Senate Report 113-209 - 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

[Senate Report 113-209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 348
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-209

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

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

_______

July 14, 2014.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1074]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1074) to extend Federal recognition to the
Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-
Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock
Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond
Indian Tribe, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do
pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1074 is to provide federal recognition to
six tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia--the Chickahominy
Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division,
the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the
Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe--and make
applicable to the tribal groups and their members all laws that
are generally applicable to American Indians and federally
recognized Indian tribes.

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Although there is a federal regulatory process by which an
Indian group may obtain federal recognition (described below),
the ability of a tribal group to meet the regulatory
requirements is highly dependent upon the availability of
documentary evidence and records. The six Virginia tribal
groups proposed for recognition in S. 1074 have suggested that
the unique history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and its
relations with these groups prevents them from being able to
meet the level of documentary evidence required by the
Department of the Interior.
Many of the courthouses that housed records and documents
related to these tribal groups burned during the Civil War.\1\
Thus, records up to the late 1800's are difficult to find for
these groups. Additionally, in 1924, the Commonwealth of
Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Law, thereby requiring all
segments of the population to be registered at birth in one of
two categories: ``White'' or ``colored.'' The ``colored''
category was mandated for all non-White persons regardless of
race or ethnicity. Officials from the State's Bureau of Vital
Statistics interpreted the law as allowing them to go back and
change a person's birth certificate to the ``colored'' category
if they believed that there was evidence that the person was
not fully White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., A Brief History of the Six Indian
Tribes Requesting Federal Acknowledgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary target of the Racial Integrity Law was the
African American community.\2\ However, proponents of the
agenda heralded by the Eugenics Movement saw the Virginia
Indian community as a threat. This was because the Racial
Integrity Law allowed persons of White and Virginia Indian
ancestry, as long as it was not more than \1/16\ of Indian
blood quantum, to be classified as ``White.''\3\ Supporters of
the law (including Dr. Walter Plecker, the Registrar for
Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics), saw the exception in
the law for Indians as an opportunity for persons of mixed
heritage of African-American and Native American ancestry to
move eventually out of the category of ``colored'' and into the
category of ``White.'' Thus, officials from the State's Bureau
of Vital Statistics actively sought to denigrate and deny
persons of Virginia Indian descent the right to identify
themselves as ``Indians'' or ``White'' and forced them to be
declared ``colored.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\To Extend Federal Recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, The
Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe,
The Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond
Tribe Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 107th Congress 2,
74-76 and 111-116 (2002) (statement of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz,
Ph.D., American Indian Resource Center, coordinator).
\3\Section 5 of 1924 Racial Integrity Act.
\4\Moretti-Langholtz,, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Racial Integrity Law remained in effect until 1967,
when the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v.
Virginia (388 U.S. 1) declared it unconstitutional. In 1997,
Virginia Governor George Allen signed into law a bill allowing
Virginia Indians to correct their birth records. However, the
six tribes contend that the existence of the law for several
decades makes it unlikely that adequate documentation exists to
meet the Department's current interpretation of the federal
regulations governing acknowledgment of Indian groups.
The Virginia Tribes never waged war on the United States of
America. The hostilities between the Virginia Tribes and the
Europeans who came here in 1607 effectively ended with the
Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677. This Treaty was signed
between England and the Virginia Tribes. Predating the creation
of the United States of America by just short of 100 years,
this Treaty was never recognized by the founding fathers of the
United States because it was not negotiated with them. Had the
Treaty been negotiated with the United States of America, these
Tribes would have historically been recognized from the
beginning of the United States as federal recognition has
historically been conferred by treaty in the vast majority of
cases (until Congress ended the practice in 1871). Although the
Treaty of Middle Plantation is still commemorated annually in
Virginia, and still governs the relationship between the Tribes
in Virginia and the Commonwealth, the Treaty has never been
recognized by the United States.
Granting Federal recognition to the six Virginia groups has
had strong support from the Commonwealth of Virginia. During
the 111th Congress, the Committee received a letter in support
of S. 1178, an identical bill to S. 1074, signed by then
Virginia Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, and six of the previous
State Governors.\5\ In 1999, both chambers of Virginia's
General Assembly agreed to H.J. 754 urging Congress to grant
Federal recognition to the Virginia tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Governor Timothy M. Kaine also sent the Committee a letter on
August 4, 2009 indicating that the State tax policy experts concluded
that passage of S. 1178 would have a negligible, if any, impact on the
Commonwealth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2007, both chambers of Virginia's General
Assembly agreed to S.J. 332, a resolution acknowledging the
involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of
Native Americans and calling for reconciliation among all
Virginians. During the 109th Congress, former Governor George
Allen, then-Senator, introduced S. 480, which would have
granted federal recognition to the six groups in S. 1074.

