U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–917 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–189

PROCESS OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF INDIAN

TRIBES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID A. MULLON JR. Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 19, 2007 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Burr ..................................................................................... 46

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator from North Carolina .................................... 3

Fleming, R. Lee, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgement, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior ........... 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Goins, Hon. James Ernest, Chairman, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina ........... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from Michigan ..................................................... 12

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 13

McIntyre, Hon. Mike, U.S. Representative from North Carolina ........................ 5

Sinclair, Hon. John, President, The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

of Montana ............................................................................................................ 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Tucker, Hon. Ann Denson, Chairwoman, Muscogee Nation of Florida ............... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26

Yob, Hon. Ron, Chairman, Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan 29

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 31

APPENDIX

Chambers, Curtis, Tribal Chairman, Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ..................................................................... 54

Cook, Michael, Executive Director, United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 57

Easley, Michael F., Governor, State of North Carolina, prepared statement 

with attachments ................................................................................................. 58

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared statement ........... 53

Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement ................ 53

Rivera, Jr., Hon. Anthony, Chairman, Juanen ̃ o Band of Mission Indians, 

Acjachemen Nation, prepared statement with attachment .............................. 64

Skinaway, Monroe, Chairman, Sandy Lake Band of Ojibwe, prepared statement with attachments ........................................................................................ 69

Venne, Carl E., Chairman, Crow Tribe, letter to Senators Baucus and Tester . 68

Wright, James, Tribal Chief, Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian Tribe of Alabama, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 63

(1)

PROCESS OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF 

INDIAN TRIBES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

This hearing of the Committee on Indian Affairs is a hearing on 

the process of federal recognition of Indian tribes. This morning the 

Committee will meet to hear testimony regarding the administrative process for the Federal recognition of Indian Tribes. This is intended to be the first of several hearings on the Federal recognition 

process. My own feeling is that the process does not work very well 

at this point and needs to be repaired and fixed. 

Today we are going to focus on the experiences that petitioners 

have encountered in the administrative process that have led them 

to seek legislative recognition. We will also hear from the Department of the Interior, and I intend to hold a hearing at a later date 

that will focus on proposed recommendations for change and reform 

of the process. 

There were a number of tribal groups and organizations who 

wished to participate in today’s hearings. The four witnesses here 

today represent tribal groups whose Senators have introduced recognition bills on their behalf. I should note there are others who 

wish to testify. We had a limited capability today. But I believe 

that the hearing today will have tribal groups and organizations 

who are representative of a broader group. 

The Federal acknowledgement process was established in 1978 

by the Department of the Interior at the request of the American 

Indian Policy Review Commission. It was not a process expressly 

required by statute, although there has been considerable Congressional interest in that process over the years. It was developed 

through consultation with Indian tribes and other interested parties. 

During the initial development of the regulations, there were 

over 400 meetings and discussions and conversations, I understand. That consultation resulted in what is an administrative 

process requiring petitioning groups to meet seven criteria to prove 

2

that they had a ‘‘substantially continuous tribal existence since historical times.’’ 

The recognition process, for better or for worse, has evolved over 

the years into a lengthy—an unbelievably lengthy—and costly process requiring substantial research, substantial documentation. I’m 

told that some petitions can fill an entire room. It is unbelievable 

to me that two of our four witnesses today have waited nearly 30 

years for the Department of the Interior to make a decision. 

I think it is important, if tribes are seeking recognition, that 

there be a complete and a substantial record. I understand the requirements that must go into making that record. So I’m not suggesting that we shortchange the requirement to establish the historical record. I am saying that a process that in many cases lasts 

20 or 30 years for tribal recognition or for a decision on tribal recognition is a process that’s broken and ought to be fixed. We’re not 

serving anybody’s interest with those kinds of lengthy, lengthy 

delays. 

So we will be holding the hearing this morning, we will hold 

other hearings as well on this process and recommendations for 

trying to fix this process. 

Let me call on my colleague, Senator Tester, from Montana, for 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I 

appreciate your kindness. 

As I look at this whole process, which I knew very little about 

before Chairman Sinclair approached me about a year ago. He 

asked me to carry a bill to legislatively recognize the Little Shell 

Tribe. It is absolutely apparent to me the process is totally broken 

and overburdened with bureaucratic red tape. A decision needs to 

be made in a lot of these areas on a timely basis yes or no and 

move forward. So if there’s ways through this hearing, Mr. Chairman, if we can get the Department of Interior in a better position 

to make a timely decision on this particular topic so that the process serves our Native Americans better and creates better government. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

As I indicated, the four witnesses today represent tribal groups 

whose Senators have introduced recognition bills on their behalf. 

There are two ways to be recognized as a tribe. One is recognition 

by the legislative authority and the second is going through the 

process at the Department of the Interior. When I talk about the 

process not working, I’m talking about that Department of the Interior process. It is not unprecedented that Congress has passed 

legislation in these areas. My preference would be that we have a 

process that works at the Department of the Interior, rather than 

the U.S. Congress taking up these bills and passing them on an individual basis. We are talking today about the process at the Department of the Interior. 

3

But we are joined today by Senator Dole and Congressman McIntyre. They have been involved in a legislative initiative on behalf 

of a tribal government, and they’ve asked if they could make a 

comment at the beginning of this hearing. We’re pleased to have 

our colleague Senator Dole join us. Senator Dole, why don’t you 

proceed? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing and for giving me the opportunity this morning to introduce my friend, the Lumbee Tribal Chairman, Jimmy Goins. I’ve 

been proud to work with Chairman Goins over the years on our 

shared goal: full Federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe. 

It’s apparent that Chairman Goins is driven by his strong desire 

to serve his fellow Lumbee tribal members, his country, and his 

family. He was awarded the Purple Heart for his distinguished 

service and sacrifice in Vietnam. A man of faith, he teaches Sunday 

School and serves as a trustee, board member and steward at 

Union Chapel Holiness Methodist Church. And he is dedicated to 

his wife, Diane, three daughters and five grandchildren. 

Chairman Goins has long been a leader for the Lumbee Tribe in 

its quest for Federal recognition. As a member of the tribal council, 

he oversaw the Federal recognition committee and as the Chairman of the tribe, he has traveled across North Carolina and to 

Washington to educate policymakers on the importance of Federal 

recognition, not only for the Lumbee, but also the southeastern region of North Carolina where most of the tribe’s 55,000 members 

reside. In fact, since my arrival in the Senate in 2003, this is the 

fourth hearing Chairman Goins has journeyed to Washington to attend. 

The Lumbee Recognition Act was the very first bill that I introduced in the U.S. Senate. I have continued to champion this cause 

alongside Chairman Goins and other Lumbee leaders and allies, 

because I passionately believe that Congress should act to provide 

the tribe full Federal recognition. It is a matter of fairness. 

North Carolina formally recognized the tribe in 1885, and 3 years 

later, in 1888, the tribe began its quest for Federal recognition. In 

1956, Congress finally passed legislation recognizing the tribe, but 

it included a terribly unfair caveat: the Lumbee were denied the 

benefits that every other federally recognized tribe receives. Moreover, the 1956 Lumbee Act actually prohibits the tribe from going 

through the Bureau of Indian Affairs process for full recognition. 

As the law now stands, the Lumbee Tribe can only be recognized 

by an act of Congress. 

Just one other tribe, the Tiwas of Texas, faced a similarly unfair 

situation following the passage of a comparable bill in 1965. But 

in 1987, Congress enacted special legislation to recognize them. 

This makes the Lumbee the only tribe in the Country still trapped 

in this limbo. 

The BIA process is reserved for tribes whose legitimacy cannot 

be established. But the Lumbees’ legitimacy has been established 

time and time again in studies by the U.S. Department of Interior 

beginning as early as 1912, then again in 1914, and yet again in 

4

1933. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office has documented that getting through the BIA is an arduous and lengthy 

process, as the Chairman has pointed out. 

I welcome the attention the Committee is giving this problem. 

However, it is clear that even if the Lumbee could legally go 

through the BIA, this would only impose yet another delay. Earlier 

this year, the Lumbee cleared a significant hurdle. The House 

passed the Lumbee recognition bill sponsored by Congressman 

Mike McIntyre, who’s here with us this morning. It has been my 

joy to work with Mike over these many years. 

The Lumbee are now this close to securing the recognition for 

which they and their ancestors have tirelessly fought. The ball is 

in the Senate’s court. Now is the time for us to do what is fair and 

right. In the last two Congresses, this Committee has approved my 

Lumbee Recognition Bill. I strongly urge again that this Committee 

report the bill to the full Senate. The Lumbee deserve better than 

a partial nod to their legitimacy. They deserve full recognition and 

the time is now. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dole, thank you very much. 

I would like to recognize the Vice Chair, who has joined us, for 

an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very pleased that we are holding this hearing on the Federal recognition process for Indian Tribes. 

We recognize that it has been 3 decades since the American Indian Policy Review Commission issued its final report regarding 

recommendations on the Federal Indian policy. Over the past 30 

years Congress has made strides in developing a more progressive 

Indian policy and improving the government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes, but one area that has lagged is the 

Federal recognition process. Since 1978 the BIA office has reviewed 

and resolved some 62 petitions for Federal recognition, unfortunately this is only about 20 percent of the 324 petitions that have 

been submitted for Federal recognition. 

Three of the four tribes that are testifying before the Committee 

today have been waiting at least 13 years for action to be taken 

on their Federal petitions. The good news for these tribes is that 

they’ve got the ability to go through the Federal recognition process. But as Senator Dole has mentioned this morning, for some, 

such as the Lumbee Tribe, the administrative recognition process 

is not available, thus forcing them to seek legislative recognition. 

I too would like to extend a warm welcome to the Lumbees this 

morning. The Native people of Alaska have long supported the 

Lumbees in their quest for Federal recognition. I was proud to support your legislation in the 109th Congress. 

One of the issues that I hope that we will review today is whether an examination of the staffing levels at the OFA and whether 

their budget is adequate for their large and complex workload. Another issue is whether the Federal recognition process itself, does 

it need to be changed, either by Congress or by the Secretary 

5

through rulemaking, to provide for deadlines and standardized criteria for the OFA to determine which tribal petitioners are appropriate for Federal recognition. 

I appreciate those witness that have traveled so far to be with 

us today. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony from those who will be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

Congressman McIntyre, we’re pleased that you’ve joined us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MCINTYRE,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this very important hearing on Federal recognition and the Federal 

process for Indian tribes. 

Mr. Chairman, fellow members of the Committee, I was born and 

raised in Robeson County, North Carolina, which is the primary 

home for the Lumbee Indians, in addition to several counties that 

adjoin it. I have the high honor to represent the Lumbees in the 

U.S. House of Representatives which, after a century of delay, recently passed a bill to grant the Lumbee Tribe Federal recognition 

by a bipartisan two-thirds margin in the U.S. House this summer. 

I am especially pleased today to welcome the Chairman, Jimmy 

Goins, who will shortly be testifying. Jimmy is a decorated Vietnam veteran, a successful businessman and an outstanding leader 

for the Tribe, as well as an outstanding citizen in our county and 

our State. 

As you will hear from Chairman Goins, there is no question the 

Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian tribe. In response to numerous bills introduced in the U.S. Congress over the last century, the 

U.S. Department of Interior has already studied the Tribe 11 times 

and has always concluded that the Lumbees are Indian. 

As you will hear from Chairman Goins, Congress itself—51 years 

ago this summer—in fact, on the very day that the House remedied 

this situation in passing the recognition bill, 51 years ago this past 

June, Congress put the Lumbee Tribe in Indian no-man’s land with 

the enactment of the 1956 Lumbee Act, which according the 1989 

Solicitor General’s ruling, precludes the Tribe from going through 

the regular BIA process. 

There is exact legal precedent to remedy this situation. In two 

similar situations where Congress has precluded two other tribes 

from going through the BIA process, Congress passed special legislation correcting the problem by extending full Federal recognition 

to those tribes. Thus, the Lumbees are now the only tribe in America left in this legal limbo. 

