRA and would impose no costs on state, local, and 
tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Martin von Gnechten--
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Robert Stewart--Indian Health 
Service; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    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 that each report accompanying a bill to 
evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be 
incurred in carrying out the bill. The Committee has concluded 
that the regulatory and paperwork impacts of S. 379 should be 
de minimis.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee has received no communications from the 
Executive Branch regarding S. 379.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

               ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN BARRASSO

    I understand how important Federal recognition is for 
tribal groups and how difficult and challenging the 
administrative recognition process is for them. Nevertheless, 
it is my view that legislative recognition--legislation that 
deems a group or tribe to be federally recognized--is not the 
right way to decide which groups should be recognized and which 
groups should not be recognized. That is a function that can be 
best performed by the Executive Branch of the Government 
following the regulations that have been adopted for that 
purpose. Federal recognition of a group as an Indian tribe may 
have profound consequences for the group, its members, other 
Indian tribes, the general public, and the Federal Government.
    Just in terms of impact on the Federal Treasury alone, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing S. 379 
will cost $68 million over a 5-year period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary funds. Since most of that cost 
would be in the form of programs and services available through 
the BIA and IHS for which the Tribe and its members will become 
eligible, even if that additional money is never appropriated, 
recognition of the tribe will in and of itself place 
significant additional stress on the limited resources of both 
of these agencies, since they will not turn tribal members away 
from programs and services for which they are eligible. So 
tribal recognition is indeed a weighty decision, with real 
consequences.
    Testifying about several recognition bills at a hearing 
before this Committee during the 110th Congress (including an 
earlier version of this bill introduced in the House, H.R. 
1294), the Director of the Office of Federal Acknowledgement at 
the Department of the Interior stated--

          Legislation such as S. 514, S. 724, S. 1058, and H.R. 
        1294 would allow these groups to bypass this [the 
        Federal acknowledgement] process--allowing them to 
        avoid the scrutiny to which other groups have been 
        subjected. The Administration supports all groups going 
        through the Federal acknowledgment process under 25 CFR 
        Part 83.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Testimony of R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal 
Acknowledgment, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the Committee 
on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008.

    The Department's witness went on to point out that, in 
light of the importance and implications of recognition 
decisions, the Department adopted its Federal acknowledgment 
regulations at 25 CFR Part 83 in 1978 in recognition of ``the 
need to end ad hoc decision making and adopt uniform 
regulations for Federal acknowledgment.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill represents a step away from a process that 
applies uniform, established acknowledgment criteria to the 
history of the group and in the direction of ``ad hoc'' 
recognition decisions. I do not think that Congress is in a 
good position to undertake the detailed historical, cultural, 
political and ethnographic analysis that should go into a 
recognition decision.
    If a particular group has some unique historical or other 
barriers so that it cannot fairly access the administrative 
process, then perhaps it would be appropriate for Congress to 
consider whether those barriers should be removed or modified 
so that the group can have fair access to that process. 
However, I do not feel it is appropriate for Congress to simply 
deem a group to be a recognized Indian tribe.
                                                     John Barrasso.

                                  