BACKGROUND

History of recognizing Indian tribes

The recognition of a Native American group as a federally
recognized Indian tribe is an important action. It is an
affirmation by the United States of a tribe's right to self-
government and the existence of a formal government-to-
government relationship between the United States and the
tribe. Once a tribe is federally recognized, it and its members
have access to federal benefits and programs, and the tribal
government incurs a responsibility to its members as the
primary governing body of the community.
Before Congress ended the practice of treaty-making with
Indian tribes in 1871, treaties were the usual manner of
establishing a government-to-government relationship between
the United States and an Indian tribe. Since the abolishment of
treaty-making, the United States has recognized Indian tribes
by executive order, legislation, and administrative decisions
by the Executive Branch.
Additionally, federal courts may clarify the status of an
Indian group, although in many cases the courts defer to the
Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
In order to provide a uniform and consistent process by
which to recognize an Indian group, the Department of the
Interior developed an administrative process in 1978 through
which Indian groups could petition for acknowledgment of a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
The standards for this process are set forth in Title 25 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 83, ``Procedures for
Establishing That An American Indian Group Exists As An Indian
Tribe.''
The regulations establish seven mandatory criteria, each of
which must be met before a group can achieve status as a
federally recognized Indian tribe. The criteria are as follows:
(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since
1900;
(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group
comprises a distinct community and has existed as a
community from historical times until the present;
(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence
or authority over its members as an autonomous entity
from historical times until the present;
(4) The group must provide a copy of its present
governing documents and membership criteria;
(5) The petitioner's membership consists of
individuals who descend from an historical Indian tribe
or from historical Indian tribes, which combined and
functioned as a single autonomous political entity;
(6) The membership of the petitioning group is
composed principally of persons who are not members of
any acknowledged North American Indian tribe; and
(7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the
subject of congressional legislation that has expressly
terminated or forbidden the federal relationship.
The regulations have remained essentially unchanged since
1978, with the exception of revisions clarifying the evidence
needed to support a recognition petition (1994), updated
guidelines on the process (1997), and a notice regarding BIA's
internal processing of federal acknowledgment petitions (2000
and 2008). The regulations are currently under review, and in
June 2013, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs released a
Discussion Draft with proposed changes to the regulations that
were developed by the Department of Interior Workgroup. The
comment period on the Discussion Draft closed in August 2013,
and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs released the
proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 22, 2014.
There have been numerous complaints about the process since
1978, but the primary complaints have been about the high cost
of gathering documentary evidence to meet the seven criteria
and the length of time it takes the Department to review a
petition. Since the Federal Acknowledgment Process regulations
were established in 1978, the Department has issued 49
decisions under the process. Of that number, 17 petitioners
were acknowledged as Indian tribes, and 32 petitioners were
denied acknowledgment.
Due to the problems associated with the Federal
acknowledgment process, an increasing number of tribal groups
have asked Congress to recognize or restore their status as
federally-recognized Indian tribes. Congress retains the
authority to recognize tribal groups, as Congress did with the
Loyal Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Graton Rancheria of
California in 2000 as a part of the Omnibus Indian Advancement
Act.\6\ Since 1982, Congress has restored or recognized 9
Indian tribes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See Pub. L. 106-568 (2000).
\7\http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc013624.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of Virginia Indian groups