Congress should now do the same with the Lumbees to go ahead 

and correct this inequity which Congress caused back 51 years ago 

in 1956. The House indeed took action this summer to correct this 

injustice. It is our hope now that the Senate will do the same this 

session of Congress, so for once and for all, after 100 years, this 

matter can finally be resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to welcome Mr. 

Goins today and others who are here from the Lumbee Tribe. I look 

forward to continuing to work with you and with all of you on this 

Committee and our colleagues in the Senate to pass Lumbee FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Dec 12, 2007 Jkt 038917 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\38917.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
6

eral recognition that—after a century of delay—recognition may finally proceed. 

Thank you, and may God bless you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman McIntyre, thank you for venturing 

to this side of the Capitol once again. We appreciate having you. 

You and Senator Dole are certainly welcome to stay as long as you 

wish. We know that you have to leave at some point for other business. 

Let me call the first panel to the table, if I might. The Honorable 

Jimmy Goins, and Mr. Goins, you have had a pretty substantial introduction here by your Senator and Congressman. Tribal Chairman, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. You may take your seat. 

The Honorable John Sinclair, the Tribal President of the Little 

Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, Great Falls, Montana. 

The Honorable Ann D. Tucker, Tribal Chairperson, Muscogee Nation of Florida, in Bruce, Florida. And the Honorable Ron Yob, the 

Tribal Chairman of the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians in 

Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

We welcome all of you. We will have Mr. Fleming with us as 

well. Mr. Fleming, would you proceed to take a seat at the table 

as well? We were going to do two panels, but because of the timing 

here, I hope you will all recognize we want to hear from all of you. 

My understanding is we have a vote beginning at about 10:30 

today, so we may have a brief recess. But we’ll proceed as well as 

we can. 

Mr. Goins, as I indicated, you’ve had a very substantial introduction. We appreciate your appearance before our Committee and appreciate your having served our Country in so many ways. Why 

don’t you proceed? And then I will go down the row to Mr. Sinclair, 

Ms. Tucker and Mr. Yob. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ERNEST GOINS, CHAIRMAN, 

LUMBEE TRIBE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. GOINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members and guests 

of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today on 

behalf of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt you just to say that your entire 

statement will be part of the record—for all of you—and we will 

ask that all of you summarize today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOINS. Let me begin by extending the Tribe’s gratitude to 

Senator Burr and Senator Dole for their support for the Tribe’s 

cause. With their help, and of course that of Congressman McIntyre, whose bill to recognize the Tribe recently passed the House 

of Representatives, it is our fervent hope that our long quest for 

Federal recognition is about to come to an end with the enactment 

of Mr. McIntyre’s bill into law. 

The Committee has asked out our experience with the BIA acknowledgement process. We have no experience with the present 

process. There’s a simple reason why. The Lumbee Tribe is not eligible for the BIA present process. In 1956, the Congress enacted 

the Lumbee Act. This is one the nearly a dozen bills that had been 

introduced since 1899 to achieve Federal recognition for the Tribe. 

Congress amended it, though, at the request of the BIA. The BIA 

wanted to make sure that the Lumbee Tribe was not eligible for 

7

Federal services, so it asked Congress to add termination language 

to the bill. Congress did so, basically acknowledging us and terminating us at the same time. 

In 1989, the Solicitor’s Office ruled that the 1956 Lumbee Act 

bars the Tribe from the present BIA process. By that time, the 

Tribe had already submitted a documented petition. But the BIA 

has not and cannot process it. Some have proposed that the answer 

for the Lumbees is to repeal the 1956 Lumbee Act and send the 

Tribe through the BIA process now. That is not the answer. It is 

not fair, it is not necessary and it will not work. 

Why is it not fair? Only a few other tribes have experienced anything like we did in the 1956 Lumbee Act. And in every such case, 

Congress has enacted special legislation to recognize the tribe. The 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is the best example. That tribe was subject 

to an unusual act like the 1956 Lumbee Act that also left it ineligible for the BIA recognition process. Congress fixed this for the 

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, or the Tiwas, by enacting special legislation 

in 1987. Congress should in all fairness do the same for the 

Lumbee Tribe, the only, the only tribe left in the Country in this 

position. 

Why is it not necessary to send the Lumbee Tribe through the 

BIA process? The whole purpose of the BIA process is to study a 

tribe’s history and community, something that’s already been done 

repeatedly at Lumbee. In response to all the Federal bills to recognize the Lumbee Tribe, the BIA testified to Congress about the 

Tribe’s history and community and several times sent special Indian agents to Robeson County to study the Tribe. This produced 

numerous Congressional hearing reports and 11 BIA studies on the 

Tribe. Every single one of these reports and studies concludes that 

we are an Indian community, one that descends from the coastal 

North Carolina tribes and one that has resided near the Lumber 

River, formerly known as Drowning Creek, since the time of white 

contact. 

Since Congress and the Department have already studied the 

Lumbee Tribe so many times and find a longstanding Indian community there, there is no reason yet for another study of the 

Lumbee. Why won’t the administrative process work for the 

Lumbee? We have not gone through the present BIA process, but 

we’ve been dealing with the BIA and recognition since 1890. Our 

experience convinces us that the present BIA process just won’t 

work for the Tribe. In 1934, the BIA specifically told Congress that 

the Lumbee Tribe descends from the historic Cheraw and related 

Siouan-speaking coastal North Carolina tribes. But now the head 

of the present BIA process says there may be insufficient documentation of the Tribe’s descent from this historic Cheraw community. 

How can this be? Certainly the Lumbee Tribe’s history has not 

changed since 1934, when the BIA was confident of the Tribe’s 

Cheraw descent. This must be because of the limitation in the 

present BIA process. It depends completely upon documentary evidence by the Indian groups generated by the dominant society. 

Documentary evidence is sparse for many Indian groups at the 

time of early contact for very good reasons. For example, we 

Lumbees took refuge in the swamps of Drowning Creek to avoid 

8

non-Indian settlements. This protected us, but it also meant that 

very few documents about us were generated in the early contact 

period. Dr. Vine Deloria observed that the Lumbee Tribe is in a difficult position under the present regulations, because limited contacts produce limited documents. But Dr. Deloria had no doubt that 

the Lumbee Tribe is entitled to and should be recognized by Congress. 

The bottom line is that the BIA’s recognition process has nothing 

to do with the Lumbee Tribe and should have nothing to do with 

the Lumbee Tribe. John Shepard, retired BIA employee, who wrote 

the acknowledgement regulations and set up the acknowledgement 

process, said it best recently in a letter to the Committee: ‘‘The 

Government does not need to waste any more time or money for 

additional assurances of the Lumbee’s background and credentials.’’ There is enough research material on file now about the 

Lumbees for Congress to enact solid legislation, certainly with the 

knowledge that it has all been documented. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ERNEST GOINS, CHAIRMAN, LUMBEE TRIBE OF

NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Lumbee Tribe. The Lumbee recognition issue 

is pending before this committee once again and our people have high hopes that 

this Congress, after nearly 120 years of effort, we will finally achieve Federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. I bring with me the deepest gratitude of our people for the efforts of Senator Burr and Senator Dole on behalf of our 

people for their support for our cause. Of course, I also bring with me our people’s 

joy at the passage of the Lumbee recognition bill in the House of Representatives, 

H.R. 65, on June 7 of this year by a two to one margin—all due to the hard work 

of Congressman McIntyre. 

The Committee has asked the Tribe to comment on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes. This is something with which the Lumbee Tribe has considerable experience: it has sought Federal recognition since 1888. Since that time, the 

Tribe has sought Federal recognition from the Department of the Interior through 

administrative processes and from Congress directly through the enactment of special recognition legislation. This experience is rooted deep in our history. 

Our experience has not yet resulted in Federal recognition for the Tribe. However, 

in 1956, Congress passed a peculiar statute dealing with the Lumbee Tribe—a statute that makes the Tribe ineligible for the administrative process for recognition of 

tribes. Some have proposed that the answer for the Lumbee Tribe is to repeal this 

act of Congress and send the Tribe to the current administrative recognition process. That is NOT the answer—this solution would be unfair, it is not necessary, and 

it will not work. The only fair solution is the enactment of special recognition legislation for the Tribe. 

Federal Recognition—The Lumbee Experience 

The Lumbee Tribe first sought Federal recognition in 1888. That year, tribal leaders submitted to Congress a petition seeking Federal Indian education assistance for 

the Lumbee Indian Normal School that had been created by the State of North 

Carolina the previous year. The school was established to train Indian teachers for 

the all Lumbee school system that had been established in 1885, but the State provided too little funding for the normal school. The Congress referred the Tribe’s petition to the Department of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs told 

the Tribe:

While I regret exceedingly that the provisions made by the State of North Carolina seem to be entirely inadequate, I find it quite impractical to render any 

assistance at this time. The Government is responsible for the education of 

something like 36,000 Indian children and has provision for less than half this 

number. So long as the immediate wards of the Government are so insufficiently provided for, I do not see how I can consistently render any assistance 

9

to the Croatans [as the Tribe was then denominated under state law] or any 

other civilized tribes.

In other words, the Department acknowledged that we were an Indian community 

but denied assistance because of the cost of services. 

So the Tribe then turned directly to Congress. Between 1899 and 1956, approximately a dozen bills were introduced in Congress to recognize the Tribe. The Department of the Interior testified on these bills and consistently acknowledged that 

we constituted an Indian community that has been on the Lumber River, formerly 

known as Drowning Creek, since the time of sustained white contact. Yet the Department consistently opposed recognition of the Tribe, usually on the grounds of 

cost. 

During this same period, the Department also undertook its own direct studies 

of the Lumbee Tribe and community, sometimes at the direction of Congress. Altogether, the Department produced 11 reports on the Lumbee Tribe between 1912 and 

1956. The 1924 report prepared by James Henderson, Superintendent of the Cherokee agency in North Carolina, is representative. He found that, ‘‘There are many 

to be found among them who to all appearances are full blood Indian.’’ Henderson 

observed that the Lumbee were similar to other tribes and recommended that 

Lumbees be allowed to attend Haskell Institute, at a minimum. Once again, though, 

the Department testified against recognition of the Tribe. 

The Lumbee Tribe also sought to avail itself of other administrative processes. 

After the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, Commissioner Collier 

wrote to the Tribe and suggested we might organize under that act if some of our 

members were certified as one-half or more Indian blood. The Tribe requested that 

the BIA send a physical anthropologist to the community, but only about 200 members agreed to submit to the required physical examination. The BIA did certify 22 

half-bloods out of those members it examined, but the BIA ultimately refused to 

take land into trust for these individuals so that they were not able to organize. 

1956 Lumbee Act—Lumbee Tribe Ineligible for Administrative Acknowledgment 

Congress finally enacted one of the many Lumbee bills in 1956 at the height of 

the Federal termination policy for Indians. Like the others before, the 1956 bill had 

been introduced as a recognition bill. The original bill tracked verbatim the language of the most recent state recognition legislation passed in 1953 that recognized 

the Tribe under the name Lumbee. However, the Department opposed enactment 

of the bill, once again because of its concern about providing Federal Indian services 

to the Tribe:

We are therefore unable to recommend that the Congress take any action which 

might ultimately result in the imposition of additional obligations on the Federal Government or in placing additional persons of Indian blood under the jurisdiction of this Department. The persons who constitute this group of Indians 

have been recognized and designated as Indians by the State legislature. If they 

are not completely satisfied with such recognition, they, as citizens of the State, 

may petition the legislature to amend or otherwise to change that 

recognition . . . If your committee should recommend the enactment of the bill, 

it should be amended to indicate clearly that it does not make these persons 

eligible for services provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to other Indians.

The Senate adopted the Department’s recommendation and amended the bill to 

include classic termination language before enactment. Pub. L. 570, Act of June 7, 

1956, 70 Stat. 254. 

