House Report 114-847 - TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIAN GROUP MAY RECEIVE FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS AN INDIAN TRIBE ONLY BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

[House Report 114-847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-847

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

TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIAN GROUP MAY RECEIVE FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS
AN INDIAN TRIBE ONLY BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

_______

December 7, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 3764]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3764) to provide that an Indian group may
receive Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe only by an
Act of Congress, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF INDIAN TRIBES, GENERALLY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Tribal Recognition Act of 2016''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution
(commonly known as the ``Indian Commerce Clause'') gives
Congress authority over Indian affairs.
(2) Such authority is plenary and exclusive.
(3) Such authority may not be exercised by the executive
branch, except as expressly delegated by an Act of Congress (or
by a treaty ratified by the Senate before March 1871).

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Assistant secretary.--The term ``Assistant Secretary''
means the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, or that
officer's authorized representative.
(2) Autonomous.--The term ``autonomous'' means the exercise
of political influence or authority independent of the control
of any other Indian governing entity. Autonomous must be
understood in the context of the history, geography, culture
and social organization of the petitioning group.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means any group of
people which can demonstrate that consistent interactions and
significant social relationships exist within its membership
and that its members are differentiated from and identified as
distinct from nonmembers. Community must be understood in the
context of the history, geography, culture and social
organization of the group.
(4) Continental united states.--The term ``continental United
States'' means the contiguous 48 States and Alaska.
(5) Continuously or continuous.--The term ``continuously or
continuous'' means extending from first sustained contact with
non-Indians throughout the group's history to the present
substantially without interruption.
(6) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition''
means the detailed arguments made by a petitioner to
substantiate its claim to continuous existence as an Indian
tribe, together with the factual exposition and all documentary
evidence necessary to demonstrate that these arguments address
the mandatory criteria.
(7) Historically, historical or history.--The term
``historically, historical or history'' means dating from first
sustained contact with non-Indians.
(8) Indian group or group.--The term ``Indian group or
group'' means any Indian or Alaska Native aggregation within
the continental United States that the Secretary of the
Interior does not acknowledge to be an Indian tribe. Indian
tribe, also referred to herein as tribe, means any Indian or
Alaska Native tribe, band, pueblo, village, or community within
the continental United States that the Secretary of the
Interior has lawfully acknowledged as an Indian tribe.
(9) Indigenous.--The term ``indigenous'' means native to the
continental United States in that at least part of the
petitioner's territory at the time of sustained contact
extended into what is now the continental United States.
(10) Informed party.--The term ``informed party'' means any
person or organization, other than an interested party, who
requests an opportunity to submit comments or evidence or to be
kept informed of general actions regarding a specific
petitioner.
(11) Interested party.--The term ``interested party'' means
any person, organization or other entity who can establish a
legal, factual or property interest in an acknowledgment
determination and who requests an opportunity to submit
comments or evidence or to be kept informed of general actions
regarding a specific petitioner. ``Interested party'' includes
the governor and attorney general of the State in which a
petitioner is located, and may include, but is not limited to,
local governmental units, and any recognized Indian tribes and
unrecognized Indian groups that might be affected by an
acknowledgment determination.
(12) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means
an undocumented letter or resolution by which an Indian group
requests Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe and
expresses its intent to submit a documented petition.
(13) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any entity
that has submitted a letter of intent to the Secretary
requesting acknowledgment that it is an Indian tribe.
(14) Political influence or authority.--The term ``political
influence or authority'' means a tribal council, leadership,
internal process or other mechanism which the group has used as
a means of influencing or controlling the behavior of its
members in significant respects, and/or making decisions for
the group which substantially affect its members, and/or
representing the group in dealing with outsiders in matters of
consequence. This process is to be understood in the context of
the history, culture and social organization of the group.
(15) Previous federal acknowledgment.--The term ``previous
Federal acknowledgment'' means action by the Federal Government
clearly premised on identification of a tribal political entity
and indicating clearly the recognition of a relationship
between that entity and the United States.
(16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior or that officer's authorized representative.
(17) Sustained contact.--The term ``sustained contact'' means
the period of earliest sustained non-Indian settlement and/or
governmental presence in the local area in which the historical
tribe or tribes from which the petitioner descends was located
historically.

SEC. 104. GROUPS ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT PETITIONS.

(a) Eligible Groups.--Indian groups indigenous to the continental
United States that are not federally recognized Indian tribes on the
date of the enactment of this Act may submit a petition under this
title.
(b) Ineligible Groups.--The following may not submit a petition under
this title:
(1) Splinter groups, political factions, communities or
groups of any character that separate from the main body of a
federally recognized Indian tribe, unless they can establish
clearly that they have functioned throughout history until the
present as an autonomous tribal entity, even if they have been
regarded by some as part of or have been associated in some
manner with a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(2) Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos, Alaska native
villages, or communities that have been lawfully acknowledged
to be federally recognized Indian tribes and are receiving
services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(3) Groups that petitioned and were denied Federal
acknowledgment under part 83 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations, including reorganized or reconstituted petitioners
previously denied, or splinter groups, spin-offs, or component
groups of any type that were once part of petitioners
previously denied.
(4) Groups for which a documented petition has not been filed
pursuant to section 109 by the date that is five years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Groups With Petitions in Progress.--This title, including the
criteria in section 107, shall apply to any Indian group whose
documented petition was submitted and not denied on the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 105. FILING A LETTER OF INTENT.

Any Indian group in the continental United States that believes it
should be acknowledged as an Indian tribe and that it can satisfy the
criteria in this title may submit a letter of intent requesting
acknowledgment that an Indian group exists as an Indian tribe. The
letter of intent submitted under this section--
(1) shall be filed with the Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior;
(2) may be filed in advance of, or at the same time as, a
group's documented petition; and
(3) shall be produced, dated and signed by the governing body
of an Indian group.

SEC. 106. DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

(a) Guidelines.--The Assistant Secretary shall make available
guidelines for the preparation of documented petitions. These
guidelines shall--
(1) include an explanation of the criteria, a discussion of
the types of evidence which may be used to demonstrate
particular criteria, and general suggestions and guidelines on
how and where to conduct research;
(2) include an example of a documented petition format which
shall provide guidance, but not preclude the use of any other
format; and
(3) may be supplemented or updated as necessary.
(b) Research and Preparation of Petition.--The Assistant Secretary--
(1) shall provide petitioners with suggestions and advice
regarding preparation of the documented petition; and
(2) shall not be responsible for the actual research on
behalf of the petitioner.

SEC. 107. CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

The criteria for consideration for Federal acknowledgment is, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian
entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence
that the group's character as an Indian entity has from time to
time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive
evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence to be
relied upon in determining a group's Indian identity may
include one or a combination of the following, as well as other
evidence of identification by other than the petitioner itself
or its members:
(A) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal
authorities.
(B) Relationships with State governments based on
identification of the group as Indian.
(C) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local
government in a relationship based on the group's
Indian identity.
(D) Identification as an Indian entity by
anthropologists, historians, and/or other scholars.
(E) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers
and books.
(F) Identification as an Indian entity in
relationships with Indian tribes or with national,
regional, or State Indian organizations.
(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises
a distinct community and has existed as a community from
historical times until the present.
(A) This criterion may be demonstrated by some
combination of the following evidence and/or other
evidence that the petitioner meets the definition of
community:
(i) Significant rates of marriage within the
group, and/or, as may be culturally required,
patterned out-marriages with other Indian
populations.
(ii) Significant social relationships
connecting individual members.
(iii) Significant rates of informal social
interaction which exist broadly among the
members of a group.
(iv) A significant degree of shared or
cooperative labor or other economic activity
among the membership.
(v) Evidence of strong patterns of
discrimination or other social distinctions by
nonmembers.
(vi) Shared sacred or secular ritual activity
encompassing most of the group.
(vii) Cultural patterns shared among a
significant portion of the group that are
different from those of the non-Indian
populations with whom it interacts. These
patterns must function as more than a symbolic
identification of the group as Indian. They may
include, but are not limited to, language,
kinship organization, or religious beliefs and
practices.
(viii) The persistence of a named, collective
Indian identity continuously over a period of
more than 50 years, notwithstanding changes in
name.
(ix) A demonstration of historical political
influence under the criterion in paragraph (3)
shall be evidence for demonstrating historical
community.
(B) A petitioner shall be considered to have provided
sufficient evidence of community at a given point in
time if evidence is provided to demonstrate any one of
the following:
(i) More than 50 percent of the members
reside in a geographical area exclusively or
almost exclusively composed of members of the
group, and the balance of the group maintains
consistent interaction with some members of the
community.
(ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in
the group are between members of the group.
(iii) At least 50 percent of the group
members maintain distinct cultural patterns
such as, but not limited to, language, kinship
organization, or religious beliefs and
practices.
(iv) There are distinct community social
institutions encompassing most of the members,
such as kinship organizations, formal or
informal economic cooperation, or religious
organizations.
(v) The group has met the criterion in
paragraph (3) using evidence described in
paragraph (3)(B).
(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from
historical times until the present.
(A) This criterion may be demonstrated by some
combination of the evidence listed below and/or by
other evidence that the petitioner meets the definition
of political influence or authority:
(i) The group is able to mobilize significant
numbers of members and significant resources
from its members for group purposes.
(ii) Most of the membership considers issues
acted upon or actions taken by group leaders or
governing bodies to be of importance.
(iii) There is widespread knowledge,
communication and involvement in political
processes by most of the group's members.
(iv) The group meets the criterion in
paragraph (2) at more than a minimal level.
(v) There are internal conflicts which show
controversy over valued group goals,
properties, policies, processes and/or
decisions.
(B) A petitioning group shall be considered to have
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
exercise of political influence or authority at a given
point in time by demonstrating that group leaders and/
or other mechanisms exist or existed which--
(i) allocate group resources such as land,
residence rights and the like on a consistent
basis;
(ii) settle disputes between members or
subgroups by mediation or other means on a
regular basis;
(iii) exert strong influence on the behavior
of individual members, such as the
establishment or maintenance of norms and the
enforcement of sanctions to direct or control
behavior; and
(iv) organize or influence economic
subsistence activities among the members,
including shared or cooperative labor.
(C) A group that has met the requirements in
paragraph (2)(B) at a given point in time shall be
considered to have provided sufficient evidence to meet
this criterion at that point in time.
(4) A copy of the group's present governing document
including its membership criteria. In the absence of a written
document, the petitioner must provide a statement describing in
full its membership criteria and current governing procedures.
(5) The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who
descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical
Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(A) Some types of evidence that can be used for this
purpose include the following:
(i) Rolls prepared by the Secretary on a
descendancy basis for purposes of distributing
claims money, providing allotments, or other
purposes.
(ii) State, Federal, or other official
records or evidence identifying present members
or ancestors of present members as being
descendants of a historical tribe or tribes
that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(iii) Church, school, and other similar
enrollment records identifying present members
or ancestors of present members as being
descendants of a historical tribe or tribes
that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(iv) Affidavits of recognition by tribal
elders, leaders, or the tribal governing body
identifying present members or ancestors of
present members as being descendants of a
historical tribe or tribes that combined and
functioned as a single autonomous political
entity.
(v) Other records or evidence identifying
present members or ancestors of present members
as being descendants of a historical tribe or
tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(B) The petitioner must provide an official
membership list, separately certified by the group's
governing body, of all known current members of the
group. This list must include each member's full name
(including maiden name), date of birth, and current
residential address. The petitioner must also provide a
copy of each available former list of members based on
the group's own defined criteria, as well as a
statement describing the circumstances surrounding the
preparation of the current list and, insofar as
possible, the circumstances surrounding the preparation
of former lists.
(6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed
principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged
North American Indian tribe. However, under certain conditions
a petitioning group may be acknowledged even if its membership
is composed principally of persons whose names have appeared on
rolls of, or who have been otherwise associated with, an
acknowledged Indian tribe. The conditions are that the group
must establish that it has functioned throughout history until
the present as a separate and autonomous Indian tribal entity,
that its members do not maintain a bilateral political
relationship with the acknowledged tribe, and that its members
have provided written confirmation of their membership in the
petitioning group.
(7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of
congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or
forbidden the Federal relationship.