When English settlers established the Jamestown Colony in
1607, there were approximately 40 Indian tribes existing in
what is now the Commonwealth of Virginia. The last treaty that
governed the relations between the tribes in Virginia and the
State (then the Colony of Virginia), and which still governs
that relationship, was the 1677 Middle Plantation Treaty. S.
1074 will recognize six tribal groups. A brief history of each
tribal group is described below.
The Monacan Indian Nation
The Monacan Indians are a part of forty Siouan groups in
the Virginia Piedmont region extending into the Carolinas.\8\
Recent ethnohistorical work has shown that the Monacan Indians
reached from the James and Rappahanock River fall lines in the
east to the Shenandoah Valley in the west, and as far south as
the Roanoke River.\9\ The Monacans moved westward from 1607-
1720s in two groups, with one staying in Ft. Christanna before
moving on to Pennsylvania and later Canada, while the other
group stayed in Amherst County, Virginia.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\L. Daniel Mouer, ``Powhatan and Monacan Regional Settlement
Hierarchies: A Model of Relationship between Social and Environmental
Structures,'' Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia 36, no. 1 (1981): 1-21.
\9\Jeffrey Hantman, ``Between Powhatan and Quirank''; Jeffrey
Hantman, ```Ancestral Monacan Society': Cultural and Temporal
Boundaries in Indian History in Virginia,'' paper presented at the
Society for American Archeology, 63rd annual meeting, March 1998; L.
Daniel Mouer, ``A Review of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the
Monacans,'' in Piedmont Archeology, Publication no. 10, ed. J. Mark
Witkofski and Lyle E. Browning (Richmond: Archaeological Society of
Virginia, 1983), 21-39.
\10\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up until the mid-1700s, the Monacans had fairly sparse
contact with English settlers. That changed as traders traveled
further along the James River in the 1750s. The Monacan Indians
had purposely lived in the Tobacco Row Mountains in order to
avoid contact with Europeans.\11\ However, encroaching
agriculture made this nearly impossible. By the end of the
Civil War, local farmers had begun to plant orchards in the
Tobacco Row Mountains, taking away the Monacans' home area.
Without land and without jobs, many Monacans worked the
orchards and tobacco fields as tenant farmers in a ``rigid,
semi-feudal system [that] exploited Indian labor
disproportionately'' due to their lack of status.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Samuel R. Cook, Monacans and Miners: Native American and Coal
Mining Communities in Appalachia (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 2000), 49-56.
\12\Samuel R. Cook, ``The Monacan Indian Nation: Asserting Tribal
Sovereignty in the Absence of Federal Recognition.'' Wicazo SA Review.
Fall, 2002. P 91-116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Monacans escaped this fate by ``passing'' as white in
order to obtain land deeds, such as the case of the Johns
Settlement at Bear Mountain. Under the Virginia Race Law of
1823, any child of an Indian, and any descendants of a Negro,
up to the great-grandchild would be counted as mulatto.\13\
Since free people of color (which is how Virginia labeled its
Natives until the Racial Integrity Act of 1924) could not own
land or vote, they had to legally renounce their ethnicity and
register as ``white'' to participate in Virginian society.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. This is
apparent in the 1790 national census in which Benjamin Evans and Robert
Johns (both Monacans) were recorded as ``White'' with mulatto children
instead of ``Indian.'' The families had been previously recorded
through tax records beginning in 1782.
\14\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1831, William Johns purchased 52 acres on Bear Mountain,
and another 400 acres in 1833. By 1850, 29 families related to
this Monacan community\15\ according to census records. When
the land was divided in 1856, the Amherst County clerk's office
recorded Monacan surnames of Beverly, Branham, Johns, Pinn and
Terry as receiving parcels of the Johns Settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1868, one of the Settlement parcels was donated to the
community to be used for a meeting place. Two years later in
1870 a wooden structure was built which the community used for
its church services with itinerant ministers, serving about 350
Indians. In 1896 a local newspaper article featured the Monacan
community, describing ``the older [members of the tribe] as
typical Indians, of a rich copper color, high cheek-bones,
long, straight black hair, tall and erect in form.'' Locals
commented that it had been called ``the Indian community'' as
long as anyone could remember.
The Episcopal Church established St. Paul's Mission at the
base of Bear Mountain in 1908. The mission became a unifying
factor of the Monacan community, providing a place of worship,
social gathering place and the only source of education for
many Monacan Indians from 1908 until its close in 1963 due to
integration.
In 1920, the United States Census listed 304 Indians in
Amherst County.
Throughout the 20th century, the Monacans became more
active as a tribe politically and culturally. Some of these
actions are exemplified by the Monacans' application for and
receipt of job training assistance in the 1970s under the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA),\16\ giving
their tribal members a better chance at obtaining jobs. In
1979, the Monacan Co-operative Pottery was established at the
Amherst Mission, eventually producing pieces sold to the
Smithsonian Institution. The tribe helped found the Mattaponi-
Pamunkey-Monacan Consortium in 1981 in order to obtain funds
from Department of Labor programs for Native Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Cook, Monacans and Miners, 116-118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Monacan Indian Nation obtained State recognition in
1989. They established a non-profit corporation in 1993 to
formalize their community and create rules for its governance
in lieu of federal recognition as a sovereign nation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\``Monacan Indian Nation.'' 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc.
Nov 11, 2009. http://www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nansemond Indian Tribe
When the English first arrived in Virginia in 1607, the
Nansemond people numbered around 1,200 people\18\ and made up
part of the Powhatan Confederacy. Their original land was
located 30 miles from Jamestown, making a large amount of
interaction with English settlers inevitable. In 1608, a group
of Englishmen led by John Smith raided a Nansemond town, and
threatened more destruction unless the Nansemond paid 400
bushels of corn to his men.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\``The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.''
Nansemond and Powhatan History. 2009. Nansemond Tribal Association. Nov
13, 2009. http://www.nansemond.org/joomla/
index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=30.
\19\Waugaman, Sandra F. and Danielle-Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D. We're