Since 1956, Federal agencies and courts have reached different conclusions regarding the purpose and effect of the 1956 Lumbee Act. In 1970, the Joint Economic 

Committee of Congress described the Lumbees as having been officially recognized 

by the act, although not granted Federal services. See ‘‘American Indians: Facts and 

Future,’’ Toward Economic Development for Native American Communities, p. 34 

(GPO 1970). Also in 1970, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress described the 1956 Lumbee Act as legislative recognition of an Indian people. 

See Memorandum, April 10, 1970, on Extending Federal Jurisdiction and Services 

to Hill 57 Indians, LRS, Library of Congress. And in 1979, the Comptroller General 

ruled that the 1956 act left the Lumbees’ status unchanged, i.e., it neither recognized the Tribe nor terminated the Tribe’s eligibility for services it might otherwise 

receive. The one court to construe the statute concluded that it was intended ‘‘to 

designate this group of Indians as ‘Lumbee Indians’ and recognize them as a specific 

group . . .’’ but not to take away any rights conferred on individuals by previous 

legislation. Maynor v. Morton, 510 F.2d 1254, 1257–1258 (D.C. Cir. 1970) [holding 

10

that the so-called half-bloods certified under the Indian Reorganization Act were eligible to receive BIA services]; see also September 28, 1988 CRS Memorandum, reprinted at S.Rep. No. 100–579, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 

One thing is certain about the 1956 Lumbee Act—it makes the Lumbee Tribe ineligible for the administrative acknowledgment process. Under the acknowledgment 

regulations, the Secretary of the Interior cannot acknowledge tribes that are subject 

to legislation terminating or forbidding the Federal relationship. 25 C.F.R. sec. 

83.3(e). In a formal opinion issued on October 23, 1989, the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior concluded that the 1956 Lumbee Act is such Federal legislation 

and, as a result, the Department is precluded from considering any application from 

the Lumbee Tribe for Federal acknowledgment. 

Sending the Lumbee Tribe to the Administrative Recognition Process—Unprecedented and Unfair 

Congress has very seldom done what it did to the Lumbee Tribe in 1956—i.e., acknowledge the tribe as Indian but simultaneously prohibit the application of Federal 

Indian statutes and services. And in no such case has Congress ever repealed the 

termination-type statute and then required the tribe to seek acknowledgment from 

the Department of the Interior. In every single other such case, the Congress has 

enacted special recognition legislation for the Tribe. It would be fundamentally unfair to treat the Lumbee Tribe any differently from any other tribe that Congress 

has placed in this peculiar position. 

The most directly analogous situation is that of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of 

Texas. Like the Lumbee Tribe, this tribe had been long recognized by Texas before 

Congress passed special legislation acknowledging them as Indian. This special statute, enacted in 1968 for the Tiwas of Texas (as Ysleta del Sur was then called) was 

modeled on the 1956 Lumbee Act. See S.Rep. No. 1070, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. The 

Department of the Interior concluded that the 1968 Tiwa Act made that tribe ineligible for the administrative process, the same determination it made regarding the 

1956 Lumbee Act. And for that reason, Congress enacted special legislation to recognize the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in 1987. Pub. L. 100–89, Act of August 18, 1987, 101 

Stat. 667. 

The Lumbee Tribe is the only tribe left in the country that was placed in this peculiar position by Congress. Congress should fix it the same way it has for every 

other tribe in this position. There is no fair or rationale basis for treating the 

Lumbee Tribe differently. 

Sending the Lumbee Tribe to the Administrative Acknowledgment Process—Unnecessary 

There is no good purpose to be served by requiring that the Lumbee Tribe go 

through the current administrative process. That process gives the Department an 

opportunity to examine a group’s history and community to determine whether the 

group is, in fact, an Indian tribe. The Department of the Interior and Congress have 

already made that inquiry regarding the Lumbee Tribe. As noted above, there are 

numerous congressional reports and 11 BIA studies on the Lumbee history and community. All of these reports consistently conclude that Lumbee is an Indian community that has been in the same place—on the Lumber River—since the time of sustained white contact. Not a single congressional report or BIA study doubts these 

fundamental facts. 

Recently, the committee received a letter on this from John Shapard, a retired 

BIA employee who wrote the acknowledgment regulations, set up the acknowledgment office, and ran that office for its first 9 years. Mr. Shapard concludes that 

there is no need to send the Lumbee Tribe to the current administrative process 

for yet another study:

It must be clearly understood that the Lumbees are not ‘‘Johnnies-come-lately.’’ 

They have been actively seeking recognition for more than one hundred years. 

They have been studied by sociologists, anthropologists, and by historians. Their 

personal and tribal lineage has been anatomized by genealogists. Books have 

been written about the tribe and its plight. Bureaucrats and legislators have 

wrestled with the ‘‘Lumbee problem’’ since the 1890s. The Interior Department 

and the bureau’s files are packed full of reports, survey, studies, and miscellaneous documents relating to the Lumbees. The State of North Carolina, which 

recognizes the Lumbees as a tribe, is equally cumbered with documents about 

the tribe. The government does not need to waste more time or money for additional assurances of the Lumbees’ background and credentials.

11

Letter of Johan A. Shapard to Chairman Dorgan, dated September 5, 2007. Because of this record, no point is to be served by sending the Lumbee Tribe to the 

administrative acknowledgment process. 

Sending the Tribe to the Administrative Acknowledgment Process—It Will 

Not Work 

The administrative acknowledgment process is intended to verify the tribal status 

of Indian groups so that legitimate groups can be recognized. But the process depends completely upon documentary evidence generated by the dominant society to 

establish the seven mandatory criteria that define a tribe under those regulations. 

If a tribe fails to produce the necessary documents, the tribe is not recognized. 

Sometimes, though, documents are not available, even if the Indian group actually 

is an Indian tribe. There can be several reasons for this—suppression of Indian 

identity for periods of history due to particular state or Federal policies, or avoidance of record keepers by the Indian groups for reasons of self-protection or even 

survival. When this happens, the administrative acknowledgment process fails to 

identify or recognize all legitimate Indian tribes. The Lumbee Tribe may be such 

a tribe. 

As noted above, the BIA testified repeatedly to Congress over a fifty year period 

that the Lumbee are an Indian people. In 1934, the BIA witness, relying on a report 

by the eminent John Swanton, explicitly advised Congress that the Lumbee descend 

from the historic Cheraw and related Siouan speaking tribes from coastal North 

Carolina. But those who administer the current acknowledgment process have recently testified that there may be too few documents proving Cheraw descent for 

the Lumbee Tribe under the acknowledgment regulations. In other words, the BIA 

may now change its mind about the ancestry of the Lumbee Tribe only because the 

current regulations require rigid reliance on a mass of documents that may not have 

been generated about a group. 

Current scholars outside the BIA have noted this problem. Dr. Vine Deloria, for 

example, testified to Congress in 1988 in support of special legislation to recognize 

the Lumbee Tribe. He told Congress that the Lumbees may be in a difficult position 

on this issue under the regulations for a very good reason—in the early 18th century, the ancestors of the Lumbees took refuge in the swamps around Drowning 

Creek (now Lumber River) in order to minimize contact with nearby white settlements and protect themselves. Nonetheless, Dr. Deloria had no doubt that the 

Lumbees constitute an Indian tribe and urged Congress to recognize it as such. 

If the Lumbee Tribe descended from the Cheraw and related Siouan speaking 

tribes in 1934, it still descends from the Cheraw and related Siouan speaking tribes. 

The BIA said so then and it is still the truth of Lumbee history. The Congress 

should not tolerate picking and choosing of processes and results only for the purpose of avoiding recognition of the Lumbee Tribe. That is clearly the purpose of 

those who urge the Congress to ‘‘protect the integrity of the administrative process’’ 

by requiring the Lumbee Tribe to go to the BIA: it’s really about opposition to 

Lumbee recognition, not about preserving any process. 

Recommendation Regarding the Administrative Process 

The Lumbee Tribe has no direct experience with the current administrative process. Eighteen months after the Tribe submitted a petition for acknowledgment 

under the regulations, the Solicitor’s Office concluded that the Tribe is precluded 

from that process because of the 1956 Lumbee Act. Soon thereafter, it became clear 

to us that the BIA was prepared to repudiate much of what it had said to Congress 

over the last fifty years about Lumbee history and ancestry. If the regulations require this, then the regulations cannot be relied upon to identify every legitimate 

tribe that should be recognized. 

But the Lumbee Tribe has a long and unhappy history with the BIA on the recognition issue before the current regulations were adopted. Our history teaches us 

one truth: the BIA has an institutional bias against non-federally recognized Indian 

tribes and should not be the agency charged with processing petitions for acknowledgment from such tribes. This is not intended as a criticism of any particular Administration or BIA employee. Rather, it simply reflects the mission of the BIA to 

serve and protect the interests of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Commissioner of Indian Affairs put it to us in 1890, his first obligation was to provide services to those tribes already recognized. This being so, it is not fair to either the BIA 

or non-federally recognized tribes to expect the BIA to also pass on the status of 

other Indian groups. Based on this experience, we would urge the committee to consider transferring the tribal acknowledgment process to another agency or an independent commission, one without any ties or obligations to federally recognized 

tribes. 

12

Conclusion 

Since the early days of the Republic, the Congress has been in the business of 

recognizing Indian tribes. If the Alaskan native villages (which were acknowledged 

in modern times by the Department of the Interior) are excluded, then the overwhelming majority of tribes recognized today achieved that status directly from 

Congress. Neither has Congress passed an act or expressed it judgment that it 

should never again directly recognize an Indian tribe. The question, then, is under 

what circumstances should Congress exercise its authority, not whether Congress 

should ever recognize an Indian tribe. 

If any tribe should appropriately be recognized by Congress, it is the Lumbee 

Tribe. The Lumbee Tribe is unique in all of Indian country—it is the only tribe left 

in the kind of legal limbo imposed by the 1956 Lumbee Act and it has surely been 

studied as often as any other tribe (and concluded to be an Indian community) by 

the BIA. There has been sufficient process. Instead of singling the Tribe out for unfair treatment unlike any other tribe, the Congress should simply recognize the 

Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goins, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, 

your remarks are, as always, on point, and we appreciate the contribution you’ve made. 

We are joined by Senator Levin, and I believe Senator Levin 

wishes to make a comment to introduce the witness from the State 

of Michigan. I will recognize Senator Levin to speak of the Chairman from Michigan, and then I will call on Senator Tester, who I 

will ask to introduce the next witness, who is Chairman Sinclair 

from Montana. 

Senator Levin, we knew that you were coming and I know you 

wish to make a comment about the witness from Michigan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Committee for 

allowing me to spend a couple of minutes introducing Chairman 

Yob of the particular group of Native Americans, the Grand River 

Bands of Ottawa Indians, who have spent such a long time awaiting Federal recognition. I just want to spend a few minutes to welcome him on behalf of the Committee. 

I want to thank the Committee for giving tribes an opportunity 

to share their experiences and their frustrations with the Federal 

recognition process. I hope that this hearing brings us closer to fixing a broken system. 

One of the tribes here today, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa 

Indians, is from my home State of Michigan. I am pleased to introduce its Chairman, Ron Yob, to the Committee. The Grand River 

Bands has been in some form indigenous to the State of Michigan 

for over 200 years. The Grand River Bands consist of the 19 Bands 

who occupy the territory along the Grand River in which is now 

Southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon, Michigan. 

The members of the Grand River Bands are the descendants and 

political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago and 

the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of the six tribes 

who are original signatories of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. 

However, the Grand River Bands is the only one of those six 

tribes which is not recognized by the Federal Government and still 

cannot benefit from a number of Federal programs. Earlier this 

year, they lost millions of dollars when they were unable to take 

13

part in a Federal judgment fund because they were still waiting in 

this long, arduous Federal recognition process. 

The Grand River Bands first started their Federal recognition effort in 1994 and they have since been waiting for the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior to make a Federal recognition determination for 13 years. Currently, they are still waiting to be moved to active status. This is totally unacceptable, and 

unfortunately, it is not unusual for tribes caught in the Federal 

recognition process, as you will hear today from other tribes who 

have been waiting for far too many years for a determination. 