SEC. 108. PREVIOUS FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

(a) In General.--Unambiguous previous Federal acknowledgment shall be
acceptable evidence of the tribal character of a petitioner to the date
of the last such previous acknowledgment. If a petitioner provides
substantial evidence of unambiguous Federal acknowledgment, the
petitioner shall only be required to demonstrate that it meets the
requirements of section 107 to the extent required by this section. A
determination of the adequacy of the evidence of previous Federal
action acknowledging tribal status shall be made during the technical
assistance review of the documented petition conducted pursuant to
section 110(b).
(b) Evidence.--Evidence to demonstrate previous Federal
acknowledgment includes evidence that the group--
(1) has had treaty relations with the United States;
(2) has been denominated a tribe by an Act of Congress or
Executive order; and
(3) has been treated by the Federal Government as having
collective rights in tribal lands or funds.

SEC. 109. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF A PETITION.

(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after receiving a letter of
intent, or a documented petition if a letter of intent has not
previously been received and noticed, the Assistant Secretary shall
acknowledge to the sender such receipt in writing. Notice under this
subsection shall--
(1) include the name, location, and mailing address of the
petitioner and such other information to identify the entity
submitting the letter of intent or documented petition and the
date it was received;
(2) serve to announce the opportunity for interested parties
and informed parties to submit factual or legal arguments in
support of or in opposition to the petitioner's request for
acknowledgment or to request to be kept informed of all general
actions affecting the petition; and
(3) indicate where a copy of the letter of intent and the
documented petition may be examined.
(b) Notice to State Governments.--The Assistant Secretary shall
notify, in writing--
(1) the Governor and Attorney General of the State or States
in which a petitioner is located; and
(2) any recognized tribe and any other petitioner that--
(A) appears to have a historical or present
relationship with the petitioner; or
(B) may otherwise be considered to have a potential
interest in the acknowledgment determination.
(c) Publication.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a letter of
intent, or a documented petition if a letter of intent has not
previously been received and noticed, the Assistant Secretary shall
have the notice required under this section published--
(1) in the Federal Register; and
(2) in a major newspaper or newspapers of general circulation
in the town or city nearest to the petitioner.

SEC. 110. PROCESSING OF THE DOCUMENTED PETITION.

(a) Review.--Upon receipt of a documented petition, the Assistant
Secretary--
(1) shall cause a review to be conducted to determine the
extent to which the petitioner has met the criteria set forth
in section 107;
(2) shall include consideration of the documented petition
and the factual statements contained therein;
(3) may initiate other research for any purpose relative to
analyzing the documented petition and obtaining additional
information about the petitioner's status; and
(4) may consider any evidence which may be submitted by
interested parties or informed parties.
(b) Technical Assistance.--
(1) Prior to review of the documented petition under
subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall conduct a
preliminary review of the petition in order to provide
technical assistance to the petitioner.
(2) The review under paragraph (1) shall be a preliminary
review for the purpose of providing the petitioner an
opportunity to supplement or revise the documented petition
prior to the review under paragraph (1). Insofar as possible,
technical assistance reviews under this paragraph will be
conducted in the order of receipt of documented petitions.
However, technical assistance reviews will not have priority
over active consideration of documented petitions.
(3) After the technical assistance review, the Assistant
Secretary shall notify the petitioner by letter of any obvious
deficiencies or significant omissions apparent in the
documented petition and provide the petitioner with an
opportunity to withdraw the documented petition for further
work or to submit additional information.
(4) If a petitioner's documented petition claims previous
Federal acknowledgment or includes evidence of previous Federal
acknowledgment, the technical assistance review shall also
include a review to determine whether that evidence is
sufficient to meet the requirements of previous Federal
acknowledgment.
(c) Response to Technical Assistance Review.--
(1) Petitioners may respond in part or in full to the
technical assistance review letter or request, in writing, that
the Assistant Secretary proceed with the active consideration
of the documented petition using the materials already
submitted.
(2) If the petitioner requests that the materials submitted
in response to the technical assistance review letter be again
reviewed for adequacy, the Assistant Secretary shall provide
the additional review.
(3) If the assertion of previous Federal acknowledgment under
section 108 cannot be substantiated during the technical
assistance review, the petitioner may respond by providing
additional evidence. A petitioner that claims previous Federal
acknowledgment and fails to respond to a technical assistance
review letter under this subsection, or whose response fails to
establish the claim, shall have its documented petition
considered on the same basis as documented petitions submitted
by groups not claiming previous Federal acknowledgment.
Petitioners that fail to demonstrate previous Federal
acknowledgment after a review of materials submitted in
response to the technical assistance review shall be so
notified. Such petitioners may submit additional materials
concerning previous acknowledgment during the course of active
consideration.
(d) Consideration of Documented Petitions.--The Assistant Secretary
shall--
(1) review documented petitions in the order that they are
determined ready for review;
(2) establish and maintain a numbered register of documented
petitions which have been determined ready for active
consideration;
(3) maintain a numbered register of letters of intent or
incomplete petitions based on the original date received by the
Department of the Interior; and
(4) use the register of letters of intent or incomplete
petitions to determine the order of review by the Assistant
Secretary if two or more documented petitions are determined
ready for review on the same date.
(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after notifying the petitioner
that review of the documented petition has begun, the Assistant
Secretary shall--
(1) submit a report including a summary of the evidence,
findings, petition, and supporting documentation, to the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate;
(2) notify the petitioner and interested parties that the
review is complete and the report required under paragraph (1)
has been submitted;
(3) provide copies of the report to the petitioner and
interested parties; and
(4) provide copies of the report to informed parties and
others upon written request.

SEC. 111. CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION AUTHORITY.

(a) Act of Congress Required.--An Indian group may receive Federal
acknowledgment (or reacknowledgment) as an Indian tribe only by an Act
of Congress. The Secretary may not grant Federal acknowledgment (or
reacknowledgment) to any Indian group.
(b) Previous Acknowledgment.--This title shall not affect the status
of any Indian tribe that was federally acknowledged before the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 112. FORCE AND EFFECT OF REGULATIONS.

Part 83 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force
or effect.

TITLE II--FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF VIRGINIA INDIAN TRIBES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of
Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2016''.

SEC. 202. INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978.

Nothing in this title affects the application of section 109 of the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1919).