Still Here: Contemporary Virginia Indians Tell Their Stories, Richmond,
VA: Palari Publishing, 2006 (revised edition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribe split into two groups by 1646, with one group
remaining on their homeland and adopting the English farming
lifestyle. These became the Christianized Nansemonds. In 1669,
the Virginia census records show two distinct Nansemond groups
of Indians.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\S. 379, Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of
2011, 112th Cong. Sec. 601(2) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The non-Christianized, ``traditionalist'' group attacked
the English in 1644 and then fled westward to the Nottaway
River where Virginia had assigned the Nottaway Indians a
reservation. By 1664, the Nansemond Indians were given a poor
tract of land as their reservation, which they later sold
off.\21\ The reservation was sold in 1792 since this group of
Nansemond had abandoned it in 1744 to live with the Nottaway
Tribe on their reservation. Unfortunately this group eventually
dispersed or died out, with the last Nansemond living on the
Nottoway reservation dying in 1806.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\S. Report No. 108-259 (2004).
\22\See ``The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website,''
supra 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the Christianized Nansemonds had moved near
Dismal Swamp to avoid contact with the English and to find more
productive lands. During the 1830s when Virginia passed more
rigid racial laws, the Nansemond lobbied their delegate to pass
a law exempting them, which they achieved in 1833. They were
able to register as ``of mixed blood, not being Negro or
mulatto.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Methodist Church established a mission for the
Nansemond in 1850, eventually adding a schoolhouse in the 1890s
to better educate their children.\24\ The Nansemond had
historically promoted education within their ranks, even
sending one of their boys to Bafferton Indian School at the
College of William and Mary in 1711. In 1922, the Nansemond
received funding for an Indian school from the County, which
served their community for a few years. Although short-lived,
the school was a great victory in a time when only two races
were recognized in the Commonwealth of Virginia and few
supported funding a third segregated school system.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\S. 379, Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of
2011, 112th Cong. Sec. 601(17).
\25\Legislative Hearing on S. 724, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians Restoration Act of 2007; S. 514, Muskogee Nation of Florida
Federal Recognition Act; S. 1058, Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians
of Michigan Referral Act; H.R. 1294, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes
of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007 Before the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs, 110th Cong. 2, 28-30 (2008) (statement of Helen C.
Rountree).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to James Mooney's 1901 census, the Nansemond
Tribe had 180 members. The Nansemond first attempted to obtain
recognition in the 1920s with the encouragement of
anthropologist Frank Speck. The Tribe obtained State
recognition in 1985.
The Chickahominy Indian Tribe
When Jamestown was established, the Chickahominy lived
nearby in present-day New Kent County. This proximity allowed
for much interaction between the Chickahominy and the English
settlers. The Chickahominy were an Algonquian speaking people
numbering between 600-900 people.\26\ Although allies with the
Powhatan Confederacy, the Chickahominy were fairly independent
and had their own form of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving members of the Paspaheg Tribe found refuge with
the Chickahominy during August 1610 after the family of Chief
Wowinchopunk was murdered by settlers.\27\ In the Treaty of
1614 with Jamestown's governor Sir Thomas Dale, the Tribe
promised 300 warriors to fight against the Spanish\28\ and
received the right to self-governance in return. In 1623, and
again in 1627, the Chickahominy were victims of raids.\29\ In
1646, the Chickahominy signed a treaty granting them a
reservation in Pamunkey Neck near the present-day Mattaponi
Reservation and in present-day King William County. In 1677,
Chickahominy representatives signed the Treaty of Middle
Plantation between several tribes and the King of England.\30\
In 1702, the Tribe was forced from its reservation and lost the
lands in 1718.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal
Recognition Act and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan
Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006).
\28\See S. 379, supra note 20.
\29\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009.
.
\30\See Rountree, supra note 25, and S. 379, 112th Cong., supra
note 20.
\31\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around 1750, the Chickahominy began moving back to their
land in New Kent and Charles City Counties.\32\ Charles City
County census records show modern-day Chickahominy surnames in
the area beginning in 1831.\33\ New Kent County records began
documenting Chickahominy people in an 1840 Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(8) (2011).
\33\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(10) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1901, the Tribe established the Samaria Baptist Church
and bought nearby land for tribal use.\34\ In the early 1900s
they also established the Samaria School for their children's
education up until 8th grade, paying teacher salaries out of
donated funds.\35\ The Tribe also created a tax on Chickahominy
men from 1901 until 1935 to fund the building of the school,
buy supplies and pay the teacher's salary. The Tribe's school
was integrated in 1968 as a primary school for the county.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\S. 379, 111th Cong. Sec. 101(11) (2011).
\35\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians:
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009.
http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php.
\36\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(12) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to be married as Chickahominy Indians instead of
as ``colored'' under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924,
some tribal members travelled out of State. The parents of
tribal member Stephen Adkins, for example, were fortunate in
being able to do this, and were married on February 20, 1935 in
Washington, D.C., thereby avoiding the loss of their Native
identity.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal
Recognition Act and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan
Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1920s, the governors of Virginia wrote letters of
introduction for the Chickahominy chiefs, who had official
business in Washington, D.C. In 1934, Chickahominy Chief O.O.
Adkins wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier,
