69–006 

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). 

2 

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 

3 

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. 

4 

(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— 

5 

(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 acknowlVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Dec 13, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR847.XXX HR847
6 

edging 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 eviVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Dec 13, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR847.XXX HR847
7 

dence 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). 

8 

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; 

9 

(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. 

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.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. 

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 

10 

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. 

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 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 1870, a census revealed an enclave of Indians in New Kent County 

that is believed to be the beginning of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern 

Division; 

(12) other records were destroyed when the New Kent County courthouse was 

burned, leaving a State census as the only record covering that period; 

(13) in 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe formed Samaria Baptist Church; 

(14) from 1901 to 1935, Chickahominy men were assessed a tribal tax so that 

their children could receive an education; 

(15) the Tribe used the proceeds from the tax to build the first Samaria Indian School, buy supplies, and pay a teacher’s salary; 

(16) in 1910, a 1-room school covering grades 1 through 8 was established in 

New Kent County for the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division; 

(17) during the period of 1920 through 1921, the Chickahominy Indian 

Tribe—Eastern Division began forming a tribal government; 

(18) E.P. Bradby, the founder of the Tribe, was elected to be Chief; 

(19) in 1922, Tsena Commocko Baptist Church was organized; 

(20) in 1925, a certificate of incorporation was issued to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division; 

(21) in 1950, the 1-room Indian school in New Kent County was closed and 

students were bused to Samaria Indian School in Charles City County; 

11 

(22) in 1967, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe and the Chickahominy Indian 

Tribe—Eastern Division lost their schools as a result of the required integration 

of students; 

(23) during the period of 1982 through 1984, Tsena Commocko Baptist 

Church built a new sanctuary to accommodate church growth; 

(24) in 1983 the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division was granted 

State recognition along with 5 other Virginia Indian tribes; 

(25) in 1985— 

(A) the Virginia Council on Indians was organized as a State agency; and 

(B) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division was granted a seat 

on the Council; 

(26) in 1988, a nonprofit organization known as the ‘‘United Indians of Virginia’’ was formed; and 

(27) Chief Marvin ‘‘Strongoak’’ Bradby of the Eastern Band of the Chickahominy presently chairs the organization. 

SEC. 222. 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.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern 

Division. 

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. 

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. 225. 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. 226. 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. 

12 

(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. 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; 

13 

(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. 

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.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. 

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. 

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. 235. 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. 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. 

14 

(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— 

15 

(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; 

16 

(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; 

17 

(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. 

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. 

18 

SEC. 245. 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. 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; 

19 

(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. 

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.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Monacan Indian Nation. 

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. 

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. 255. 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. 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 

20 

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; 

21 

(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. 

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.—The term ‘‘Tribe’’ means the Nansemond Indian Tribe. 

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. 

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. 265. 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. 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. 

22 

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. 

23 

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 

24 

1Treaty 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. 3http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/martinltestimonyl12l8l15.pdf. 

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. 

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

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 petiVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Dec 13, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR847.XXX HR847
25 

4Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and 

Intercourse Acts, 1790–1834, at 57 (1971 ed.). 

tions 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). 

26 

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. 

§ 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; 

27 

(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 

§ 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 

28 

5https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-releases/ranking-member-gri- jalva-i-join-tribes-in-strongly-opposing-just-pas$2$DKA1:[E.TRAP]sed-republican-bill-that-politicizes-tribal-recognition-process. 6https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/01-i-329.pdf. 

7http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc1–031255.pdf. 

8http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398320. 

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. 

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

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 

29 

9Testimony of Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation. 10Testimony of Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians. 11Testimony 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). 

evidentiary standards a petitioner must meet to be acknowledged 

as a tribe. 

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

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

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 

30 

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. 

31 

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 Rau ́l 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: 

32 


Insert graphic folio 33 HR847.001

Date: 09.08.16 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

]14th Coni,>ress 

Recorded Vote: # l 

FC Mark Up on 4 bills: Grijalva_037 Amendment to II.R. 3764 {Rep. Rob Bishop), To provide that an Indian 

group may receive Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe only by an Act of Congress, and for other purposes. 