Subtitle A--Chickahominy Indian Tribe

SEC. 211. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) in 1607, when the English settlers set shore along the
Virginia coastline, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe was one of
about 30 tribes that received them;
(2) in 1614, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe entered into a
treaty with Sir Thomas Dale, Governor of the Jamestown Colony,
under which--
(A) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe agreed to provide 2
bushels of corn per man and send warriors to protect
the English; and
(B) Sir Thomas Dale agreed in return to allow the
Tribe to continue to practice its own tribal
governance;
(3) in 1646, a treaty was signed which forced the
Chickahominy from their homeland to the area around the York
Mattaponi River in present-day King William County, leading to
the formation of a reservation;
(4) in 1677, following Bacon's Rebellion, the Queen of
Pamunkey signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation on behalf of
the Chickahominy;
(5) in 1702, the Chickahominy were forced from their
reservation, which caused the loss of a land base;
(6) in 1711, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg
established a grammar school for Indians called Brafferton
College;
(7) a Chickahominy child was one of the first Indians to
attend Brafferton College;
(8) in 1750, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to migrate
from King William County back to the area around the
Chickahominy River in New Kent and Charles City Counties;
(9) in 1793, a Baptist missionary named Bradby took refuge
with the Chickahominy and took a Chickahominy woman as his
wife;
(10) in 1831, the names of the ancestors of the modern-day
Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to appear in the Charles City
County census records;
(11) in 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe formed Samaria
Baptist Church;
(12) from 1901 to 1935, Chickahominy men were assessed a
tribal tax so that their children could receive an education;
(13) the Tribe used the proceeds from the tax to build the
first Samaria Indian School, buy supplies, and pay a teacher's
salary;
(14) in 1919, C. Lee Moore, Auditor of Public Accounts for
Virginia, told Chickahominy Chief O.W. Adkins that he had
instructed the Commissioner of Revenue for Charles City County
to record Chickahominy tribal members on the county tax rolls
as Indian, and not as White or colored;
(15) during the period of 1920 through 1930, various
Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia wrote letters of
introduction for Chickahominy Chiefs who had official business
with Federal agencies in Washington, DC;
(16) in 1934, Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins wrote to John
Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, requesting money to
acquire land for the Chickahominy Indian Tribe's use, to build
school, medical, and library facilities and to buy tractors,
implements, and seed;
(17) in 1934, John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
wrote to Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins, informing him that
Congress had passed the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as
the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), but
had not made the appropriation to fund the Act;
(18) in 1942, Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins wrote to John
Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, asking for help in
getting the proper racial designation on Selective Service
records for Chickahominy soldiers;
(19) in 1943, John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
asked Douglas S. Freeman, editor of the Richmond News-Leader
newspaper of Richmond, Virginia, to help Virginia Indians
obtain proper racial designation on birth records;
(20) Collier stated that his office could not officially
intervene because it had no responsibility for the Virginia
Indians, ``as a matter largely of historical accident'', but
was ``interested in them as descendants of the original
inhabitants of the region'';
(21) in 1948, the Veterans' Education Committee of the
Virginia State Board of Education approved Samaria Indian
School to provide training to veterans;
(22) that school was established and run by the Chickahominy
Indian Tribe;
(23) in 1950, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe purchased and
donated to the Charles City County School Board land to be used
to build a modern school for students of the Chickahominy and
other Virginia Indian tribes;
(24) the Samaria Indian School included students in grades 1
through 8;
(25) in 1961, Senator Sam Ervin, Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the Senate, requested Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins to provide
assistance in analyzing the status of the constitutional rights
of Indians ``in your area'';
(26) in 1967, the Charles City County school board closed
Samaria Indian School and converted the school to a countywide
primary school as a step toward full school integration of
Indian and non-Indian students;
(27) in 1972, the Charles City County school board began
receiving funds under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.) on behalf of
Chickahominy students, which funding is provided as of the date
of enactment of this Act under title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aaa et
seq.);
(28) in 1974, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe bought land and
built a tribal center using monthly pledges from tribal members
to finance the transactions;
(29) in 1983, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe was granted
recognition as an Indian tribe by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
along with 5 other Indian tribes; and
(30) in 1985, Governor Gerald Baliles was the special guest
at an intertribal Thanksgiving Day dinner hosted by the
Chickahominy Indian Tribe.

SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 213. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to
federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area comprised of New Kent County,
James City County, Charles City County, and Henrico County,
Virginia.

SEC. 214. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively,
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 215. GOVERNING BODY.

The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
(1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date
of enactment of this Act; or
(2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with
the election procedures specified in the governing documents of
the Tribe.

SEC. 216. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on
or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City
County, or Henrico County, Virginia; and
(2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land
held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City
County, or Henrico County, Virginia.
(b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final
written determination not later than three years of the date which the
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination
available to the Tribe.
(c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe,
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 217. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

Subtitle B--Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division

SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 223. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
future services and benefits provided by the Federal Government
to federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area comprised of New Kent County,
James City County, Charles City County, and Henrico County,
Virginia.

SEC. 224. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 225. GOVERNING BODY.

SEC. 226. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

SEC. 227. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

Subtitle C--Upper Mattaponi Tribe

SEC. 231. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) during the period of 1607 through 1646, the Chickahominy
Indian Tribes--
(A) lived approximately 20 miles from Jamestown; and
(B) were significantly involved in English-Indian
affairs;
(2) Mattaponi Indians, who later joined the Chickahominy
Indians, lived a greater distance from Jamestown;
(3) in 1646, the Chickahominy Indians moved to Mattaponi
River basin, away from the English;
(4) in 1661, the Chickahominy Indians sold land at a place
known as ``the cliffs'' on the Mattaponi River;
(5) in 1669, the Chickahominy Indians--
(A) appeared in the Virginia Colony's census of
Indian bowmen; and
(B) lived in ``New Kent'' County, which included the
Mattaponi River basin at that time;
(6) in 1677, the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indians were
subjects of the Queen of Pamunkey, who was a signatory to the
Treaty of 1677 with the King of England;
(7) in 1683, after a Mattaponi town was attacked by Seneca
Indians, the Mattaponi Indians took refuge with the
Chickahominy Indians, and the history of the 2 groups was
intertwined for many years thereafter;
(8) in 1695, the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indians--
(A) were assigned a reservation by the Virginia
Colony; and
(B) traded land of the reservation for land at the
place known as ``the cliffs'' (which, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, is the Mattaponi Indian
Reservation), which had been owned by the Mattaponi
Indians before 1661;
(9) in 1711, a Chickahominy boy attended the Indian School at
the College of William and Mary;
(10) in 1726, the Virginia Colony discontinued funding of
interpreters for the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indian Tribes;
(11) James Adams, who served as an interpreter to the Indian
tribes known as of the date of enactment of this Act as the
``Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe'' and ``Chickahominy Indian
Tribe'', elected to stay with the Upper Mattaponi Indians;
(12) today, a majority of the Upper Mattaponi Indians have
``Adams'' as their surname;
(13) in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the Commonwealth
of Virginia, mentioned the Mattaponi Indians on a reservation
in King William County and said that Chickahominy Indians were
``blended'' with the Mattaponi Indians and nearby Pamunkey
Indians;
(14) in 1850, the census of the United States revealed a
nucleus of approximately 10 families, all ancestral to modern
Upper Mattaponi Indians, living in central King William County,
Virginia, approximately 10 miles from the reservation;
(15) during the period of 1853 through 1884, King William
County marriage records listed Upper Mattaponis as ``Indians''
in marrying people residing on the reservation;
(16) during the period of 1884 through the present, county
marriage records usually refer to Upper Mattaponis as
``Indians'';
(17) in 1901, Smithsonian anthropologist James Mooney heard
about the Upper Mattaponi Indians but did not visit them;
(18) in 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank
Speck published a book on modern Virginia Indians with a
section on the Upper Mattaponis;
(19) from 1929 until 1930, the leadership of the Upper
Mattaponi Indians opposed the use of a ``colored'' designation
in the 1930 United States census and won a compromise in which
the Indian ancestry of the Upper Mattaponis was recorded but
questioned;
(20) during the period of 1942 through 1945--
(A) the leadership of the Upper Mattaponi Indians,
with the help of Frank Speck and others, fought against
the induction of young men of the Tribe into
``colored'' units in the Armed Forces of the United
States; and
(B) a tribal roll for the Upper Mattaponi Indians was
compiled;
(21) from 1945 to 1946, negotiations took place to admit some
of the young people of the Upper Mattaponi to high schools for
Federal Indians (especially at Cherokee) because no high school
coursework was available for Indians in Virginia schools; and
(22) in 1983, the Upper Mattaponi Indians applied for and won
State recognition as an Indian tribe.

SEC. 232. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 233. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to
federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area within 25 miles of the Sharon
Indian School at 13383 King William Road, King William County,
Virginia.

SEC. 234. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 235. GOVERNING BODY.

SEC. 236. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on
or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of King William County, Caroline County, Hanover
County, King and Queen County, and New Kent County, Virginia;
and
(2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land
held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of King William County, Caroline County, Hanover
County, King and Queen County, and New Kent County, Virginia.
(b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final
written determination not later than three years of the date which the
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination
available to the Tribe.
(c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe,
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 237. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

Subtitle D--Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.