requesting funding for construction of a school, medical
facilities, a library and agricultural tools. Collier responded
that Congress had passed the Indian Reorganization Act on June
18th of that year, but hadn't appropriated the funding. Chief
O.O. Adkins again sought Collier's help in 1942 when
Chickahominy men demanded proper racial designations before
entering the Selective Service. Although Collier's office could
not officially intervene ``as a matter largely of historical
accident,'' Collier did ask Richmond News-Leader editor Douglas
S. Freeman to help the Virginia Indians obtain proper racial
designations on their birth records.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\See S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 101(15)-(20) (2011) and
Rountree statement, supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interactions between the Chickahominy Indians and the
Federal government continued through later years. In 1961,
Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights of the U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, requested information from Chickahominy Chief O.O.
Adkins about Indians' constitutional rights ``in [his] area''
in Virginia.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(25) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chickahominy Indians built a tribal center in 1974
funded by tribal members through monthly pledges.\40\ Their
assertion of tribal government came to a head in 1983 when they
received State recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Currently there are about 750 Chickahominy living within 5
miles of the tribal center and hundreds more in other parts of
the country.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 101(28) (2011).
\41\``William & Mary Arts and Sciences.'' Virginia Indians:
Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009.
http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division
The early history of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern
Division is the same as that of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe,
as the two tribes acted as one until the early 1900s.
Two fires consumed all New Kent County records prior to
1870, but an enclave of Indians in New Kent County are shown in
the Virginia Census of 1870. These are the ancestors of the
Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 201(11) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe established the
Samaria Indian Baptist Church. However, two factions formed
within the Tribe soon, splitting over whether to press the
State for a reservation and whether to establish a new church.
The Tsena Comocko Indian Baptist Church was built in 1922 in
spite of the dissenting members.\43\ Unable to resolve their
differences, the group forming the new church organized
themselves as the Chickahominy Eastern Division Indians. The
Eastern Division began forming its government in 1920,
eventually incorporating under State law in 1925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990. P. 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the Tribe was split, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--
Eastern Division started a one-room schoolhouse in New Kent
County called the Boulevard Indian School. In 1950, the tribal
school was closed and the children started attending the
Samaria Indian School again, but that school was closed in 1967
when Virginia integrated its public school system.
Although they had split from the Chickahominy Tribe, the
Chickahominy Eastern Division stayed linked to the
Chickahominy. Both groups used the same school facilities, with
Eastern Division children attending Samaria Indian School after
the 1-room Indian school in New Kent County closed in 1950.
They also had to find new schools when the Samaria Indian
School was desegregated in 1967.
In the late 1970's, the Tribe was awarded a grant from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to buy 2
mobile homes to be used as office and classroom space. Another
grant from the Administration of Native Americans was used for
the purchase and improvement of office equipment and supplies.
The Tribe received State recognition in 1983. Today the tribe
numbers 130 people in New Kent County.
The Upper Mattaponi Tribe
Captain John Smith first visited the Passaunkack village in
1608, which is in the location of the modern-day Upper
Mattaponi. On one of John Smith's maps from 1612, he locates
the village in the Tribe's present-day location.\44\ August
Hermann mapped the area in 1676, labeling several ``Indian
houses'' in the same location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Virginia Department of Education. ``Virginia's First People:
Past and Present.'' History. 2005. Prince William County Network,
Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009.
http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi Tribe shares its earlier history with
the Chickahominy Indian Tribe as they were forced together
through treaties with the English. The Upper Mattaponi sought
refuge with the Chickahominy after being attacked by Seneca
Indians in 1683, beginning many years of shared history. The
Virginia Colony assigned both tribes to a reservation in 1695,
which they later traded for ``the cliffs'' (an area currently
encompassed by the Mattaponi Indian Reservation).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\H.R. Rep. No. 110-124, at 6 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1726 the Virginia Colony stopped funding interpreters in
their dealings with the Upper Mattaponi--apparently enough
Indians knew English so the interpreters were no longer
necessary. However, not all the interpreters left. James Adams
stayed with the Upper Mattaponi, giving his surname to many of
today's tribal members.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 301 (10)-(12) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson mentioned the Upper Mattaponi on their
King William County reservation in 1787, and referred to the
Chickahominy as ``blended'' with the Upper Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Indians.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 301(13) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal census in 1850 showed 10 Upper Mattaponi families
living in King William County, Virginia. King William County
records also indicate Upper Mattaponis residing in the county.
An 1863 Civil War map designated the area ``Indian land.'' King
William County court records list ``Indians'' marrying and
residing on the King William County reservation, undoubtedly
referring to the Upper Mattaponi.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(14)-(16) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refusing to enlist in the Confederate Army during the Civil
War, the Upper Mattaponis stayed neutral. Although not directly
involved in the war, gunboats typically sailed past the
reservation, and a slave ship was sunk nearby as well according
to Mattaponi oral tradition.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990. p 198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropologist James Mooney mentions the Upper Mattaponi in
1901 after hearing about them during a visit to the Pamunkey