I hope that what we will learn from today’s hearing will result 

in a more efficient and timely Federal recognition process. Again, 

I want to thank you and the Committee, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to interject myself in this way in the middle of your hearing 

this morning. I want to thank you and the members of the Committee for all the good work that you do. And I particularly again 

want to welcome our constituent, Ron Yob, and to introduce him 

to the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

Good Morning. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Indian Affairs Committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I would also like to thank the Committee for giving Indian Tribes the opportunity 

to voice their experiences with the Federal recognition process. I hope that this 

means we are one step closer to fixing this broken process. 

One of the tribes here today, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, is from 

my home state of Michigan. 

The Grand River Bands has been in some form indigenous to the State of Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Bands consists of the 19 bands of Indians 

who occupied the territory along the Grand River in what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon. The members of the Grand 

River Bands are the descendants and political successors to signatories of the 1821 

Treaty of Chicago and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six 

tribes who are original signatories of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the 

Grand River Bands is the only one of those six tribes which is not recognized by 

the Federal Government and still cannot benefit from a number of Federal programs. Earlier this year, they lost millions of dollars when they were unable to take 

part in a Federal judgment fund because they were still waiting in this long arduous Federal recognition process. 

The Grand River Bands first started their Federal recognition process in 1994 and 

have since been waiting for the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior to make a Federal recognition determination for 13 years. Currently, they are 

still waiting to be moved to ‘‘Active’’ status. This is unacceptable, and unfortunately, 

is not unusual for tribes caught in the Federal recognition process as you will hear 

today from other tribes who have also been waiting for far too many years for a 

determination. I hope that what we learn from today’s hearing will translate into 

recommendations for a more efficient and timely Federal recognition process for the 

future. 

14

Attachment

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Levin, thank you very much. I know 

Chairman Yob will testify in a bit, but I know he appreciates your 

introduction. 

I know you have other business with the Armed Services Committee right now, so we appreciate your stopping in to give us that 

introduction. 

Let me recognize Senator Tester, who will introduce the next witnesses from the State of Montana. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, it is an 

honor for me to introduce the Honorable John Sinclair, President 

of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. John is 

following in the footsteps of his grandfather and father as President of the Little Shell Tribe. 


919lev1.eps
15

I have worked with John in the State legislature and it truly is 

a pleasure to work with him at this level. Our work at the State 

level was to pass resolutions in favor of recognition of the Little 

Shell Tribe. Those resolutions passed, if my memory serves me correct, by a resounding vote. There is good support within the State 

government. 

And just to dovetail on what folks have been saying around the 

table today, I think John feels a certain amount of frustration with 

being caught up in the process. And they have waited for a long 

time and they have done the work at their end. Hopefully, he will, 

and I am sure he will tell that story, and hopefully this Committee 

hearing will end up in some decisions being made by the Department of Interior. Because quite honestly, I don’t mind a bit carrying the legislation through the Senate. But the fact is, it really 

shouldn’t have to come to that. 

So I want to welcome John to Washington, D.C. and to this Committee, and we look forward to your comments, John. 

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Sinclair. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT, THE 

LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Thank you. Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman 

Murkowski and honorable members of the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

To my good friend, Jon Tester, I thank you for your tireless efforts on behalf of the Little Shell Tribe. 

My name is John Sinclair, and I am the President of the Little 

Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Like my father and 

grandfather before me, I have had the honor the serve as President 

of the Little Shell. I am here today to share with you our experience with the Federal acknowledgement process, or FAP. 

We have a long history with the U.S. Government. My written 

testimony goes into more detail, but I want to note that my tribe, 

which is sometimes referred to as the Landless Indians, or Trash 

Can Indians, has been the subject of Federal legislation since the 

early 1900s. We sought recognition from the Federal Government 

for decades, filing a letter petitioning for Federal acknowledgement 

in April, 1978. 

This date, almost 30 years ago, represents more than a generation. Our efforts to achieve recognition through the BIAs administrative process predate the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and in fact, predate the birth date of some of the people 

in this room. We have worked hard to play by the recognition rules, 

and up to this point have been successful. We have submitted tens 

of thousands of documents to the BIA. Each of these documents 

was submitted to satisfy the seven mandatory criteria. Because we 

are a very poor tribe, we have had to rely on pro bono help of others to amass these documents. 

In 2000, the Department of Interior proposed to acknowledge the 

Tribe. Interior found that we had satisfied each one of the criteria. 

So you might ask, why are we seeking Federal legislation when we 

are so far along in the process? The answer is simple: we don’t 

16

trust the Federal Government to see that everyone else can see 

that we are now a tribe and have always been a tribe. 

Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, who concluded that we satisfied BIA’s criteria, said that Little Shell’s was 

somewhat different from the previous acknowledgements. The difference was in the weight given to various types of evidence. He 

concluded that taken together, the evidence as a whole showed that 

Little Shell is a tribe. He acknowledged that more documentation 

could be helpful, but he said, ‘‘To rigidly impose a mechanistic burden of proof on a people whose lack of formal organization is attributable to misguided Federal policy would be manifestly unjust and 

inconsistent with the regulations.’’ In our case, I think this means 

that BIA should not be rigid in always requiring extensive documentation. Our history is that of a buffalo-hunting society, and the 

Government’s own policies worked against us. 

We weren’t worried about keeping records when we were living 

in tar paper shacks and eating out of garbage piles. But this kind 

of mechanistic burden of proof is what we and many tribes have 

labored under. We have worked for years, submitted tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence, received a proposed favorable finding, concluding that we had enough evidence to prove we 

are a tribe, submitted thousands more pages of reports and appendices, supported by boxes of documents. And still, the Office of Federal Acknowledgement is not done. 

Others already recognize us as a tribe. Our Congressional delegation supports our recognition. Montana State and local governments support us. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians 

in North Dakota and federally recognized tribes in Montana support us. We are the only non-federally recognized tribe that has 

been invited to sit on the Montana–Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, and the Council of Large Land-Based Tribes. 

Shouldn’t the fact that others recognize us as a tribe be persuasive? The administrative process is terribly burdensome and expensive, and it provides no guarantee of success. We know that in this 

Administration, there is at least one instance in which the BIA 

withdrew Federal recognition to a tribe even after it had issued formal final determination recognizing that tribe. 

In short, we are concerned that BIA has forgotten that different 

tribes have different kinds of histories. A cookie-cutter approach to 

the seven mandatory criteria doesn’t work. Those criteria often 

can’t be met when historically, it was others, often hostile, who created and kept the documentary evidence of our existence. 

In 30 years, the Department of Interior has collected tens of 

thousands of documents. But it has not yet finally concluded that 

we are a tribe. We urge you to help us by enacting legislation that 

will force this paper chase to come to an end and bring justice to 

our people. 

In closing, you may think that a glacially slow process is a fair 

price to pay for the return to recognition. But with delay comes a 

terrible human cost. Let me share a story about those costs. You 

may have read this story in the press, and I’m sorry I have not 

shared it with you first. This story has many details that I would 

like to share with you, but because the time is short, let me just 

say this. 

17

There were three Little Shell children that were taken away 

from their mother. She was not healthy and could not provide for 

them. These three children were placed in a non-Native family, but 

that family was an unfit foster home. These children were badly 

abused, the foster mother made one little girl, two and a half year 

old Tamisa, put her hands in boiling hot squash. The two older 

girls were abused, both mentally and physically. 

This story had no happy ending. Tamisa, the two and a half year 

old baby, was beaten to death. She had injuries all over and inside 

her body. This happened to our people because we had no Federal 

support. We didn’t have a Federal right to know where the children 

were and we had no tribal infrastructure to deal with such problems. We lost that baby and so many others because we could not 

provide for our people as a federally recognized tribe. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sinclair follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT, THE LITTLE SHELL

TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and honorable members of the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I thank you for the opportunity to testify this 

morning. To our good friend and strong advocate Senator Jon Tester, I thank you 

for your tireless efforts on behalf of the Little Shell Tribe. 

My name is John Sinclair, and I am the President of the Little Shell Tribe. Following in the footsteps of my father and grandfather, I have had the honor to serve 

as President of my Tribe for the past 4 years. I am here today to share with you 

our history with the Federal Government, our experience with the Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) and our request that this honorable body act to ensure Federal recognition for my people. The recognition for which we ask you today has been 

promised to us for more than seventy years. The following 1935 letter from the Department of the Interior from which I quote below is just one piece of a large volume 

of documentation reflecting the Federal Government’s long, but as of yet unsuccessful, efforts to provide official recognition and a land base for the Little Shell people:

This [letter] acknowledges your letter of January 28, [1935] written in behalf 

of landless Indians in northern Montana and suggesting that a certain tract of 

land be set aside for their use.

This Office [the Lands Division for Indian Affairs] in general and the commissioner [John Collier] in particular are thoroughly cognizant of the unfortunate 

situation in which these landless Indians find themselves. To no other groups 

of Indians is so much constructive thought and persistent effort being directed, 

for it is fully realized that theirs is the greatest need.

Also it is most heartening to read in your letter your forthright assurance that, 

once lands are placed to your use, you will be proud to make good.

All government enterprises move slowly in spite of the best of intentions, but 

it is hoped and believed that in the not too distant future a satisfactory plan 

will be consummated for landless Indians in general, including, of course, the 

group to which you belong.

Letter to Joseph H. Dussome from J.N. Stewart, Chief, Land Division, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior (March 2, 1935) (emphasis added).

Federal recognition for our Tribe enjoys long-standing broad, bi-partisan support. 

Identical legislation to recognize the Little Shell Tribe has been introduced this Congress by Senators Tester and Baucus in the Senate (S. 724) and by Congressman 

Rehberg in the House (H.R. 1301). Tribes in Montana and our cousins the Turtle 

Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota, have expressed their support 

of our Federal recognition. 

Governor Schweitzer and the Montana State Legislature, by Joint Resolution, 

have expressed their support for our Federal recognition. Hill, Cascade, Glacier and 

Blaine County as well as the city of Great Falls, the local governments most directly 

impacted by our recognition, have expressed their support of legislation to recognize 

the Little Shell Tribe. In fact, over the past year the State of Montana has provided 

18

us land from which we can provide essential governmental services—something the 

Federal Government had promised to do throughout the twentieth century but has 

yet to succeed in doing. 

The Department of the Interior has issued a proposed finding in favor of Federal 

recognition for our Tribe. Within the next year, we anticipate that the Department 

of the Interior could issue a final determination as to whether to recognize our 

Tribe. On the surface, it may seem odd that we would seek Federal legislation when 

we appear to be so far along in the administrative process. The answer is simple. 

First, as leader of the Little Shell Tribe, I cannot in good conscience let another day 

go by without doing everything in my power to secure recognition that has been 

wrongfully withheld. Every day that passes has real life consequences for my people, 

consequences that never make the headlines in Washington, D.C.—tribal members 

denied the most basic health care services, a tribal government without a federally 

secured land base or Federal funding to provide and maintain essential governmental services. 

Second, the Department has acted on our petition in a unique manner. The Department concluded in its proposed favorable finding that we are a Tribe, but it ‘‘encouraged’’ us to submit more documentation. Basically, the Department found that 

the available evidence supported its findings on each of the criteria, that no evidence was submitted in opposition to the particular finding, but that the Department would prefer to have additional records for certain time periods before the 

1930’s. We took the Department’s suggestions to heart, submitting approximately 

1,000 pages of additional reports and appendices supported by several boxes of documentation. 

We are therefore in a situation where the Department essentially stated in 2000 

that it believes we are a tribe but that without additional documentation it could 

walk away from its favorable finding. Concerned with its application of the regulations to our Tribe, the Department expressly invited comment on the consistency of 

the proposed finding with the existing regulations. To the best of our knowledge, 

not a single recognized tribe or state governmental entity commented on or objected 

to the Department’s proposed favorable finding as inconsistent with the regulations. 