SEC. 241. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) during the initial months after Virginia was settled, the
Rappahannock Indians had 3 encounters with Captain John Smith;
(2) the first encounter occurred when the Rappahannock
weroance (headman)--
(A) traveled to Quiyocohannock (a principal town
across the James River from Jamestown), where he met
with Smith to determine whether Smith had been the
``great man'' who had previously sailed into the
Rappahannock River, killed a Rappahannock weroance, and
kidnapped Rappahannock people; and
(B) determined that Smith was too short to be that
``great man'';
(3) on a second meeting, during John Smith's captivity
(December 16, 1607, to January 8, 1608), Smith was taken to the
Rappahannock principal village to show the people that Smith
was not the ``great man'';
(4) a third meeting took place during Smith's exploration of
the Chesapeake Bay (July to September 1608), when, after the
Moraughtacund Indians had stolen 3 women from the Rappahannock
King, Smith was prevailed upon to facilitate a peaceful truce
between the Rappahannock and the Moraughtacund Indians;
(5) in the settlement, Smith had the 2 Indian tribes meet on
the spot of their first fight;
(6) when it was established that both groups wanted peace,
Smith told the Rappahannock King to select which of the 3
stolen women he wanted;
(7) the Moraughtacund King was given second choice among the
2 remaining women, and Mosco, a Wighcocomoco (on the Potomac
River) guide, was given the third woman;
(8) in 1645, Captain William Claiborne tried unsuccessfully
to establish treaty relations with the Rappahannocks, as the
Rappahannocks had not participated in the Pamunkey-led uprising
in 1644, and the English wanted to ``treat with the
Rappahannocks or any other Indians not in amity with
Opechancanough, concerning serving the county against the
Pamunkeys'';
(9) in April 1651, the Rappahannocks conveyed a tract of land
to an English settler, Colonel Morre Fauntleroy;
(10) the deed for the conveyance was signed by Accopatough,
weroance of the Rappahannock Indians;
(11) in September 1653, Lancaster County signed a treaty with
Rappahannock Indians, the terms of which treaty--
(A) gave Rappahannocks the rights of Englishmen in
the county court; and
(B) attempted to make the Rappahannocks more
accountable under English law;
(12) in September 1653, Lancaster County defined and marked
the bounds of its Indian settlements;
(13) according to the Lancaster clerk of court, ``the tribe
called the great Rappahannocks lived on the Rappahannock Creek
just across the river above Tappahannock'';
(14) in September 1656, (Old) Rappahannock County (which, as
of the date of enactment of this Act, is comprised of Richmond
and Essex Counties, Virginia) signed a treaty with Rappahannock
Indians that--
(A) mirrored the Lancaster County treaty from 1653;
and
(B) stated that--
(i) Rappahannocks were to be rewarded, in
Roanoke, for returning English fugitives; and
(ii) the English encouraged the Rappahannocks
to send their children to live among the
English as servants, who the English promised
would be well-treated;
(15) in 1658, the Virginia Assembly revised a 1652 Act
stating that ``there be no grants of land to any Englishman
whatsoever de futuro until the Indians be first served with the
proportion of 50 acres of land for each bowman'';
(16) in 1669, the colony conducted a census of Virginia
Indians;
(17) as of the date of that census--
(A) the majority of the Rappahannocks were residing
at their hunting village on the north side of the
Mattaponi River; and
(B) at the time of the visit, census-takers were
counting only the Indian tribes along the rivers, which
explains why only 30 Rappahannock bowmen were counted
on that river;
(18) the Rappahannocks used the hunting village on the north
side of the Mattaponi River as their primary residence until
the Rappahannocks were removed in 1684;
(19) in May 1677, the Treaty of Middle Plantation was signed
with England;
(20) the Pamunkey Queen Cockacoeske signed on behalf of the
Rappahannocks, ``who were supposed to be her tributaries'', but
before the treaty could be ratified, the Queen of Pamunkey
complained to the Virginia Colonial Council ``that she was
having trouble with Rappahannocks and Chickahominies,
supposedly tributaries of hers'';
(21) in November 1682, the Virginia Colonial Council
established a reservation for the Rappahannock Indians of 3,474
acres ``about the town where they dwelt'';
(22) the Rappahannock ``town'' was the hunting village on the
north side of the Mattaponi River, where the Rappahannocks had
lived throughout the 1670s;
(23) the acreage allotment of the reservation was based on
the 1658 Indian land act, which translates into a bowman
population of 70, or an approximate total Rappahannock
population of 350;
(24) in 1683, following raids by Iroquoian warriors on both
Indian and English settlements, the Virginia Colonial Council
ordered the Rappahannocks to leave their reservation and unite
with the Nanzatico Indians at Nanzatico Indian Town, which was
located across and up the Rappahannock River some 30 miles;
(25) between 1687 and 1699, the Rappahannocks migrated out of
Nanzatico, returning to the south side of the Rappahannock
River at Portobacco Indian Town;
(26) in 1706, by order of Essex County, Lieutenant Richard
Covington ``escorted'' the Portobaccos and Rappahannocks out of
Portobacco Indian Town, out of Essex County, and into King and
Queen County where they settled along the ridgeline between the
Rappahannock and Mattaponi Rivers, the site of their ancient
hunting village and 1682 reservation;
(27) during the 1760s, 3 Rappahannock girls were raised on
Thomas Nelson's Bleak Hill Plantation in King William County;
(28) of those girls--
(A) one married a Saunders man;
(B) one married a Johnson man; and
(C) one had 2 children, Edmund and Carter Nelson,
fathered by Thomas Cary Nelson;
(29) in the 19th century, those Saunders, Johnson, and Nelson
families are among the core Rappahannock families from which
the modern Tribe traces its descent;
(30) in 1819 and 1820, Edward Bird, John Bird (and his wife),
Carter Nelson, Edmund Nelson, and Carter Spurlock (all
Rappahannock ancestors) were listed on the tax roles of King
and Queen County and taxed at the county poor rate;
(31) Edmund Bird was added to the tax roles in 1821;
(32) those tax records are significant documentation because
the great majority of pre-1864 records for King and Queen
County were destroyed by fire;
(33) beginning in 1819, and continuing through the 1880s,
there was a solid Rappahannock presence in the membership at
Upper Essex Baptist Church;
(34) that was the first instance of conversion to
Christianity by at least some Rappahannock Indians;
(35) while twenty-six identifiable and traceable Rappahannock
surnames appear on the pre-1863 membership list, and twenty-
eight were listed on the 1863 membership roster, the number of
surnames listed had declined to twelve in 1878 and had risen
only slightly to fourteen by 1888;
(36) a reason for the decline is that in 1870, a Methodist
circuit rider, Joseph Mastin, secured funds to purchase land
and construct St. Stephens Baptist Church for the Rappahannocks
living nearby in Caroline County;
(37) Mastin referred to the Rappahannocks during the period
of 1850 to 1870 as ``Indians, having a great need for moral and
Christian guidance'';
(38) St. Stephens was the dominant tribal church until the
Rappahannock Indian Baptist Church was established in 1964;
(39) at both churches, the core Rappahannock family names of
Bird, Clarke, Fortune, Johnson, Nelson, Parker, and Richardson
predominate;
(40) during the early 1900s, James Mooney, noted
anthropologist, maintained correspondence with the
Rappahannocks, surveying them and instructing them on how to
formalize their tribal government;
(41) in November 1920, Speck visited the Rappahannocks and
assisted them in organizing the fight for their sovereign
rights;
(42) in 1921, the Rappahannocks were granted a charter from
the Commonwealth of Virginia formalizing their tribal
government;
(43) Speck began a professional relationship with the Tribe
that would last more than 30 years and document Rappahannock
history and traditions as never before;
(44) in April 1921, Rappahannock Chief George Nelson asked
the Governor of Virginia, Westmoreland Davis, to forward a
proclamation to the President of the United States, along with
an appended list of tribal members and a handwritten copy of
the proclamation itself;
(45) the letter concerned Indian freedom of speech and
assembly nationwide;
(46) in 1922, the Rappahannocks established a formal school
at Lloyds, Essex County, Virginia;
(47) prior to establishment of the school, Rappahannock
children were taught by a tribal member in Central Point,
Caroline County, Virginia;
(48) in December 1923, Rappahannock Chief George Nelson
testified before Congress appealing for a $50,000 appropriation
to establish an Indian school in Virginia;
(49) in 1930, the Rappahannocks were engaged in an ongoing
dispute with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States
Census Bureau about their classification in the 1930 Federal
census;
(50) in January 1930, Rappahannock Chief Otho S. Nelson wrote
to Leon Truesdell, Chief Statistician of the United States
Census Bureau, asking that the 218 enrolled Rappahannocks be
listed as Indians;
(51) in February 1930, Truesdell replied to Nelson saying
that ``special instructions'' were being given about
classifying Indians;
(52) in April 1930, Nelson wrote to William M. Steuart at the
Census Bureau asking about the enumerators' failure to classify
his people as Indians, saying that enumerators had not asked
the question about race when they interviewed his people;
(53) in a followup letter to Truesdell, Nelson reported that
the enumerators were ``flatly denying'' his people's request to
be listed as Indians and that the race question was completely
avoided during interviews;
(54) the Rappahannocks had spoken with Caroline and Essex
County enumerators, and with John M.W. Green at that point,
without success;
(55) Nelson asked Truesdell to list people as Indians if he
sent a list of members;
(56) the matter was settled by William Steuart, who concluded
that the Bureau's rule was that people of Indian descent could
be classified as ``Indian'' only if Indian ``blood''
predominated and ``Indian'' identity was accepted in the local
community;
(57) the Virginia Vital Statistics Bureau classed all
nonreservation Indians as ``Negro'', and it failed to see why
``an exception should be made'' for the Rappahannocks;
(58) therefore, in 1925, the Indian Rights Association took
on the Rappahannock case to assist the Rappahannocks in
fighting for their recognition and rights as an Indian tribe;
(59) during the Second World War, the Pamunkeys, Mattaponis,
Chickahominies, and Rappahannocks had to fight the draft boards
with respect to their racial identities;
(60) the Virginia Vital Statistics Bureau insisted that
certain Indian draftees be inducted into Negro units;
(61) finally, 3 Rappahannocks were convicted of violating the
Federal draft laws and, after spending time in a Federal
prison, were granted conscientious objector status and served
out the remainder of the war working in military hospitals;
(62) in 1943, Frank Speck noted that there were approximately
25 communities of Indians left in the Eastern United States
that were entitled to Indian classification, including the
Rappahannocks;
(63) in the 1940s, Leon Truesdell, Chief Statistician, of the
United States Census Bureau, listed 118 members in the
Rappahannock Tribe in the Indian population of Virginia;
(64) on April 25, 1940, the Office of Indian Affairs of the
Department of the Interior included the Rappahannocks on a list
of Indian tribes classified by State and by agency;
(65) in 1948, the Smithsonian Institution Annual Report
included an article by William Harlen Gilbert entitled,
``Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States'', which
included and described the Rappahannock Tribe;
(66) in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Rappahannocks
operated a school at Indian Neck;
(67) the State agreed to pay a tribal teacher to teach 10
students bused by King and Queen County to Sharon Indian School
in King William County, Virginia;
(68) in 1965, Rappahannock students entered Marriott High
School (a White public school) by executive order of the
Governor of Virginia;
(69) in 1972, the Rappahannocks worked with the Coalition of
Eastern Native Americans to fight for Federal recognition;
(70) in 1979, the Coalition established a pottery and
artisans company, operating with other Virginia tribes;
(71) in 1980, the Rappahannocks received funding through the
Administration for Native Americans of the Department of Health
and Human Services to develop an economic program for the
Tribe; and
(72) in 1983, the Rappahannocks received State recognition as
an Indian tribe.