Tribe, but did not visit them himself. In 1928, University of
Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank Speck published a book on
modern Virginia Indians with a section on the Upper
Mattaponi.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(17)-(18) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi fought alongside other Virginia tribes
for an Indian designation instead of a ``colored'' designation
in the 1930 United States Census. The Upper Mattaponi achieved
a compromise in which their ancestry was recorded. However, the
census also contained an asterisk indicating that Indians did
not exist in Virginia. These arguments over race continued into
the 1940s, when the Armed Forces attempted to induct Upper
Mattaponis into the services as ``colored.'' In 1945, the Tribe
also fought for its youth to be allowed to study at federally
funded Indian schools since the Tribe could not provide for
their high school education.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\S. 379, 111th Cong. Sec. Sec. 301(19)-(21) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Mattaponi won State recognition in 1983,
confirming their Indian ancestry and identity in the eyes of
Virginian government.
The Rappahanock Tribe
The Rappahannock people were probably the unfortunate Tribe
that met the Englishman Captain Samuel Mace as he sailed up
what is now the Rappahannock River in 1603. The captain killed
a Rappahannock chief and brought a group of men back to
England. These men gave demonstrations of dugout canoes on the
Thames River in England in December of 1603.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\``Virginia Indian Council: Virginia Indian Tribes.''
Rappahannock Tribe. 12/10/2007. VCI. Nov 5, 2009. http://
indians.vipnet.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rappahannock was a late addition to Powhatan's
Confederacy, differing culturally from the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey mainstays of the confederacy. They were first recorded
in Western society in 1605.\53\ Captain John Smith encountered
several Rappahannock villages during his 1607 capture in
Chickahominy territory.\54\ On Smith's map, he represents the
Rappahannock people with 34 wigwams just north of the river as
opposed to 1 wigwam (representing 5 villages and 2 chief towns)
in their traditional homeland on the southern shore. However,
this placement makes practical sense in terms of defense
against the Powhatan.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
p25.
\54\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
p28.
\55\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
p36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. William Claiborne attempted to establish treaty
relations with the Rappahannock in 1645 since the Tribe didn't
participate in the 1644 uprising led by the Pamunkey. In their
peaceful manner, the Tribe continued to encounter English
settlers and even doing business with them. In 1651, the
Rappahannock sold land to English settler Colonel Morre
Fauntleroy and signed a treaty with Lancaster County in
September of 1653. The Tribe signed another treaty in 1656 with
the Rappahannock County (present-day Richmond and Essex
counties), setting out rewards for returning fugitives and
encouraging the Rappahannock to make their children servants in
English houses.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(8)-(14) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1669 Virginia census records 30 Rappahannock and 50
Nantaughtacund (which both Speck and Mooney believe is
reference to the Rappahannock).\57\ The town referred to in
this census was actually a hunting village used by the
Rappahannock in the 1670s. The Rappahannock were removed from
their homeland in 1684 to a reservation established for them in
1682 in modern-day Caroline and King & Queen Counties. After
Iroquois raids in 1683, the Virginia Colonial Council moved the
Rappahannock to the Nanzatico Indian Town about 30 miles away
from King George County. From 1687 to 1699, the Rappahannock
migrated away from Nanzatico to Portobacco Indian Town on the
southern side of the Rappahannock River. In 1705, the Tribe was
moved a few miles off their original reservation.\58\ They were
moved once again in 1706 along with the Portobaccos and
Nanzaticos by Essex County back to King and Queen County where
they resettled on one of their ancient hunting village sites
(the 1682 reservation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925.
\58\S. Rep. No. 108-259 at 2 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Essex Baptist Church had a solid Rappahannock
presence in their congregation from 1819 until the 1880s. This
was a tribute to their presence in the region as well as their
Christianization and the beginning of their assimilation into
American culture. In 1870 Joseph Mastin established another
church, St. Stephens Baptist, to serve the Rappahannock in
Caroline County, taking members away from Upper Essex.\59\ This
remained the case until Rappahannock Indian Baptist Church was
established in 1964.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\S. 379, 112th Sec. Sec. Cong. 401(30)-(36) (2011).
\60\S. 379, 112th Sec. Cong. 401(38) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although unable to attend White public schools, the
Rappahannock created other educational opportunities for their
members. Rappahannock children were taught by a tribal member
in Caroline County until the Tribe built their own formal
school in 1922 in the town of Lloyds in Essex County. Chief
George Nelson testified in Congress asking for $50,000 to
establish an Indian school in Virginia.\61\ During the late
1940s and early 1950s, the Tribe set up a school at Indian
Neck, with the state paying a tribal member to teach 10
students in King and Queen County to Sharon Indian School.\62\
The Rappahannock created a private school in 1962 in a donated
building in Essex County. Unfortunately it was closed in 1964,
and the children were then bused to Sharon School until that
school closed 3 years later.\63\ At this point in 1965, the
Rappahannock students were moved to the white Marriott High
School by order of the Governor of Virginia.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. Sec. 401(46)-(48) (2011).
\62\S. 379, 112th Cong. Sec. 401(66) (2011).
\63\Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas's People. OK: Oklahoma University
Press, 1990 at 241.
\64\S. 379, 112th Cong. 401(68) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1074 was introduced on May 23, 2013, by Senators Tim
Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA). A companion bill, H.R.
2190, has been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Similar legislation was introduced in the 107th, 108th, 109th,
110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses. The Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 1074 on October 30, 2013,
at which Senator Kaine testified in strong support of the bill.
On April 3, 2014, the Committee met to consider S. 1074. No
amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered reported
favorably by voice vote.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Tribes of Virginia
Federal Recognition Act of 2013.''