"Tribal Recognition Act of 2015" 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No Pres 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr.Griialva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mrs. Dinge/1, MI 

Mr. Young, AK Mr. Denham, CA X 

lvfrs. Napolitano. CA X Mr. Gallego. AZ X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX X Mr. Cook, CA X 

lvfrs. Borda!! a, Guam X Mrs. Capps. CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mr. Costa, CA X lvfr. Polis, CO X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Graves, LA X 

lvfr. Sablan, CNMI X Mr.Ciay,MO X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Newhouse, W A X 

Mrs. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Zinke, MT 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Hice, GA X 

Mr, Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Mrs. Radewagen~ AS X 

Mr. Thompson, PA Mr. MacArthur, NJ X 

1vfr. Hl({jinan, CA Mr. Mooney, \VV X 

Mrs. Lummis, WY Mr. Hardy, NV X 

lvfr. Ruiz, CA X Mr. LaHood, IL X 

Mr. Benishel<, MJ X 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Duncan, SC X 

1Hr. CartHTight, PA X 

Mr. Gosnr, AZ X 

Mr. Beyer, VA 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

}firs. Torres, CA X TOTALS 14 20 
33 

Congressman Rau ́l 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: 

34 


Insert graphic folio 35 HR847.002

Date: 09.08.!6 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!14th Congress 

Recorded Vote: #2 

FC Mark Up on 4 bills: Grijalva_040 Amendment to H.R. 3764 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To provide that an Indian 

group may receive Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe only by an Act of Congress, and for other purposes. 

'Tribal Recognition Act of 2015" 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No Pres 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mrs. Dinge/1, Ml 

Mr. Young, AK Mr. Denham, CA X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Gallego. AZ X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr.Cook,CA X 

Mrs. Bordallo, Guam X Mrs. Capps, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Polis, CO X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Graves, LA X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMJ X Mr. Clay,MO X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Newhouse, W A X 

Mrs. 1:wngas, MA X Mr. Zinke, MT X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr.Hice,GA X 

lvfr. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Mrs. Radewagen, AS X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. MacArthur, NJ X 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Mooney, WV X 

Mrs. Lummis, WY X Mr. Hardy, NV X 

Mr.Ruiz. CA X Mr. LaHood, IL X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

Mr. Lowenthal. CA X 

Mr. Duncan, SC X 

Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Beyer. VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mrs. Torres. CA X TOTALS 16 22 
35 

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: 

36 


Insert graphic folio 37 HR847.003

Date; 09.08.16 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

114th Congress 

Recorded Vote: #3 

FC Mark Up on 4 bills: On Favorably Reporting H.R. 3764 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To provide that an Indian group 

may receive Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe only by an Act of Congress, and for other purposes. ''Tribal 

Recognition Act of2015 ·• 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No llrcs 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mrs. Dinge/1, MI 

Mr. Young, AK Mr. Denham, CA X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Gallego, AZ 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Cook,CA X 

Mrs. Borda!/o, Guam X Mrs. Capps, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Westerman, AR X 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Polis, CO X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Graves, LA 

Mr. Sablan, CM\iff X ldr. Clay, lv£0 X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Newhouse, WA X 

Mrs. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Zinke, MT X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. llice, GA X 

lvfr. Pier!uisi, Puerto Rico Mrs. Radewagen, AS X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. MacArthur, NJ X 

Mr. Hqf]inan, CA X Mr. Mooney, 'VV X 

Mrs. Lummis, \VY X Mr. Hardy, NV X 

Mr. Ruiz, CA X Mr. I.aHood, IL X 

Mr. Bcnishck, Ml X 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Duncan, SC X 

Mr. Cartwright, PA 

Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Beyer. VA X 

Mr. Labrador, lD 

lvbcL Torres, CA X TOTALS 23 13 
37 

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. 

38 

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— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 

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, includVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Dec 13, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR847.XXX HR847
39 

ing 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. 

40 

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. 

(41) 

1 25 U.S.C. § 2 and § 9, and 43 U.S.C. § 1457. 

2See, 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). 3See Public Law 103–454 Sec. 103(2), (3), (8) (Nov. 2, 1994). 

4 U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2. 

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

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

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

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 

42 

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 Rau ́l 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. 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL. 

DONALD S. BEYER, Jr. 

JARED POLIS. 

Æ