We now find ourselves in an uncertain situation where we fear that the Department 

may reverse its finding even though we have submitted thousands of pages of additional evidence and neither the State, its local governments nor other federally recognized tribes have submitted evidence to the contrary or objected to the Department’s proposed favorable finding. 

Third, our legislation does more than simply confirm Federal recognition. It addresses many of the issues newly recognized tribes and local communities struggle 

with for decades after formal Federal recognition—the establishment of a land base, 

a tribal service area and certainty that our recognition will not be revoked. It is well 

documented that it takes years and sometimes more than a decade for the Department of the Interior to take land into trust for newly recognized tribes. For example, 

it took 8 years after the Jena Band of Choctaw Tribe was recognized before Interior 

took that Tribe’s cemetery and governmental offices into trust. Some of this delay 

is due in part to the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to these 

acquisitions. Further, many tribes suffer from the years it takes for the Department 

to establish a service area for the newly recognized tribe. For example, after completion of administrative challenges to the Department’s final determination acknowledging the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in 2002, the Cowlitz Tribe still does not have a BIAdesignated service area. Thus, we know that even if Interior issues a decision within 

the year, the Tribe could be forced to endure many additional years in legal limbo 

as it struggles to establish a land base and service area. 

Although the State of Montana, the federally recognized tribes within Montana 

and local governments support our recognition, it is becoming increasingly common 

for parties to challenge the Department’s acknowledgment decisions. And most recently, the Department reversed its decision to acknowledge a tribe because of such 

a challenge. While we do not expect a challenge from a governmental entity within 

the State of Montana, we cannot say with certainty that a decision by Interior to 

acknowledge our Tribe will not be challenged. Such challenges typically take years 

to resolve. Thus, we believe that legislation makes sense even if Interior is on track 

to issue a decision within a year. The legislation reflects the desires of the Tribe, 

the State and the local governments most directly impacted by our recognition. That 

is why we seek legislative recognition. 

I. Our History With the Federal Government 

My Tribe, historically often referred to as the ‘‘landless Indians,’’ has been the 

subject of Federal legislation since the early 1900’s. The Little Shell Band is the successor in interest to the Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. We 

19

were buffalo hunters who lived and hunted around the Red River and the Turtle 

Mountains in North Dakota in the early 1800’s. The Pembina Band was recognized 

by the United States in an 1863 Treaty ratified by the Senate. This treaty gave the 

United States possession of the section of our lands near the Red River. After that 

treaty, while some members of the Pembina Band settled on reservations in Minnesota others followed the buffalo herds into western North Dakota and Montana, 

eventually settling in Montana and in the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota. 

In 1890, the United States authorized the creation of a commission to negotiate 

for a cession of land from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa and provide for their removal. Chief Little Shell and his followers walked out on the negotiations and refused to accept the terms of the eventual agreement. In the years that followed the 

1892 Agreement, some of Little Shell’s followers moved to Montana and joined with 

other members of the Pembina Band that had settled in Montana. After their traditional livelihood came to an end with the disappearance of the buffalo, Little Shell 

people were left to barely eke out an existence in a number of shantytowns across 

Montana, competing with both local reservation Indians and white settlers for resources. The Little Shell became known as the ‘‘landless Indians’’ of Montana. Like 

many American Indian people, we faced severe racism and discrimination throughout Montana, some of which continues today. 

A. Congressional Efforts to Assist the Little Shell Band 1900–1920

Congress began appropriating money to buy land for the landless Little Shell as 

early as 1914, when it set aside funds to be used for ‘‘support and civilization of 

Rocky Boy’s Band of Chippewas, and other indigent and homeless Indians in the 

State of Montana[.]’’ 38 Stat. L. 582. Every year thereafter until 1925, Congress consistently appropriated funds for the Rocky Boy’s Band and the ‘‘homeless Indians 

in the State of Montana.’’ Nearly simultaneously, in 1916, Congress enacted legislation establishing a ‘‘reservation for Rocky Boy’s Band of Chippewas and such other 

homeless Indians in the State of Montana as the Secretary of the Interior may see 

fit to locate thereon . . ..’’ Shortly after the reservation was set aside, the Department established a tentative roll of the Indians of the reservation. The initial list 

consisted of 657 individuals. In preparing the final roll, Interior eliminated 206 applicants from the list. The Indian Inspector reported that he had ‘‘given first consideration to the needs of the older and homeless Indians, without means of support.’’ 

Department of the Interior, Proposed Finding for the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians of Montana, Technical Report (‘‘Technical Report’’) at 86. Shut out by the 

Department, Little Shell members were forced to subsist on vacant lands in northcentral and north-western Montana. 

B. The Little Shell Band’s Repeated Pleas for Assistance: 1920–1934

Newspaper articles of the 1920s chronicled the plight of our ancestors. Newspapers in the Great Falls area reported the City’s failed attempts to remove ‘‘the 

Indians who have been long encamped’’ on the edge of town. Technical Report at 

90. In December 1931, Little Shell Tribe/Homeless Indians leader Joseph Dussome 

explained to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the landless Indians of Montana lived on the ‘‘dump piles of our Towns... going to the back allies, digging 

down the swill barrels for their daily bread.’’ Mr. Dussome pleaded for help, stating 

‘‘that a great injustice has been done to my fellow Chippewa and Cree Indians of 

Northern Montana. Are we not entitled to a Reservation and allotments of land in 

our own Country, just the same as other Indians are[?]’’

Less than 2 weeks after receiving Dussome’s plea for assistance, Interior responded that because we had refused to sign a Treaty and had removed from the 

land in North Dakota, we did not retain rights to land at Turtle Mountain:

The Indians referred to are Chippewas of the Turtle Mountain Band. They were 

under the leadership of Little Shell who became dissatisfied with the treaties 

of the United States and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas. He accordingly refused to accede thereto . . .. The disaffected band, by its failure to accede to the terms of the treaty and remove to the reservation is now unable to 

obtain any rights thereon for the reason that the lands of this band are all disposed of, and the rolls became final[.]... There is now no law which will authorize the enrollment of any of those people with the Turtle Mountain band 

for the purposes of permitting them to obtain either land or money.

The Little Shell Tribe thus remained homeless. 

C. Interior’s Efforts to Establish a Reservation and Reorganize our People Under the 

Indian Reorganization Act 

Reflecting the significant shift in modern Federal Indian policy, 3 years after Interior’s rejection of Dussome’s plea, Congress sought to remedy situations such as ours 

20

through the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934. We had continued our pursuit of a tribal land base by meeting with Interior Department officials shortly before the passage of the IRA. During one trip, tribal leader Dussome 

impressed upon the Commissioner of Indian Affairs the dire straits of our people. 

This trip, combined with passage of the IRA, triggered a flurry of activity by the 

Department to acquire lands for the Little Shell. Initially, Interior officials in Washington, D.C. pursued lands near the Ft. Belknap Reservation, stating:

The Office [of Indian Affairs] referred to certain plans to purchase tracts of land 

in Montana which could be set aside for the use of the Chippewa Indians, special mention being made of a project to acquire ‘‘some 20,000 acres near the 

Fort Belknap reservation.’’ Plans for the use of this area do not in any sense 

contemplate the mixing of the Chippewa Indians with those now on the Fort 

Belknap reservation. The area under negotiation is not part of the Fort Belknap 

reservation and justification for its purchase is not based on the needs of the 

Fort Belknap Indians. If it is purchased it will be available for the use of the 

Chippewa Indians exclusively[.]

Plans for settling the Little Shell Band on the parcel near Ft. Belknap were abandoned by the Department based on the belief that our ancestors were not willing 

to settle on that land. 

In the mid 1930s, the Department expended considerable effort to acquire land 

near the Rocky Boy’s Reservation for our people. Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman explained that the land could be established as a new reservation for the landless Indians or added to the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. Although original estimates 

suggested that the acquisition would be sufficient for approximately 100 families, 

the Department ultimately concluded that the purchased land could only accommodate 25 families. 

The conclusion that the parcel near the Rocky Boy’s Reservation was insufficient 

to meet existing needs did not deter the Department from its efforts to find land 

for the Little Shell. Interior officials underscored the Department’s determination to 

secure a land base for our people, explaining:

The landless Indians whom we are proposing to enroll and settle on newly purchased land belong to this same stock, and their history in recent years is but 

a continuation of the history of wandering and starvation which formerly the 

Rocky Boy’s band had endured.

Out of the land purchase funds authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, 

we are now purchasing about 34,000 acres for the settlement of these Indians 

and also to provide irrigated hay land for the Indians now enrolled on Rocky 

Boy’s Reservation. The new land, if devoted wholly to that purpose, would take 

care of only a fraction of the homeless Indians, but it is our intention to continue this program through the years until something like adequate subsistence 

is provided for those who cannot provide for themselves. . . . The fact of these 

people being Indian and being entitled to the benefits intended by Congress has 

not been questioned.

The Department realized that although ‘‘it would be highly desirable to secure a 

single area or reservation which would meet the needs of all the Chippewa Indians 

of Montana... this seems to be impossible at this time... [and] the Indians 

must adjust their plans to take advantage of the best that we can secure for them.’’ 

Reflecting this sentiment, during this time period, the Bureau of Indian Affairs acquired a 42-acre tract of land near Great Falls, Montana. The land was acquired 

for the benefit of landless Indians located in the vicinity of Great Falls. Although 

Little Shell members were ready to move to the parcel, Interior explained that 

‘‘[l]ocal public opinion forced the abandonment of the project. Local residents of the 

vicinity did not wish the Indians as their neighbors.’’ In 1950, Congress enacted legislation providing for the sale of those lands. P.L. 714, 81st Congress, 2d Session, 

August 18, 1950. 

D. The Roe Cloud Roll—The Department of the Interior Prepares an Indian Roll to 

Facilitate Organization Under the IRA 

In addition to its efforts to secure a reservation near the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, 

Interior took steps to prepare a detailed census of our people who were one-half or 

more Indian blood. In December 1935, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs submitted 

a proposed form of enrollment under the IRA. The Commissioner explained that the 

form was modeled upon a number of other tribal enrollment forms. In his memorandum seeking approval, the Commissioner emphasized the plight of the Little 

Shell people, stating:

21

It is very important that the enrollment of homeless Indians in the State of 

Montana be instituted immediately, and it is proposed to use this form in the 

determination of Indians who are entitled to the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act.

This enrollment process resulted in the Roe Cloud Roll, named after Dr. Henry 

Roe Cloud, an Interior official who played a large part in the enrollment project. 

Leaders of the Little Shell Tribe provided invaluable assistance to the enrollment 

project. As one Indian Affairs official explained, Joseph Dussome’s ‘‘services were indispensable in identifying the Indians and in advising us where to locate them.’’

Our current members are generally the descendents of Indians who were either 

on the Roe Cloud Roll or immediate kin to someone on the roll. The Roe Cloud Roll 

is important for a number of reasons, including that it is a Federal document certifying our ancestors as being one-half or more Indian blood and it reflects the efforts 

and intentions of the Department to provide for the reorganization of our Tribe. 

These efforts were taken to reverse the destructive Federal policies of previous decades. 

E. State and Federal Efforts to Secure Federal Recognition for Our People: 1940–

1950

As Interior moved forward on the enrollment project, its progress in acquiring 

lands for the Little Shell slowed largely because of the lack of Federal appropriations to acquire land. In other words, had appropriations been sufficient to acquire 

land, it appears that both the Department and the State of Montana strongly supported establishment of a reservation for our people. Had a reservation been established, we would be recognized today. 

Records from this time period provide ample evidence that the lack of appropriations prevented our recognition. For example:

• Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman explained to Senator Murray in 1940, 

‘‘[t]he Indian Office is keenly aware of the pressing need of the landless Chippewa Cree Indians of Montana. The problem thus far has been dealt with only 

in a very small way. I sincerely hope that additional funds will be provided for 

future purchases in order that the larger problem remaining can be dealt with 

in a more adequate manner.’’ May 13, 1940 Letter from Assistant Commissioner 

Zimmerman to Senator James E. Murray.