TITLE I--CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE

Section 101. Findings

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

Section 102. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 103--Federal recognition

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

Section 104. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 105. Governing body

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

Section 106. Reservation of the Tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 108. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

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

TITLE II--CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE--EASTERN DIVISION

Section 201. Findings

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

Section 202. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 203. Federal recognition

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

Section 204. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 205. Governing body

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

Section 206. Reservation of the Tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 208. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE III--UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE

Section 301. Findings

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

Section 302. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 303. Federal recognition

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

Section 304. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 305. Governing body

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

Section 306. Reservation of the Tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 308. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE IV--RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC.

Section 401. Findings

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

Section 402. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 403. Federal recognition

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

Section 404. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 405. Governing body

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

Section 406. Reservation of the Tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 408. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE V--MONACAN INDIAN NATION

Section 501. Findings

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

Section 502. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 503. Federal recognition

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

Section 504. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 505. Governing body

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

Section 506. Reservation of the Tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 508. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE VI--NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE

Section 601. Findings

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

Section 602. Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout
the remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section
are ``Secretary,'' ``tribal member,'' and ``tribe.''

Section 603. Federal recognition

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

Section 604. Membership; governing documents

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

Section 605. Governing body

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

Section 606. Reservation of the tribe

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not
expand, reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,
and water rights of the Tribe or its members.