SEC. 242. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
(A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the
Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) an individual who has been placed on the
membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this
subtitle.
(3) Tribe.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Tribe'' means the
organization possessing the legal name Rappahannock
Tribe, Inc.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``Tribe'' does not include
any other Indian tribe, subtribe, band, or splinter
group the members of which represent themselves as
Rappahannock Indians.

SEC. 243. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to
federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area comprised of King and Queen
County, Caroline County, Essex County, and King William County,
Virginia.

SEC. 244. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 245. GOVERNING BODY.

SEC. 246. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on
or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of King and Queen County, Stafford County,
Spotsylvania County, Richmond County, Essex County, and
Caroline County, Virginia; and
(2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land
held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of King and Queen County, Richmond County, Lancaster
County, King George County, Essex County, Caroline County, New
Kent County, King William County, and James City County,
Virginia.
(b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final
written determination not later than three years of the date which the
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination
available to the Tribe.
(c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe,
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 247. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

Subtitle E--Monacan Indian Nation

SEC. 251. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) in 1677, the Monacan Tribe signed the Treaty of Middle
Plantation between Charles II of England and 12 Indian ``Kings
and Chief Men'';
(2) in 1722, in the Treaty of Albany, Governor Spotswood
negotiated to save the Virginia Indians from extinction at the
hands of the Iroquois;
(3) specifically mentioned in the negotiations were the
Monacan tribes of the Totero (Tutelo), Saponi, Ocheneeches
(Occaneechi), Stengenocks, and Meipontskys;
(4) in 1790, the first national census recorded Benjamin
Evans and Robert Johns, both ancestors of the present Monacan
community, listed as ``white'' with mulatto children;
(5) in 1782, tax records also began for those families;
(6) in 1850, the United States census recorded 29 families,
mostly large, with Monacan surnames, the members of which are
genealogically related to the present community;
(7) in 1870, a log structure was built at the Bear Mountain
Indian Mission;
(8) in 1908, the structure became an Episcopal Mission and,
as of the date of enactment of this Act, the structure is
listed as a landmark on the National Register of Historic
Places;
(9) in 1920, 304 Amherst Indians were identified in the
United States census;
(10) from 1930 through 1931, numerous letters from Monacans
to the Bureau of the Census resulted from the decision of Dr.
Walter Plecker, former head of the Bureau of Vital Statistics
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to allow Indians to
register as Indians for the 1930 census;
(11) the Monacans eventually succeeded in being allowed to
claim their race, albeit with an asterisk attached to a note
from Dr. Plecker stating that there were no Indians in
Virginia;
(12) in 1947, D'Arcy McNickle, a Salish Indian, saw some of
the children at the Amherst Mission and requested that the
Cherokee Agency visit them because they appeared to be Indian;
(13) that letter was forwarded to the Department of the
Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Chicago, Illinois;
(14) Chief Jarrett Blythe of the Eastern Band of Cherokee did
visit the Mission and wrote that he ``would be willing to
accept these children in the Cherokee school'';
(15) in 1979, a Federal Coalition of Eastern Native Americans
established the entity known as ``Monacan Co-operative
Pottery'' at the Amherst Mission;
(16) some important pieces were produced at Monacan Co-
operative Pottery, including a piece that was sold to the
Smithsonian Institution;
(17) the Mattaponi-Pamunkey-Monacan Consortium, established
in 1981, has since been organized as a nonprofit corporation
that serves as a vehicle to obtain funds for those Indian
tribes from the Department of Labor under Native American
programs;
(18) in 1989, the Monacan Tribe was recognized by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which enabled the Tribe to apply for
grants and participate in other programs; and
(19) in 1993, the Monacan Tribe received tax-exempt status as
a nonprofit corporation from the Internal Revenue Service.

SEC. 252. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 253. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to
federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area comprised of all land within 25
miles from the center of Amherst, Virginia.

SEC. 254. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 255. GOVERNING BODY.

SEC. 256. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on
or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of Amherst County, Virginia; and
(2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land
held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of Amherst County, Virginia, and those parcels in
Rockbridge County, Virginia (subject to the consent of the
local unit of government), owned by Mr. J. Poole, described as
East 731 Sandbridge (encompassing approximately 4.74 acres) and
East 731 (encompassing approximately 5.12 acres).
(b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final
written determination not later than three years of the date which the
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination
available to the Tribe.
(c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe,
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 257. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

Subtitle F--Nansemond Indian Tribe

SEC. 261. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) from 1607 until 1646, Nansemond Indians--
(A) lived approximately 30 miles from Jamestown; and
(B) were significantly involved in English-Indian
affairs;
(2) after 1646, there were 2 sections of Nansemonds in
communication with each other, the Christianized Nansemonds in
Norfolk County, who lived as citizens, and the traditionalist
Nansemonds, who lived further west;
(3) in 1638, according to an entry in a 17th century sermon
book still owned by the Chief's family, a Norfolk County
Englishman married a Nansemond woman;
(4) that man and woman are lineal ancestors of all of members
of the Nansemond Indian tribe alive as of the date of enactment
of this Act, as are some of the traditionalist Nansemonds;
(5) in 1669, the 2 Nansemond sections appeared in Virginia
Colony's census of Indian bowmen;
(6) in 1677, Nansemond Indians were signatories to the Treaty
of 1677 with the King of England;
(7) in 1700 and 1704, the Nansemonds and other Virginia
Indian tribes were prevented by Virginia Colony from making a
separate peace with the Iroquois;
(8) Virginia represented those Indian tribes in the final
Treaty of Albany, 1722;
(9) in 1711, a Nansemond boy attended the Indian School at
the College of William and Mary;
(10) in 1727, Norfolk County granted William Bass and his
kinsmen the ``Indian privileges'' of clearing swamp land and
bearing arms (which privileges were forbidden to other non-
Whites) because of their Nansemond ancestry, which meant that
Bass and his kinsmen were original inhabitants of that land;
(11) in 1742, Norfolk County issued a certificate of
Nansemond descent to William Bass;
(12) from the 1740s to the 1790s, the traditionalist section
of the Nansemond tribe, 40 miles west of the Christianized
Nansemonds, was dealing with reservation land;
(13) the last surviving members of that section sold out in
1792 with the permission of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
(14) in 1797, Norfolk County issued a certificate stating
that William Bass was of Indian and English descent, and that
his Indian line of ancestry ran directly back to the early 18th
century elder in a traditionalist section of Nansemonds on the
reservation;
(15) in 1833, Virginia enacted a law enabling people of
European and Indian descent to obtain a special certificate of
ancestry;
(16) the law originated from the county in which Nansemonds
lived, and mostly Nansemonds, with a few people from other
counties, took advantage of the new law;
(17) a Methodist mission established around 1850 for
Nansemonds is currently a standard Methodist congregation with
Nansemond members;
(18) in 1901, Smithsonian anthropologist James Mooney--
(A) visited the Nansemonds; and
(B) completed a tribal census that counted 61
households and was later published;
(19) in 1922, Nansemonds were given a special Indian school
in the segregated school system of Norfolk County;
(20) the school survived only a few years;
(21) in 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank
Speck published a book on modern Virginia Indians that included
a section on the Nansemonds; and
(22) the Nansemonds were organized formally, with elected
officers, in 1984, and later applied for and received State
recognition.

SEC. 262. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 263. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--
(1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the
Tribe.
(2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations)
of the United States of general applicability to Indians or
nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not
inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the
Tribe and tribal members.
(b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all
services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to
federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the
existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
(2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal
services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall
be considered to be the area comprised of the cities of
Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth,
Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

SEC. 264. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

SEC. 265. GOVERNING BODY.

SEC. 266. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the
Interior--
(1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any
land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on
or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of the city of Suffolk, the city of Chesapeake, or
Isle of Wight County, Virginia; and
(2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land
held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the
boundaries of the city of Suffolk, the city of Chesapeake, or
Isle of Wight County, Virginia.
(b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final
written determination not later than three years of the date which the
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination
available to the Tribe.
(c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe,
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 267. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe
and members of the Tribe.

TITLE III--LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians Restoration Act of 2016''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a political
successor to signatories of the Pembina Treaty of 1863, under
which a large area of land in the State of North Dakota was
ceded to the United States;
(2) the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa of North Dakota and
the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation of
Montana, which also are political successors to the signatories
of the Pembina Treaty of 1863, have been recognized by the
Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes;
(3) the members of the Little Shell Tribe continue to live in
the State of Montana, as their ancestors have for more than 100
years since ceding land in the State of North Dakota as
described in paragraph (1);
(4) in the 1930s and 1940s, the Tribe repeatedly petitioned
the Federal Government for reorganization under the Act of June
18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the
``Indian Reorganization Act'');
(5) Federal agents who visited the Tribe and Commissioner of
Indian Affairs John Collier attested to the responsibility of
the Federal Government for the Tribe and members of the Tribe,
concluding that members of the Tribe are eligible for, and
should be provided with, trust land, making the Tribe eligible
for reorganization under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C.
461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization
Act'');
(6) due to a lack of Federal appropriations during the
Depression, the Bureau of Indian Affairs lacked adequate
financial resources to purchase land for the Tribe, and the
members of the Tribe were denied the opportunity to reorganize;
(7) in spite of the failure of the Federal Government to
appropriate adequate funding to secure land for the Tribe as
required for reorganization under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25
U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian
Reorganization Act''), the Tribe continued to exist as a
separate community, with leaders exhibiting clear political
authority;
(8) the Tribe, together with the Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa of North Dakota and the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the
Rocky Boy's Reservation of Montana, filed 2 lawsuits under the
Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049) (commonly known as the
``Indian Claims Commission Act''), to petition for additional
compensation for land ceded to the United States under the
Pembina Treaty of 1863 and the McCumber Agreement of 1892;
(9) in 1971 and 1982, pursuant to Acts of Congress, the
tribes received awards for the claims described in paragraph
(8);
(10) in 1978, the Tribe submitted to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs a petition for Federal recognition, which is still
pending as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(11) the Federal Government, the State of Montana, and the
other federally recognized Indian tribes of the State have had
continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of
the Tribe since the 1930s.

SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Member.--The term ``member'' means an individual who is
enrolled in the Tribe pursuant to section 307.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Little Shell Tribe
of Chippewa Indians of Montana.

SEC. 304. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) In General.--Federal recognition is extended to the Tribe.
(b) Effect of Federal Laws.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, all Federal laws (including regulations) of general application
to Indians and Indian tribes, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25
U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization
Act''), shall apply to the Tribe and members.

SEC. 305. FEDERAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the
Tribe and each member shall be eligible for all services and benefits
provided by the United States to Indians and federally recognized
Indian tribes, without regard to--
(1) the existence of a reservation for the Tribe; or
(2) the location of the residence of any member on or near an
Indian reservation.
(b) Service Area.--For purposes of the delivery of services and
benefits to members, the service area of the Tribe shall be considered
to be the area comprised of Blaine, Cascade, Glacier, and Hill Counties
in the State of Montana.

SEC. 306. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

(a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes any right or
privilege of the Tribe or any member that existed before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Claims of Tribe.--Except as otherwise provided in this title,
nothing in this title alters or affects any legal or equitable claim of
the Tribe to enforce any right or privilege reserved by, or granted to,
the Tribe that was wrongfully denied to, or taken from, the Tribe
before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 307. MEMBERSHIP ROLL.

(a) In General.--As a condition of receiving recognition, services,
and benefits pursuant to this title, the Tribe shall submit to the
Secretary, by not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, a membership roll consisting of the name of each individual
enrolled as a member of the Tribe.
(b) Determination of Membership.--The qualifications for inclusion on
the membership roll of the Tribe shall be determined in accordance with
sections 1 through 3 of article 5 of the constitution of the Tribe
dated September 10, 1977 (including amendments to the constitution).
(c) Maintenance of Roll.--The Tribe shall maintain the membership
roll under this section.

SEC. 308. TRANSFER OF LAND.

(a) Homeland.--The Secretary shall acquire, for the benefit of the
Tribe, trust title to 200 acres of land within the service area of the
Tribe to be used for a tribal land base.
(b) Additional Land.--The Secretary may acquire additional land for
the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 18,
1934 (25 U.S.C. 465) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization
Act'').

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3764 is to provide that an Indian group
may receive Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe only by
an Act of Congress.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 3764 reclaims Congress's Constitutional Article I role
over recognizing tribes from the Executive Branch, which has
wrongly appropriated this power. The bill establishes a
statutory process for examining the evidence submitted by
groups seeking recognition as tribes and for reserving to
Congress the prerogative to render a final determination.
H.R. 3764 is necessary because the Indian Commerce Clause
(Article I, Section 8) gives sole responsibility for Indian
policy to Congress (not to the Secretary of the Interior or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs). The Committee holds that this is a
separation of powers issue of significant constitutional
importance, rather than a parochial Indian matter.
The Framers vested responsibility over Indian affairs to
the Congress--the political branch. Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3 of the Constitution grants Congress power to
``regulate commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.''
Supplemented by the Treaty making power\1\ in the Constitution,
the so-called Indian Commerce Clause delegates to Congress what
the Supreme Court has said is ``plenary'' power over Indian
affairs.\2\ Inherent in this delegation of authority to
Congress is the power to recognize a tribe, as well as the
prerogative not to extend recognition. Congress may create,
modify, or terminate any of the services, benefits, powers, and
privileges described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Treaty making with the Indian tribes was abolished by Congress
in 1871 (``. . . Provided, That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe
within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or
recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the
United States may contract by treaty . . .'' [U.S. Statutes at Large,
16:566]).
\2\According to the Supreme Court, Congress's power regarding
Indian tribes ``has always been deemed a political one, not subject to
be controlled by the judicial department of the government.'' Lone Wolf
v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) at 565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal recognition of an Indian tribe is a solemn act of
the United States, with substantial, long-term consequences not
only to the tribe's members, but to other tribes, states, and
non-Indian citizens. A federally recognized tribe is eligible
to obtain a variety of federal services and benefits and to
enjoy certain powers and privileges available to it because of
the Indian status of its members. These include: immunity from
taxation and from state civil and criminal jurisdiction;
operation of a non-taxable casino; absolute sovereign immunity
against any person or government except the federal government;
federal protection in controversies where states, local
governments, or private citizens are adverse parties; and the
exercise of special political authority over Indians in the
tribe's territory. Current law authorizes the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) to accept title to Indian land in trust,
divesting state and local government jurisdiction over such
property. A tribe is not deemed to be a party to the
Constitution and as a result, an individual in tribal court
does not possess the rights guaranteed by the Constitution,
except as provided by Act of Congress. Federally recognizing a
tribe incurs an obligation on Congress to increase funding for
Indian programs lest the share of funds for other tribes is
reduced by the addition of individuals eligible for benefits
from the government.
While the Executive Branch has played an important role in
Indian affairs, often serving as a first point of contact with
the tribes and to carry out Acts of Congress concerning the
administration of tribal affairs, the historical record is
clear: federal Indian policy, which includes the question of
extending formal recognition to a tribe, is not the province of
an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy (today known as the
BIA), but to the elected, publicly accountable branch of
government.
The importance of reserving the power over recognizing a
tribe to the accountable branch of government is highlighted by
a tribal leader in the second legislative hearing on H.R. 3764,
testifying that ``the current process [of federally recognizing
tribes] is inherently flawed and subject to influence by those
who have the best relationships within the Executive
Branch.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
martin_testimony_12_8_15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, in recent years Congress has often
passed legislation to recognize new tribes whose histories were
not often clear or fully examined. Where the BIA hires
professional historians and ethnographers to process and
evaluate documented petitions from groups seeking recognition,
the Congress generally does not.
H.R. 3764 combines the analytical expertise of BIA's
personnel with the judgment of a more transparent, accountable
Congress.

BIA Regulations

In 1978, the BIA crafted tribal recognition regulations--
now contained in 25 CFR Part 8 to recognize any group that can
meet seven mandatory criteria to establish a continuous
existence as an autonomous Indian tribe throughout history to
the present. The BIA developed these regulations even as
Congress discussed, but did not enact, a bill to establish
standards and conditions for when federal recognition may be
extended to a tribe. Thus, the ``Part 83'' regulations, today
administered by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment of the
Department of the Interior, should not have the force of law.
The 1978 regulations (then codified in Part 54) cited the
following as the sources of authority for the BIA to recognize
tribes: ``5 U.S.C. 301; and sections 463 and 465 of the revised
statutes 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 230 DM 1 and 2.'' (``DM'' in
the citation of BIA authority stands for Departmental Manual,
which is not a source of law). Today, the Part 83 regulations
cite the following as the sources of authority for the BIA to
recognize tribes: ``5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C 2, 9, 479a-1; Pub.
L. 103-454 Sec. 103 (Nov. 2, 1994); and 43 U.S.C. 1457.''
None of these sources on their face authorize the Executive
Branch, let alone an obscure office within a Bureau of the
Department of the Interior, to promulgate the Part 83
regulations or otherwise extend recognition without express
direction from Congress. A discussion of each statute the BIA
wrongly cites as a delegation of power to create rules for the
recognition of tribes follows here.
5 U.S.C. 301 is merely an authorization for all Executive
departments to promulgate rules, and not a source of authority
for a specific rule.
25 U.S.C. 2 (Section 43 of the Revised Statutes). Duties of
Commissioner
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to
such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the
management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out
of Indian relations.
This provision of law is a codification of a section of the
Revised Statutes derived from the Act of July 9, 1932, ch. 174,
section 1, 4 Stat. 564. 25 U.S.C. 2 simply creates a position
of Commission of Indian Affairs within the War Department.
Congress believed it to be necessary to enact this law because
``Secretary of War [John C.] Calhoun, by his own order, and
without special authorization from Congress, created in the War
Department what he called the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA].
To head the office Calhoun appointed McKenney [a Superintendent
of Indian Trade] and assigned him two clerks as assistants. . .
.''\4\ (Italics added for emphasis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative
Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834, at 57 (1971
ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statute cannot be reasonably read to imply that the
early 19th-century creation of a relatively small bureaucratic
post carries with it the solemn power to recognize tribal
nations endowed with the large range of powers, privileges, and
immunities described previously.
25 U.S.C. 9. Regulations by President
The President may prescribe such regulations as he may
think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of
any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of
the accounts of Indian affairs.
This provision of law is derived from the Act of June 30,
1834, ch. 162, Sec. 17, 4 Stat. 738. The plain text
unambiguously does not authorize the President or anyone else
to extend federal recognition to a tribe. 25 U.S.C. 9 simply
authorizes the President to prescribe regulations for
``carrying into effect'' laws concerning tribal affairs and for
the settlement of their accounts. It is not a substantive
source of authority for the laws that the President's
regulations implement.
25 U.S.C. 479a-1, now reclassified as 25 U.S.C. 5131.
Sec. 5131. Publication of list of recognized tribes
(a) Publication of List.--The Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register a list of all Indian tribes which the
Secretary recognizes to be eligible for the special programs
and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians.
(b) Frequency of Publication.--The list shall be published
within 60 days of November 2, 1994, and annually on or before
every January 30 thereafter.
This statute does not provide a substantive source of
authority for the Secretary of the Interior to recognize
tribes. Its purpose is to require the Secretary of the Interior
to implement the administrative duty of publishing a list of
federally recognized tribes on an annual basis in the Federal
Register.
Excerpts of the statements of the House Floor Managers
describing the purpose and intent of Title I of H.R. 4180,
later codified as 25 U.S.C. 479a (now 25 U.S.C. 5131), reveal
no authority was granted to the Secretary to extend recognition
to tribes:

Mr. RICHARDSON [Majority Floor Manager]. Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 4180 is a bill with three titles. The first title
simply requires the Secretary of the Interior to
promulgate an annual list of federally recognized
Indian tribes.
Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming [Minority Floor Manager]. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 4180 I rise to
urge my colleagues to support it. Title I would require
the Secretary to publish an annual list of all the
recognized tribes. Congressional Record, Oct. 3, 1994,
page H10490)
Public Law 103-454, Sec. 103 (Nov. 2, 1994).