• In 1941, the Montana State Senate and House highlighted our plight of ‘‘living 

in makeshift dwellings on the outskirts of our various Montana Cities’’ and sent 

a Joint Memorial to the U.S. Congress urging the Congress ‘‘to immediately 

enact appropriate legislation to create an Indian Reservation for all Montana 

landless Indians.’’

• In response to the local Superintendent’s request for funds so that tribal leader 

Dussome could travel to Washington to advocate for the purchase of land, Commissioner John Collier (largely credited as the architect of the IRA) explained:

[Our] Office, as you know, has been sympathetic toward the desires of these 

people to secure land upon which they could settle and build homes. Unfortunately appropriations have not been sufficient to permit us to do much 

in the way of rehabilitating this group upon newly acquired lands. Various 

Members of the Congressional delegation from Montana have been interested in the condition of these people... [l]ittle can be accomplished by 

the Indian Office until funds have been made available by Congress for 

their rehabilitation[.]

• That same year, Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman underscored the Department’s dilemma—that it desperately wanted to assist our people but that it 

could not do so because of a lack of appropriations.

We have on several occasions studied this problem and can see no way in 

which any solution can be arrived at without specific, adequate appropriations. There are more than 500 families in the State without resources of 

any kind, who have no equity in any reservation, and who constitute a serious social problem. Essential to any scheme of self-support for them is an 

adequate land base. . . . To provide necessary land for this number of 

families would require a million dollars, in addition to some lands now part 

of the public domain. Another million would be required for loans and 

grants for cattle purchases, machinery, homes, and farm buildings....

We are ready to undertake this task if the Congress is willing to provide 

the necessary funds.... The project is perfectly feasible; the Indians unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Dec 12, 2007 Jkt 038917 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38917.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
22

doubtedly are in great need; they deserve some effort on the part of the 

Federal Government. We shall be happy to cooperate in any way.

• Responding to a petition requesting that a nearby ranch be purchased for our 

benefit, the Office of Indian Affairs explained their predicament to Joseph 

Dussome:

As mentioned in prior correspondence there are no funds available with 

which to enter into a land purchase program for the benefit of the landless 

Indians of Montana. We fully appreciate the land needs of these Indians, 

and it is our desire to aid them at the first opportunity. As stated before, 

such action will be dependent upon the availability of funds. . . . As previously intimated, a large sum will be necessary to take care of the land 

needs of the group in which you are interested, and until such time as Congress appropriates the necessary funds for this purpose, we will be able to 

do very little.

• In 1949, the Department reiterated its desire to assist my people and its inability to establish a land base because of the lack of appropriations. In a letter 

to Representative Mike Mansfield, Acting Commissioner William Zimmerman 

explained:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of February 1, enclosing one from 

Hon. John W. Bonner, Governor of Montana, concerning the landless Indians of Montana with particular reference to their destitution and need for 

rehabilitation.

Our files contain considerable correspondence concerning the needs of these 

Indians and suggested plans for their rehabilitation, but due to lack of 

funds this office has been unable to do very much to relieve the situation.... Before anything can be done for the relief of these Indians, it 

will be necessary for Congress to appropriate adequate funds for that purpose.

In 1940, a tribal representative of the Little Shell Tribe perfectly summarized the 

quandary of the Tribe, stating:

[Assistant Commissioner] Zimmerman... told us that we couldn’t have any 

allocation or organization or corporate charter under this act until we have 

land. He said ‘‘we haven’t got money to buy land and appropriations have been 

drastically cut from year to year and there is nothing we can do.’’ Summing up 

our negotiations with the Interior Department we come to this conclusion: First, 

we are entitled to rights as an Indian but as to forming an organization, borrowing from the revolving loan, we must first have a charter. We can’t get a 

charter unless we have land. We can’t have land because the Indian Office is 

broke...

Because adequate funds were never appropriated to acquire land for my people, 

the Tribe continued to struggle over the decades that followed to satisfy the basic 

needs of our members. As you know, in the late 1970s the Department of the Interior formulated an administrative process. Because we are in the final stages of that 

process, I do not feel it is in the best interest of my Tribe to criticize the process 

or the Department. I will, however, provide a few general observations regarding 

our petition for acknowledgment. 

II. Our Experience With the Administrative Process 

We originally filed a letter petitioning for Federal acknowledgment on April 28, 

1978, almost 6 months before Interior’s administrative process for acknowledgment 

was created. The process has proved to be extremely resource intensive. I believe 

that the lack of available resources greatly hinders both the tribes in the process 

and the Department. 

Over the past 29 years, we have been fortunate to receive the services of the Native American Rights Fund. Without their assistance, it’s unfathomable that we 

could have found the funds necessary to retain legal counsel and consultants for this 

extended period of time. Over the past 15 years, NARF has spent over 3,400 attorney hours on our administrative petition. Consultants and graduate students put in 

thousands and thousands of additional hours. Tribal consultants, such as historians, 

genealogists and graduate students, donated substantial amounts of time pro bono 

or worked at substantially reduced rates in compiling large portions of the petition. 

Even with this generosity, however, the total cost for consultants and associated expenses over the last fifteen years exceeds $1 million dollars. Literally tens-of-thousands of documents have been provided with regard to our petition. 

23

The lengthy process also inflicts an immeasurable human cost, wherein the acknowledgement torch is passed from one generation to another. The task of securing 

professionals to assist us with our petition and the collection of documents from repositories across the United States, Canada and England is itself demanding, but 

it pales in comparison to the demands of providing for my people without the protection of Federal recognition, without a land base. And our current status impacts the 

prospects for our future generations. Moreover, it is heartbreaking to consider the 

idea that after nearly 30 years in the administrative process, in the politically 

charged atmosphere of Washington, D.C., the Department could reverse its proposed 

favorable finding and decide not confer Federal acknowledgment. 

Our tribal status is well documented. Interior’s proposed finding documents include a 234 page technical report that provides evidence to satisfy each of Interior’s 

mandatory criteria. Interior expressly concluded that each of the mandatory criteria 

were satisfied, requesting the Tribe to search for additional evidence to supplement 

the evidence that already exists. We have submitted additional documentation, as 

requested by the Department. Notably, we have provided additional documentation 

to demonstrate that 94.4 percent of our members descend from a historic tribe. In 

all, we estimate that we have submitted thousands of pages of additional documentation for our petition. 

One criterion that the Congress may wish to consider for modification is criterion 

(a)—since 1900, identification of a Tribe by external sources. Although we clearly 

satisfy this factor (as the Department concluded in its proposed finding), we submit 

that it is nonsensical that a petitioner could satisfy all of the other criteria, thus 

demonstrating that it is a Tribe, and yet potentially fail to be recognized simply because a non-Indian never documented the Tribe in the early 1900s or that documentation no longer exists. 

III. This Honorable Body Should Act to Recognize the Little Shell Tribe 

I respectfully implore this honorable Committee to act favorably on the legislation 

introduced by Senators Tester and Baucus to confirm our Federal recognition. I submit that this Congress should complete the efforts of previous Congresses to secure 

to us a fraction of the Indian lands lost by our people over time. Congress undertook 

this honorable effort in the 1910s and 1920s, appropriating money for the purchase 

of land for our ancestors but, as Interior officials acknowledged, it was woefully inadequate to meet our desperate needs. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Department of 

the Interior made substantial efforts to enroll our ancestors and acquire land for us, 

but Congress never appropriated the funds necessary to secure a land base for us. 

This Congress has an opportunity to finish what it started by acting on our pending 

legislation. Legislation that will cost the public very little, but will be a giant first 

step in putting our Tribe on an equal footing with our sister Tribes. 

From time to time, representatives in this honorable institution have rightly questioned Congress’ ability to determine whether a particular group constitutes an Indian tribe. I submit that this Congress has a more than ample record on which to 

enact this legislation. In addition to the tens of thousands of records held by the 

Department in connection with our Petition, the Congress has a long legislative 

record of acting for our benefit. Congress also has a history of enacting similar legislation. In recent history, Congress enacted such legislation for tribes like the Little 

Traverse Bay Band and the Little River Band—Tribes for whom Department attempted to recognize in the 1930s but because of the lack of appropriations recognition was never completed. And unlike other tribes acknowledged by Federal legislation, here the Congress can rely upon the Department of the Interior’s proposed favorable finding to recognize our Tribe. 

Our strong historical record is reinforced by the fact that our recognition is not 

politically controversial in the State of Montana. Our Congressional delegation supports this legislation. Montana’s State and local governments support our recognition. And in addition to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, every federally recognized Tribe in the State of Montana supports our recognition. Indeed, 

we are the only non-federally recognized tribe included in two significant inter-tribal 

organizations—the Montana–Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council and the Council of 

Large Land Based Tribes. Area tribes recognize our legitimacy. Indeed, we know of 

no opposition to this legislation by any recognized governmental entity within the 

State. 

As I’ve previously mentioned, Senator Tester and Baucus’ legislation resolves 

more issues than our recognition. The legislation also addresses issues that often 

present significant challenges to tribes and local communities after a tribe is recognized through the acknowledgment process. This legislation provides certainty to all 

interested parties regarding land acquisition and establishes a service area in which 

the Tribal members can immediately begin to receive long over-due Federal services. 

24

And finally, the bill provides the certainty of Federal acknowledgment. While we 

fully expect to the Department to affirm it favorable finding—particularly since to 

the best of our knowledge no party has submitted a single historical record that 

would undermine Interior’s previous finding—such certainty is understandably important. For almost 100 years we have relied on the Federal Government’s promises 

to take the steps necessary recognize our government and secure a home for our 

people. We often get so very close and then something goes awry. This legislation 

is your opportunity to ensure that previous mistakes are not repeated. 

Every day that passes has concrete impacts on the Tribe. For example, even 

though we are eligible for Indian Health Care services, for several years now over 

1,200 Little Shell members have been taken off of the Indian Health Service rolls 

because they were not on the original roll the Little Shell Tribe presented to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1989. Many of these members were not even born at 

the time of the original roll or are not on the rolls because of clerical oversight. Federal recognition would alleviate this situation and ensure that all of our tribal members receive necessary health services. 

IV. Conclusion 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this Committee with an overview 

of our history, our experience with the Federal Acknowledgement Process, and why 

this honorable Committee should favorably report S. 724 out of Committee. I am 

happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Sinclair, thank you very much for 

your testimony. I understand the passion and the emotion and I 

very much appreciate your being here today on behalf of your tribe. 

Next we will hear from Chairperson Ann Tucker, from the 

Muscogee Nation of Florida in Bruce, Florida. Chairperson Tucker, 

thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER, CHAIRWOMAN, 

MUSCOGEE NATION OF FLORIDA 

Ms. TUCKER. Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, 

members of the Committee, I am Chairwoman Ann Denson Tucker 

of the Muscogee Nation of Florida. I am honored to represent my 

tribal government and my people on the subject of Federal recognition. 

As Petitioner Number 32 in the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, we now have the dubious distinction of being one of the three 

oldest petitioners. We have seen many things. This year marks 60 

years since the longest serving community leader, my great grandfather, wrote to the BIA and explained that our people should 

share in land claim settlements under the Treaty of Fort Jackson. 

The BIA’s written response: well, you are mistaken, you cannot 

possibly be who you say you are, because the members of that tribe 

are either dead or removed. 

Ten years later, the BIA admitted they were wrong. But it took 

until 1971 to receive a notice of settlement. By then, my greatgrandfather had been dead for 2 years. Telling you this today is important, because in 1852, State law made it illegal to be an Indian 

living freely in the State of Florida. So the settlement letter was 

our mechanism to confirm our racial identification in a place where 

Jim Crow laws had forced us to become either white or black. Indian wasn’t allowed where we lived. And I guess today that would 

be called ethnic cleansing. 

We continued with a petition submitted in the mid to late 1970s. 

That was returned because the rules had been restated. And we 

started again. 