Section 608. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

Summary: S. 1074 would provide federal recognition to six
Indian tribes in Virginia--the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the
Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper
Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan
Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. Federal
recognition would make the tribes eligible to receive benefits
from various federal programs.
CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost
$79 million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming appropriation
of the necessary funds. Enacting S. 1074 would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
S. 1074 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 1074 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 450
(community and regional development 0 and 550 (health).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars----
-------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 5 6 6 6 6 29
Estimated Outlays................................... 4 6 6 6 6 28
Indian Health Service:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 10 10 10 11 11 52
Estimated Outlays................................... 9 10 10 11 11 51
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level................... 15 16 16 17 17 81
Estimated Outlays............................... 13 16 16 17 17 79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1074 will be enacted near the end of 2014, that the necessary
amounts will be appropriated each year, and that outlays will
follow historical patterns for similar assistance to other
tribes.
S. 1074 would provide federal recognition to six Indian
tribes in Virginia. Such recognition would allow about 4,700
tribal members and other eligible people to receive benefits
from various programs administered by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). Based on the
average per capita expenditures by those agencies for other
Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1074 would
cost $61 million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary funds.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIA provides funding to federally recognized tribes for
various purposes, including child welfare services, adult care,
community development, and general assistance. In total, CBO
estimates that providing BIA services to the six tribes would
cost $28 million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary funds and adjusting for
anticipated inflation. This estimate is based on current per
capita expenditures of around $1,200 for other federally
recognized tribes located in the eastern states.

Indian Health Service

S. 1074 also would make members of the tribes eligible to
receive health benefits from the IHS. Based on information from
the IHS, CBO estimates that about 55 percent of tribal
members--or about 2,600 people--would receive benefits each
year. CBO assumes that the cost to serve those individuals
would be similar to costs for current IHS beneficiaries--about
$3,050 per individual in 2013. Assuming appropriation of the
necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation, CBO
estimates that IHS benefits for the tribes would cost $51
million over the 2015-2019 period.

Other Federal Agencies

In addition to BIA and IHS funding, certain Indian tribes
also receive support from other federal programs within the
Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor,
and Agriculture. Based on their status as tribes recognized by
Virginia, the tribes specified in the bill are already eligible
to receive support from those departments. Thus, CBO estimates
that implementing S. 1074 would not increase spending from
those agencies' programs.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1074
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten--
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Robert Stewart--Indian Health
Service; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
Melissa Merrell; Impact on the private sector: Marin Burnett.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1074 will
have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the
Executive Branch regarding S. 1074.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM VICE CHAIRMAN BARRASSO

I understand how important Federal recognition is for
tribal groups and how difficult and challenging the
administrative recognition process is for them. Nevertheless,
it is my view that legislative recognition--legislation that
deems a group or tribe to be federally recognized--is not the
right way to decide which groups should be recognized and which
groups should not be recognized. That is a function best
performed by the Executive Branch of the Government following
regulations that have been adopted for that purpose. Federal
recognition of a group as an Indian tribe may have profound
consequences for the group, its members, other Indian tribes,
the general public, and the Federal Government.
In terms of impact on the Federal Treasury, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing S. 1074
will cost $61 million over a 5-year period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary funds. Most of that cost would
be in the form of programs and services available through the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service for which
the tribe and its members will become eligible. Even if that
additional money is never appropriated, recognition of the
tribe will in and of itself place significant additional stress
on the limited resources of these agencies, since tribal
members will not be turned away from programs and services for
which they are eligible. Tribal recognition is indeed a weighty
decision, with real consequences.
Testifying about several recognition bills at a hearing
before this Committee during the 110th Congress, the Director
of the Office of Federal Acknowledgement at the Department of
the Interior stated--

Legislation such as S. 514, S. 724, S. 1058, and H.R.
1294 would allow these groups to bypass this [the
Federal acknowledgement] process--allowing them to
avoid the scrutiny to which other groups have been
subjected. The Administration supports all groups going
through the Federal acknowledgment process under 25 CFR
Part 83.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\Hearing on S.514, S.724, S.1058, and H.R.1294 Before the S.
Comm. on Indian Affairs, 110th Congress, 1, 35 (2008) (statement of R.
Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, U.S.
Department of the Interior).

The Department's witness went on to point out that, in
light of the importance and implications of recognition
decisions, the Department adopted its Federal acknowledgment
regulations at 25 CFR Part 83 in 1978 in recognition of ``the
need to end ad hoc decision making and adopt uniform
regulations for Federal acknowledgment.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill represents a step away from a process that
applies uniform, established acknowledgment criteria to the
history of the group and in the direction of ``ad hoc''
recognition decisions. I do not think that Congress is in the
best position to undertake the detailed historical, cultural,
political and ethnographic analysis that should go into a
recognition decision.
If a particular group has some unique historical or other
barriers so that it cannot fairly access the administrative
process, then perhaps it would be appropriate for Congress to
consider whether those barriers should be removed or modified
so that the group can have fair access to that process. I do
not feel it is appropriate for Congress to simply deem a group
to be a recognized Indian tribe.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In accordance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the
enactment of S. 1074 will not make any changes in existing law.