SEC. 103. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) the Constitution, as interpreted by Federal case
law, invests Congress with plenary authority over
Indian Affairs;
(2) ancillary to that authority, the United States
has a trust responsibility to recognized Indian tribes,
maintains a government-to-government relationship with
those tribes, and recognizes the sovereignty of those
tribes;
(3) Indian tribes presently may be recognized by Act
of Congress; by the administrative procedures set forth
in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations
denominated `Procedures for Establishing that an
American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe;' or by
a decision of a United States court;
(4) a tribe which has been recognized in one of these
manners may not be terminated except by an Act of
Congress;
(5) Congress has expressly repudiated the policy of
terminating recognized Indian tribes, and has actively
sought to restore recognition to tribes that previously
have been terminated;
(6) the Secretary of the Interior is charged with the
responsibility of keeping a list of all federally
recognized tribes;
(7) the list published by the Secretary should be
accurate, regularly updated, and regularly published,
since it is used by the various departments and
agencies of the United States to determine the
eligibility of certain groups to receive services from
the United States; and
(8) the list of federally recognized tribes which the
Secretary publishes should reflect all of the federally
recognized Indian tribes in the United States which are
eligible for the special programs and services provided
by the United States to Indians because of their status
as Indians.
Section 103 of Public Law 103-454 is no more than a set of
``Findings.'' Congressional findings are often points of
contention but are frequently included in acts because they
have no substantive force and effect and they do not provide a
substantive source of authority. As the Minority Floor Manager
for the bill enacted as Pubic Law 103-454, complained:
``[F]indings are not legally binding.'' (Congressional Record,
Oct. 3, 1994, page H10490).
43 U.S.C. 1457

Sec. 1457. Duties of Secretary

The Secretary of the Interior is charged with the
supervision of public business relating to the following
subjects and agencies:
1. Alaska Railroad.
2. Alaska Road Commission.
3. Bounty-lands.
4. Bureau of Land Management.
5. United States Bureau of Mines.
6. Bureau of Reclamation.
7. Division of Territories and Island Possessions.
8. Fish and Wildlife Service.
9. United States Geological Survey.
10. Indians.
11. National Park Service.
12. Petroleum conservation.
13. Public lands, including mines.

43 U.S.C. 1457 is derived from a large number of acts of
Congress dating back to 1849 and up to 1992. On its face this
section of the U.S. Code cannot be reasonably construed to
grant the Secretary of the Interior with power to promulgate
regulations for the recognition of new tribes any more than it
can be construed to give the Secretary power to create new U.S.
territories or new National Parks.
If it is assumed for the sake of argument that any or all
of these statutes vested the BIA with some kind of power to
promulgate the Part 83 regulations, there can be no question
that none of these statutes contain standards, guidelines, or
even suggestions for who may be eligible for federal
recognition as a tribe.
Addressing Opposition to Congress Reclaiming Power over
Tribal Recognition
Opponents of H.R. 3764 argue that the bill ``politicizes''
tribal recognition.\5\ In their view, the Department of the
Interior should have the primary role of making the rules for
recognizing tribes, not Congress. Inexplicably, several of the
Members who voted against H.R. 3764 in Committee because it
``politicizes'' tribal recognition have also cosponsored and
voted in favor of legislation to recognize new tribes that did
not undergo any formal analysis by the BIA. It would appear
that opponents of H.R. 3764 would prefer to extend legislative
recognition only to groups about which they know very little.
Either that or many of the opponents of H.R. 3764 hold
simultaneously contradictory views on the proper role of
Congress in tribal recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-
releases/ranking-member-grijalva-i-join-tribes-in-strongly-opposing-
just-pas$2$DKA1:[E.TRAP]sed-republican-bill-that-politicizes-tribal-
recognition-process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3764 is necessary to ensure that when such Members
cast their votes on a bill to recognize a tribe, they do so
after receiving the BIA's formal analysis of that group. This
improves Congress' ability to make fully informed, reasoned
decisions, and puts into its proper place the BIA's
unauthorized role over recognition, which has its own checkered
history of political machinations and unethical behavior (see
Office of Inspector General Investigative Report: ``Allegations
Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and
Concerns Related to Indian Gaming,'' February 2002, U.S.
Department of the Interior).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/01-i-329.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial BIA Revision of Recognition Standards
On July 1, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finalized a
controversial rule to revise the ``Part 83'' recognition
regulations.\7\ At an April 22, 2015, Subcommittee on Indian,
Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs hearing\8\, the then-
proposed rule was the focus of criticism from bipartisan
Members of the House and Senate, and from several federally
recognized tribes. Though the Government Accountability Office,
Members of Congress, federally recognized tribes, and other
interest holders (states and local governments) for years have
criticized the Part 83 process for being inefficient,
inconsistent, and lacking transparency, there has been
virtually no requests for the Administration to relax the
criteria or lower the evidentiary standards a petitioner must
meet to be acknowledged as a tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc1-
031255.pdf.
\8\http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Subcommittee's April hearing, the proposed
revisions were sharply criticized by several tribal witnesses.
For example, one tribal leader testified that ``the proposed
revisions fail to uphold or establish safeguards to protect the
federal government's treaty and trust obligations to existing
federally recognized tribes.''\9\ Another tribal witness asked
that the Department ``withdraw the proposed rule in its
entirety'' because the changes to recognition standards
``threaten the fabric which currently binds all tribal nations.
. . .''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Testimony of Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation.
\10\Testimony of Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission
Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed revisions were endorsed by the National
Congress of American Indians,\11\ even though a number of
recognized tribal governments have entered opposition to the
revisions into the public record.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Testimony of the National Congress of American Indians.
\12\A number of tribes and tribal organizations submitted comments
to the BIA raising concerns with the relaxation of criteria and
standards in the proposed rule; other tribes passed formal resolutions
opposing the proposed rule (e.g., see Resolution No. 15-13 of the
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule published in the Federal Register on July 1,
2015 (80 FR 37861), addressed some of the concerns raised by
tribes, non-tribal stakeholders, and certain Members of
Congress, but the rule remains flawed in two major respects:
(1) the standards and criteria, finalized by administrative
fiat, are not authorized by Congress; and (2) the standards and
criteria have been relaxed.
The Summary of the Final Rule states that the rule does not
substantively change the Part 83 criteria, except in two
instances: (1) allowing internal as well as external evidence
for . . . identity as an American Indian entity; and (2)
changing the way marriages are counted as evidence for . . .
community. This statement, however, is misleading. The final
rule makes several substantive changes that relax the
acknowledgment criteria. For example, petitioners will not have
to provide evidence prior to 1900 to meet criteria relating to
community, political influence or authority. This reduces the
evidentiary requirement for these criteria by 111 years. The
final rule also restricts the rights of third parties to
participate in the Secretary's review of a petition, compared
to the participants having an equal footing with the petitioner
under the previous rules.
In addition, without providing an explanation of its
grounds for doing so in the proposed rule, the final rule
eliminates the important requirement for the Department to
approve additions to a tribe's base roll so as to prevent a
tribe from transforming itself into a different entity after it
obtains recognition from the Secretary. Moreover, the rule
fails to address a troubling phenomenon that has grown in
recent years: that of certain Indian tribes rescinding the
membership of certain individuals from their rolls without
meaningful review by the Congress, the BIA, or the federal
courts.