25

But in our case, this Federal recognition is not only about selfdetermination. It is about our very survival as a community of Indian people. My tribe has the same desperate needs that it had 30 

years ago. Little has changed in this respect. But the urban sprawl 

of the Gulf of Mexico coastline has pushed newcomers into the 

rural interior, and that seriously threatens our community’s integrity. It has come at us from all sides, and we are running out of 

time. 

We cannot afford property taxes that come with coastal subdivisions. It is a way of life that we have never had to be a part of. 

So in our world, we worry about where are we supposed to remove 

to this time, when we are priced out of our home land and still 

waiting for an answer from the OFA. 

Time, a lack of money, new precedents, urban sprawl, inaction 

when this process first needed fixing, these are our enemies. It is 

our understanding that you want to know why our tribe came to 

this Committee with legislation. We are here because no American, 

particularly the first Americans, should have to wait across generations to be recognized. We are a poor community. We have no more 

resources to battle the OFA. There are no grants that pay for recognition. There is no grandfathering in. Old tribes must follow current regulations without regard to what the regulations were when 

we started. 

There is little to no staff assistance, no written communication. 

Our universe becomes 100 years of 10 year increments, scanned 

and digitized, sorted 4 ways and subject to interpretation by people 

who have never left their office to understand the nature of our 

community. For them, our world is a paper trail put together by 

highly educated and expensive professionals. But that is not our 

world. We have buried two generations of people waiting for selfdetermination. I would like to not have to bury the last survivors 

of the third generation. They are in their 80s. 

So I am here. I have traveled from Bruce, Florida to tell you that 

we are a 150 year old community of this Country’s indigenous people and we are still waiting for justice. Our quality of life matters. 

The preservation of our culture and our tradition matters. Righting 

a 150 year old wrong matters, and it matters now. It doesn’t matter 10 years from now when a limping agency can maybe make a 

decision that may or may not be just and may or may not be reversed. 

We are here because we are an Indian government. We are a 

people who have managed to survive Andrew Jackson as a territorial Governor. We have survived Indian removal and genocide, 

the Civil War, the Jim Crow laws, and a battle to prove that we 

were not eradicated, we still exist. These things we have faced and 

survived for 150 years as an Indian community. But if we cannot 

get resolutions to problems inherent in the OFA process, we honestly do not believe that our tribal population will survive Federal 

recognition. 

From the age of four, when I remember my first council meeting, 

it was taught to me that Congress is where tribal governments go 

to seek relief for their people. It is as you said, Chairman Dorgan, 

you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. 

On behalf of the tribal government and the people of the Muscogee 

26

Nation of Florida, thank you for allowing our voice to be heard 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER, CHAIRWOMAN, MUSCOGEE

NATION OF FLORIDA

I. Introduction 

Chairman Dorgan, honorable Committee Members, my name is Ann Denson 

Tucker. I am Chairwoman of the Muscogee Nation of Florida, the Florida Tribe of 

Eastern Creek Indians. I am honored to be here representing my Tribe and my people to testify about my Tribe’s experience with the Federal recognition process. 

My Tribe needs and deserves Federal recognition, and we appreciate this Committee’s interest in reviewing the flaws in the Bureau of Indian Affair’s (BIA) current 

recognition procedures. 

My Tribe is not just another victim of the recognition bureaucracy—Petitioner 

Number 32 in the Office of Federal Acknowledgement—we are also the second oldest. We have been trapped in the BIA recognition system since the mid-70s. After 

filing multiple Petitions and surviving a number of rule changes over 25 years, we 

were finally classified as ‘‘Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration.’’ That was 4 

years ago. We are still on the list, without any indication of when the BIA will act 

on our Petition. All told, we have been trapped in BIA’s bureaucracy for over 30 

years and we have nothing but expense and frustration to show for it. 

My Tribe has exhausted its resources. It can no longer pursue or respond to the 

BIA’s failed process—a process that requires applicants to re-do and re-file papers 

and studies and to comply with rules, regulations, and interpretations that did not 

exist when our initial application was made—a process whose pace can be characterized, at best, as glacial or, perhaps, as no pace at all. My Tribe has worked, waited, 

struggled, and sacrificed in this process for over 30 years. At every turn, we have 

learned that the BIA tribal recognition process is enormously burdensome, confusing 

and unfair. The recognition process represents a clear failure of the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to Indian Tribes and should be addressed by Congress. 

II. Background on the Muscogee Nation of Florida 

The Muscogee Nation of Florida, also known as the Florida Tribe of Eastern 

Creek Indians, is a Tribe of Creek Indian people whose home is centered in Bruce, 

in Walton County, Florida. Our ancestors were one of the Tribes that made up the 

Historic Creek Confederacy, and were signatories to the 11 treaties with the United 

States between 1790 and 1833 that led to the Creeks forced removal from their traditional homelands. In response to attempts to remove our community, our ancestral 

tribal leaders left their Indian enclave in Daleville, Alabama and followed the 

Choctawhatchee River south to Bruce Creek, where they re-established our community, traditions and homes. Since that time—150 years ago—my Tribe has lived, 

fished, hunted, farmed cooperatively, raised cattle, and practiced our traditional 

ceremonies on this land as a community and as a distinct cultural, social and political unit. 

By the time we migrated from Daleville to Bruce, Jim Crow laws had been enacted in Florida. By 1850 it was illegal to trade with Indians. And in 1852, it became illegal—under penalty of death—for Indians to be ‘‘Indian,’’ unless the Indian 

was confined to a Reservation. Under the general outlawing of Indians, people could 

be white or ‘‘colored,’’ but could not be openly Indian. Because my Tribe had no formal reservation, the Jim Crow laws made it nearly impossible for us to openly embrace our cultural heritage and community. We survived until the Jim Crow laws 

were repealed only by cooperatively maintaining our communal anonymity. Allow 

me to repeat this, for nearly 100 years our Tribe was forced to hide its government, 

traditional ceremonies, and culture. As a result, under the best of circumstances, 

satisfying BIA’s tribal recognition requirements became difficult. The fact that BIA 

continuously changes its tribal recognition requirements, and ignores the impact of 

the Jim Crow laws, has made the task almost impossible. 

Most of my Tribe’s members continue to live in and around Bruce, just as our ancestors did after migrating from Alabama. We have lived together, worked together, 

married one another, and buried one another as a community. We have our own 

rules and we have our own leaders. We have kept our ways and our ceremonies. 

We even built our own school in which our people teach our children about our traditions. 

27

1The following is a brief summary of my Tribe’s efforts to achieve recognition through the 

administrative process: • 1978—The Tribe submits an initial petition for recognition. The petition is returned later 

that year purportedly because of changes to BIA regulations. • 1978–1995—The Tribe prepared three separate petitions for recognition. The first two petitions were not submitted because of continuing changes to agency regulations and policies. The third was submitted to BIA in June, 1995. • 1996—The Tribe received a ‘‘Technical Assistance’’ letter from BIA requiring additional 

research and document preparation. The Tribe submitted its response in 2002. • 2003—The Tribe was placed on the ‘‘Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration’’ list. At the 

same time, the Tribe was notified that because of additional changes to agency regulations the Tribe needed to electronically submit in excess of 840,000 pages of documents. 2The Acknowledgment Precedent Manual offered as a guide has a qualifying statement that 

its contents do not serve to constraint the staff or any decisions made. 3Final Determinations and other formal findings from OFA cite historical, anthropological and 

genealogical standards. The only standards of these type are academic communities, not the regulations.

III. The Muscogee Nation of Florida’s Experience with the Recognition 

Process 

My Tribe’s experience with BIA’s recognition process is not unique. Let me tell 

you our story. 

It has been 60 years since our community leader—my great grandfather—wrote 

to the BIA and explained that our people deserved compensation for lands taken 

under the Treaty of Ft. Jackson. BIA’s response, which is on file in the Federal Archives, was dismissive, declaring curtly, ‘‘You are mistaken. You cannot possibly be 

who you say you are because the members of that Tribe are either dead or removed. . .’’ Fast forward 10 years to 1957 (the same year the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida was granted Federal recognition), when the BIA finally acknowledged that 

it had not rid the Southeast of the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians; the same 

year the Seminole Tribe of Florida was granted Federal recognition. Fast forward 

again 14 years, to 1971, when BIA finally verified our racial identification to the 

U.S. Government and, in turn, to the State of Florida. By then, my great grandfather had been dead for 2 years, and we had already spent 24 years getting the 

BIA to acknowledge our existence as Indians. Now, 36 years later, I am here to tell 

you that our Indian community and tribal government are still waiting for the BIA 

to acknowledge that we are a Tribe, and, with no end to the regulatory process in 

sight, we need Congress to intervene. 1

Because we are one of the oldest Tribes still seeking Federal recognition, having 

sought recognition before there even was a formal process, and because we have ridden the tail of the regulatory tiger as it has run haphazardly through change after 

change, we can offer the following specific examples of some of the problems that 

have crippled the BIA tribal recognition process: 

The lack of an accountable standard of interpretation—Staff members’ interpretations are inconsistent; and when inconsistencies arise, staff is not accountable. 2 Additionally, in making its findings and final determinations, BIA does not apply the 

standards set forth in BIA’s own regulations, electing, instead to cite to standards 

for review and have been developed by academics. Rather than observing the intent 

and letter of applicable Federal regulations, BIA’s process has become an ad hoc

jumble of regulatory interpretation in which Federal regulations are ignored. 3

• Undue influence by ‘‘parties of interest’’ before a factual determination is made.

OFA no longer defers comments by parties opposing acknowledgment petitions 

until OFA has made its factual determination based on the evidence submitted 

by the Tribe. Protesters now are free to oppose petitions and wage public relations campaigns even before BIA has fully considered the Tribe’s petition. These 

activities make it impossible for the process to be a fair, factually-based evaluation.

• OFA’s unwillingness to provide documentation that it possesses. The sheer magnitude of the BIA’s requirements regarding the format, size and amount of documentation are not justifiable and cause the cost of preparing a filing a petition 

for acknowledgment prohibitive. To make matters worse, if evidence of conditions precedent to recognition is not available to the tribal petitioner but is in 

OFA’s possession, OFA will reject a Tribe’s petition for lack of evidence rather 

than supplementing the Tribe’s petition with evidence OFA has in its files. 4

Please allow me to identify one final, overarching problem that has impacted us 

dramatically: the ever shifting goal line.

In 1978, when my Tribe filed its first petition for acknowledgment, Tribes were 

not required to do multiple filings. However my Tribe has been required to continVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Dec 12, 2007 Jkt 038917 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38917.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
28

4 H.R. Rep. 103–7811 103d Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994) at 2; 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3768, 3769.

5 Available at: http://www.doi.gov/benefits.html

ually file new papers to address changes in BIA’s regulations, changes in BIA’s ‘‘internal operating procedures’’ of the BIA and changes in BIA’s own interpretations 

of evidence in support of our petition that we previously submitted to it. 

My Tribe has expended untold human and financial resources trying to satisfy the 

BIA. We have been forced by the process to retain attorneys, historians, genealogists, archaeologists and other experts to satisfy the BIA’s requirements ad new 

legal precedents. And we have done it all over again when the BIA’s requirements 

changed. After each attempt we have been met with new demands and no substantive action. After more than 30 years of trying to satisfy changing BIA demands 

of our initial Petition approaches, it is clear that the BIA’s process is patently defective and terminally inefficient. 

IV. The Importance of Fair and Efficient Federal Recognition Regulations 

The BIA’s rules and procedures cause it to withhold recognition from Tribes who 

have made proper application for, and who are entitled to, recognition. The BIA’s 

intransigence threatens the survival of Tribes and the well-being of Tribal members. 

I understand that this hearing is not being held to hear my Tribe’s argument for 

Federal recognition. However, understanding the importance of Federal recognition 

makes it easier to see that my Tribe’s frustrations with BIA are neither unique nor 

inconsequential. 