Analysis of H.R. 3764

H.R. 3764 invokes Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 to set
forth a comprehensive process for determining whether a group
petitioning for recognition as an Indian tribe shall be
accorded such status. Under the bill, the BIA will process and
examine petitions according to standards borrowed from the Part
83 rules, and upon completion of its analysis, submits its
findings to Congress, which then decides whether to extend
recognition. The bill prohibits the Department of the Interior
from making the determination.
The process established by H.R. 3764 enables Members of
Congress to weigh the merits of a group's documented history
and the impact of extending recognition to them on: the federal
budget; the interests of other tribes, some of which assert
that petitioning groups are actually splinter groups of
existing tribes; and state and local governments, whose civil,
criminal, and tax jurisdiction is divested when a tribal
reservation is created.
It is anticipated that controversies such as off-
reservation gambling can be partly addressed through the
process created under H.R. 3764. Many of these disputes occur
after a tribe is recognized by the BIA (usually but not always
under the Part 83 process). Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act of 1988, a newly recognized tribe under Part 83 obtains the
right to operate a casino on its ``initial reservation,'' which
is on lands acquired by the tribe and put in trust by the BIA.
Such initial reservations are sometimes located in areas where
the local populace or the state opposes the presence of a
casino and the impacts it may bring. Because the BIA, not being
elected or accountable, may ignore objections of those most
affected by its decisions--and this usually includes nearby
Indian tribes--there is little anyone can do outside of filing
expensive lawsuits to persuade the BIA to locate the initial
reservation in an area presenting fewer conflicts.
Under H.R. 3764, if Congress chose to recognize a tribe, it
could write in appropriate stipulations and limits on the
tribe's powers to conduct gaming or the location of its trust
lands on which a casino may be operated. Congress would be
inclined to weigh interests of all stakeholders, including
states, counties, cities, landowners, and other tribes for the
simple fact that such stakeholders can hold them accountable
every two or six years. The BIA is incapable of properly
weighing such interests for the simple fact it is not elected,
and most BIA staff are career employees who, while well
intentioned, do not suffer any consequences for making the
wrong decisions.
In the Committee markup of H.R. 3764, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Rob Bishop was
adopted. The amendment made several technical changes, and
added two titles to recognize six Virginia tribes and a tribe
in Montana. Though not fully consistent with the requirement of
the underlying bill that a group undergo a formal analysis by
the BIA, these groups have been studied and debated in Congress
for several years. In addition, the group from Montana fully
documented a petition through the Part 83 process (that
petition, however, was initially rejected but the group has
appealed it). The addition of the two new titles represents a
compromise to show that Congress is willing to extend
recognition to tribes when the BIA's power to do so is
eliminated.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 3764 was introduced on October 20, 2015, by
Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. The
Subcommittee held two hearings on the bill, one on October 28,
2015, and another on December 8, 2015. On September 7, 2016,
the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman
Rob Bishop offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute
designated 001. Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
designated 037; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14
ayes to 20 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Congressman Raul M. Grijalva offered an amendment to the
amendment in nature of a substitute designated 040; it was not
adopted by a roll call vote of 16 ayes to 22 nays, as follows:

Congressman Raul Ruiz (D-CA) offered an amendment to the
amendment in nature of a substitute designated 039; it was
adopted by voice vote. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Congressman Rob Bishop (001), as amended,
was adopted by voice vote. No other amendments were offered,
and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 23
ayes to 13 nays on September 8, 2016, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act of
1974. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and
(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
and sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for
the bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 22, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3764, the Tribal
Recognition Act of 2016.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Robert
Reese (for programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs), and
Robert Stewart (for programs of the Indian Health Service).
Sincerely,
Mark P. Hadley
(For Keith Hall, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 3764--Tribal Recognition Act of 2016

Summary: H.R. 3764 would stipulate that an Indian group can
become a federally recognized Indian tribe only through the
Congress enacting legislation to that effect. The bill would
outline the process for such Indian groups to file petitions
for federal recognition with the Department of the Interior
(DOI).
The bill also would provide federal recognition to the
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and 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
$100 million over the 2017-2021 period, assuming appropriation
of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 3764 would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3764 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
H.R. 3764 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by exempting
some lands from taxation by state and local governments, but
CBO estimates the cost of the mandate would be small and well
below the threshold established in that act ($77 million in
2016, adjusted annually for inflation).
H.R. 3764 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 3764 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--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2020
2017 2018 2019 2021 2017-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Department of the Interior:
Estimated Authorization Level................... 9 9 9 9 10 46
Estimated Outlays............................... 8 9 9 9 10 45
Indian Health Service:
Estimated Authorization Level................... 11 11 11 11 11 55
Estimated Outlays............................... 11 11 11 11 11 55
Total Increases:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 20 20 20 20 21 101
Estimated Outlays........................... 19 20 20 20 21 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
3764 will be enacted before the end of calendar year 2016, that
the necessary amounts will be provided each year, and that
outlays will follow historical patterns for similar assistance
to other tribes.
The bill would repeal the current framework for the federal
government to recognize Indian groups as Indian tribes, which
has been in place since 2015. The bill also would stipulate new
administrative procedures for Indian groups to petition for
federal recognition. Those procedures would be similar to the
procedures that existed before 2015. CBO estimates that
implementing the procedures required in H.R. 3764 would not
significantly change DOI's administrative costs over the 2017-
2021 period. (In 2016, DOI allocated about $2 million for
administrative expenses related to Indian tribal recognition.)
H.R. 3764 also would provide federal recognition to an
Indian tribe in Montana and six Indian tribes in Virginia. Such
recognition would allow those tribes and about 7,460 tribal
members (including members of other federally recognized tribes
who live far from their own tribal service area, but close to
the service area of the tribes that would be recognized under
H.R. 3764) to receive benefits from various programs
administered by DOI and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Based on average per capita expenditures by DOI and the IHS
for other Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing H.R.
3764 would cost $100 million over the 2017-2021 period,
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Department of the Interior

DOI, primarily through the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
provides funding to federally recognized tribes for various
purposes, including child welfare services, adult care,
community development, and other general assistance. In total,
CBO estimates that providing those services to the seven tribes
that would be recognized under H.R. 3764 would cost $45 million
over the 2017-2021 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts and accounting for anticipated inflation.
That estimate reflects per capita expenditures for services
provided to the newly recognized tribes that would be similar
to those for other federally recognized tribes located in the
eastern states. (In 2015, the most recent year for which
historical information on such spending is available, per
capita expenditures for eastern tribes averaged about $1,200.)

Indian Health Service

H.R. 3764 also would make members of the tribes newly
recognized under H.R. 3764 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 4,300
people--would receive benefits each year. CBO expects that the
cost to serve those individuals would be similar to the costs
for current IHS beneficiaries--about $2,650 per individual in
2017. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds and
accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that health
benefits for those tribes would cost $55 million over the 2017-
2021 period.

Other Federal agencies

In addition to assistance from DOI and IHS, 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 and Montana, the tribes specified in the
bill are already eligible to receive support from those
departments. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3764
would not authorize additional spending by those agencies.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 3764 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in UMRA by exempting some lands from taxation by state and
local governments, but CBO estimates the cost of the mandate
would be small and well below the threshold established in that
act ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 3764 contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimates: CBO has transmitted estimates for
two other bills with provisions that are similar to provisions
of H.R. 3764:
On March 25, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate
for S. 35, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Restoration Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2015. S. 35 is similar
to Title III of H.R. 3764.
On March 26, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate
for S. 465, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia
Federal Recognition Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2015. S. 465 is
similar to Title II of H.R. 3764.
Differences in our estimates of spending subject to
appropriation under the relevant sections of H.R. 3764, S. 35,
and S. 465 reflect increases in the estimated size of tribal
populations served (because of expected growth between 2015 and
2017) and in the per capita cost of benefits provided by the
IHS.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Robert Reese--Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Robert Stewart--Indian Health Service;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Rachel Austin;
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to provide that an Indian group may
receive Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe only by an
Act of Congress.

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

DISSENTING VIEWS

Chairman Bishop's legislation would give Congress sole
authority to formally recognize Native American tribes. Aside
from further delaying an already interminable process, the bill
would consolidate the power of tribal recognition in the hands
of a very few Members of Congress, including the Chairman of
this Committee.
The Secretary of Interior's authority to acknowledge the
existence of Indian tribes is deeply rooted in the laws passed
by Congress and the structure of the Constitution. Congress
rightly granted the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs the
authority to ``have management of all Indian affairs and of all
matters arising out of Indian relations.''\1\ This includes the
authority to administratively acknowledge Indian tribes. This
authority is well established, and has been upheld by the
courts.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\25 U.S.C. Sec. 2 and Sec. 9, and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1457.
\2\See, e.g., Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana. Inc. v. United
States Dept of the Interior, 255 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 2001); James
v. United States Dep 't of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132, 1137
(D.C. Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional findings that supported the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 reiterated that Indian
tribes could be recognized ``by the administrative procedures
set forth in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations
denominated `Procedures for Establishing that an American
Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe,''' and described the
relationship that the United States has with federally
recognized tribes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Public Law 103-454 Sec. 103(2), (3), (8) (Nov. 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the power delegated by Congress, the
Executive Branch has independent constitutional authority to
recognize Tribal Nations through the Constitution's Treaty
Clause.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 3764 seeks to upset this recognized authority by
stipulating that only Congress has the authority to recognize
Indian tribes.
The bill obscures its true intent by setting forth its own
process by which a tribe can petition the Department of
Interior for recognition. However, the only requirement at the
end of that process would be for the Department to ``submit a
report including a summary of the evidence, findings, petition,
and supporting documentation, to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Indian Affairs of the Senate.'' There would be no final step
forward for administrative recognition.
Chairman Bishop successfully offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute (ANS) which added two new titles to the
end of the introduced bill consisting of the texts of H.R. 286:
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2015,
and H.R. 872: 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.
These are long overdue and non-controversial recognition
bills, both of which would have passed out of Committee
unanimously. Their inclusion in this highly controversial
legislation is a disservice to the six Virginia tribes and the
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana.
The ANS also amends Sec. 104 to require that any new
documented petitions must be filed within five years of
enactment of this Act. This has the effect of setting an
arbitrary deadline for the United States Government to halt the
entire tribal recognition process, no matter what future
evidence might show.
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva offered an amendment to remove
Title I and instead pass these two titles independently; the
amendment was defeated on a party line vote. The Ranking Member
also offered an amendment to ensure that all land taken into
trust prior to the Carcieri decision is reaffirmed as tribal
trust land, but this was also defeated along party fines.
Many tribes have still not established or reaffirmed their
relationship with the federal government. The Department of
Interior's Part 83 process provides a ton-partisan, research
based approach to determining the validity of tribal claims--a
rigorous, time-consuming process that is based on hard science
and meticulous investigation.
Taking that process away, and leaving an act of Congress as
the sole option will only result in further delays and
difficulties for tribes. Most dangerous of all, it will leave
tribal recognition decisions victim to political whims and
special interest influence.
For these reasons, we opposed the adoption of H.R. 3764.

Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Alan Lowenthal.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
Jared Polis.