Federal recognition acknowledges the significance of tribal governments and the 

U.S. government’s responsibility to Tribes. It also opens opportunities to Tribes 

under various Federal programs reserved for federally recognized Tribes, facilitates 

economic development and enables Tribes to qualify for Federal funding. As Congress has stated:

‘‘Recognized’’ is more than a simple adjective; it is a legal term of art. It means 

that the government acknowledges as a matter of law that a particular Native 

American group is a Tribe by conferring specific legal status on that 

group... This Federal recognition is no minor step. A formal political act, it 

permanently establishes a government-to-government relationship between the 

United States and the recognized Tribe as a ‘‘domestic dependent nation,’’ and 

imposes on the government a fiduciary trust relationship to the Tribe and its 

members. Concomitantly, it institutionalizes the Tribe’s quasi-sovereign status, 

along with all the powers accompanying that status such as the power to tax, 

and to establish a separate judiciary. Finally, it imposes on the Secretary of the 

Interior specific obligations to provide a panoply of benefits and services to the 

Tribe and its members. In other words, unequivocal Federal recognition of tribal 

status is prerequisite to receiving the services provided by the BIA and establishes tribal status for all Federal purposes. 4

The Department of the Interior’s website boasts that ‘‘[t]he scope of Indian Affairs 

programs is extensive and includes a range of services comparable to the programs 

of state and local government, e.g., education, social services, law enforcement, 

courts, real estate services, agriculture and range management, and resource protection.’’ 5 None of these services and benefits is available to my Tribe so long as it is 

trapped in the BIA’s recognition process. 

The importance of Federal recognition cannot be overstated. Tribes have endured 

forced relocation, aggressive and open government discrimination, and years of neglect by government bureaucrats. In spite of these trials, Tribes have worked, and 

continue to work diligently to address pressing economic, education, and resource 

issues. We should be able to avail ourselves of programs intended to support our 

efforts. We should not be thwarted by the ineptitude and further neglect of the BIA. 

V. Conclusion 

Congress must take action to reform the tribal recognition process. Put simply, 

it is unreasonable for the BIA to have a regulatory review process that takes decades to complete, requires Tribes to pay exorbitant sums for attorneys, historians, 

genealogists, archaeologists and other experts and relies on a body of regulations 

that constantly change, making compliance nearly impossible. 

Applicants should not be made to wait decades for fair BIA action. Federal recognition is not only about self-determination. It is about our very survival as a community of Indian people. My Tribe has the same desperate needs that it had 35 

years ago: housing, health care, education, elderly services and emergency management. These needs—critical to the survival of our Tribe’s members—have been compounded by the passage of time and the BIA’s neglect. 

29

As each year passes my Tribe struggles to care for its members needs as it becomes more and more difficult to imagine when we will receive the Federal recognition to which we are entitled. The tribal leaders who began the recognition process 

in their youth are now tribal elders. Our elders, like my mother, deserve to be recognized before they pass leaving the burden of engaging the BIA bureaucracy to the 

next tribal generation. 

I appreciate the invitation to speak to you today on behalf of the Muscogee Nation 

of Florida. My Tribe hopes that Congress will take action to ensure that Federal 

recognition process is reformed and streamlined in ways that produce timely, fair, 

and predictable responses to petitions for recognition. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairperson Tucker, thank you very much for 

coming to Washington and offering that testimony. We appreciate 

it. 

And Chairman Yob, you have been properly introduced as well 

by our colleague, Senator Levin. So you may proceed with your testimony. Your formal testimony will be part of the permanent 

record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON YOB, CHAIRMAN, GRAND RIVER 

BANDS OF OTTAWA INDIANS OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. YOB. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Ron Yob and I am Chairman of the Grand 

River Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan. With me this morning 

is Fran Compo, Vice Chairman of the Tribe. 

I am honored to appear before the Committee this morning to 

talk about why tribes such as Grand River are seeking legislation 

to resolve their Federal status. The short answer is that the process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs is too slow, too expensive and 

too cumbersome for all groups in the Federal acknowledgement 

process. 

Quite simply, I would not be here today except that the BIA 

failed to meet a statutory deadline for considering our petition. 

Congress set the deadline by law in 1997. Unfortunately in that 

law, Congress did not include any provisions for making the BIA 

accountable for failing to meet the deadline. And there is no penalty against the BIA for not doing their job. It is only the Grand 

River Bands that suffers. 

We are lucky to live in the same places that our ancestors lived 

and those are the very same ancestors who signed treaties in 1821, 

1836 and 1855, ceding vast amounts of territory to the United 

States. Last year we were proud to bring home the original 1855 

Treaty of Detroit to the Gerald Ford Museum in Grand Rapids 

where the signing was exactly 150 years ago. I happen to have a 

great, great, great, great-grandfather that signed that treaty. 

We are a treaty tribe, and our members trace from ancestors who 

signed those treaties. In 1997, Congress enacted the Michigan Indian Lands Claims Settlement Act to provide for distribution of Ottawa and Chippewa judgment awards for payment of lost lands. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians was eligible to receive 

funds if the tribe submitted its full petition by December, 2000. 

The BIA had to complete action on the petition before the deadline 

for distribution of the funds to individuals, which was March 2007. 

Unfortunately, while the Grand River met the legal date for filing its petition, the BIA failed to act on our petition by the deadline 

30

set in the bill. Our own members voluntarily did the very technical 

work of verifying the memberships through authenticated birth, 

death, baptism and marriage records. We provided a full response 

to the BIA in May 2006 and were placed on the ready for active 

list 9 months later. This was 4 months before the BIA actually paid 

out the judgment funds to individual members in June 2007. 

This payment, while welcomed by many of our members, means 

that the Tribe will not receive either the statutory 20 percent of 

judgment funds or the bonus money for newly recognized tribes authorized by the 1997 Act while $3 million will revert to the U.S. 

Treasury. Senators Levin and Stabenow introduced legislation in 

the 109th Congress to require a timely review of our petition by the 

BIA. This Committee held a hearing in June 2006 and the members seemed very sympathetic to our plight. However, the Committee did not report the bill to the Senate for action. 

Again, early in this 110th Congress, Senators Levin and 

Stabenow re-introduced the legislation, and we are grateful to them 

for their unfailing support. However, while the time has now 

passed for the Tribe to receive the judgment funds, we feel strongly 

that the BIA should be held accountable to act on our behalf. Congress should require the BIA to review our petition on an expedited 

basis. 

There is no mistake: we are a tribe by any objective measure and 

should be federally recognized. We were never terminated and we 

have been mentioned in several statutes enacted by Congress in 

the past 50 years. We are recognized by the State of Michigan and 

by other recognized tribes in our State. Our ancestors signed three 

treaties with the United States. Our reservation lands were taken 

from us. The only positive here is that the Tribe has survived with 

its culture, language and tribal traditions intact. We are in grave 

danger now of losing our Tribe if we are forced to wait another 15, 

20 or 25 years for the BIA to act on our petition. 

The first petitioner on the ready for active list was placed there 

11 years ago, and we are number 10 on that list. Our children do 

not have the health and education benefits that their cousins now 

enjoy. Our inland hunting and fishing rights in the State of U.S. 

v. Michigan are being negotiated by others as we speak because 

the Tribe cannot be at the table. Our jurisdiction over our children 

under the Indian Child Welfare Act could be eroded and our ability 

to provide for re-burial of our ancestors’ remains under NPCRA is 

also in danger. 

There is enormous pressure on our members to enroll in other 

tribes where benefits are available to them. The BIA is slow in the 

process and inherently biased against recognition. It is also very, 

very expensive. We believe the bias should be the other way 

around. It should be in favor of recognition unless there is strong 

evidence that the petitioning group is not a tribe. 

Again, I want to thank the Committee members for your interest 

in helping Indian tribes who purely by accident of history are not 

now part of the Federal family of Indian tribes. We are ready to 

help in any way possible to make recognition a reality for all legitimate Indian groups. 

Megwich. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yob follows:]

31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON YOB, CHAIRMAN, GRAND RIVER BANDS OF

OTTAWA INDIANS OF MICHIGAN

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski and members of the Senate Indian 

Affairs Committee, it is an honor to be asked to testify this morning on behalf of 

the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians on the very important topic of how Indian 

tribes are granted recognition by the United States. 

Overview: There are three ways Tribes are granted recognition: by Congress, by 

the Administration or by a Federal court. In recent years, Congress has been reluctant to enact bills to grant tribes recognition status though numerous tribes were 

recognized by statute before the advent of gaming. Since the beginning of this Administration in January 2001, the Secretary of the Interior has recognized two 

groups as Federal tribes but has denied recognition to ten tribes. Recent Court cases 

are few, but some have resulted in negotiated settlements that deal with timing of 

review of petitions by the Administration. 

The Federal acknowledgment process (FAP) is governed by regulations found at 

25 C.F.R. 83 that were first published in 1978. It is important to note that Congress 

has never weighed in on either the criteria outlined in the regulations, or on the process used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to implement those regulations. There 

is no clear statutory underpinning for the regulations administered by the Office of 

Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) at the BIA, the office that processes petitions from 

Indian groups to determine whether or not they meet the seven criteria in the regulations. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians Story: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is petitioner #146 in the Federal acknowledgment process at the BIA. 

In February 2007, our petition was placed on the OFA ‘‘Ready’’ list—we are number 

10 on that list. The group at the top of the list was placed there in 1996, so we 

do not anticipate early review of our petition. In fact, we are told that it will be 

15 to 20 years at least, maybe longer, before our petition will be reviewed if the 

current pace of review is not changed. 

We are fortunate that our Michigan Senators Levin and Stabenow support recognition for the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians and introduced legislation in 

both this Congress (S. 1058) and in the 109th Congress (S. 437). The legislation 

would require the BIA to expedite review of our petition because of our unique circumstances. We will discuss those circumstances briefly here but we also refer you 

to our testimony at a hearing before this Committee on June 21, 2006 on S. 437. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians (‘‘Tribe’’) is located in south central 

Michigan. Our tribal ancestors signed three treaties with the United States: the 

1821 Treaty of Chicago, the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. Our members trace their ancestry to signatories of these treaties and we have 

maintained continuous tribal relationships to this day. In the mid-1930’s, we sought 

to organize under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act but there was no money for 

land purchases which the BIA believed was necessary for us to organize. By then 

all of the Tribe’s treaty lands in Michigan had been wrongfully alienated. BIA’s 

Commissioner at that time, John Collier, determined that the Tribe was eligible for 

reorganization under the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 461). The 

Tribe, thus, has never received the Federal health, education, welfare and housing 

services that its members so desperately need. 

Nevertheless, in 1976, BIA Commissioner Morris Thompson said in a letter to the 

Solicitor at DOI that the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians were ‘‘functioning 

as or at least are accepted as tribal political entities by the Minneapolis Area and 

Great Lakes Agency.’’ See: Senate Report 103–260 that accompanied S. 1357, a 1994 

bill to recognize the Little River Bands of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse 

Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (P.L. 103–324; 25 U.S.C. 1300k). While the Grand 

River Bands is mentioned throughout the Report on the bill to recognize its two sister Ottawa Tribes, the final bill did not include the Grand River Bands of Ottawa 

Indians. 

This Senate Committee report concludes that ‘‘the Bands were not terminated 

through an act of the Congress, but rather they were unfairly terminated as a result 

of both faulty and inconsistent administrative decisions contrary to the intent of the 

Congress, Federal Indian law and the trust responsibility of the United 

States... the Committee strongly affirms that the trust responsibility of the 

United States is not predicated on the availability of appropriated funds. Further, 

the possession of a tribal land base is not the foundation for determining tribal status.’’

The Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC) 

chartered by Congress listed the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians among the 

tribes who had suffered from ‘‘the inequitable administration of Federal programs 

32

and laws and... the accidents and vagaries of history.’’ Attached is a summary 

of the AIPRC Report and Recommendation on Recognition prepared by our attorneys. You will note that very little has changed since then except that the process 

has become almost impossible to navigate. 

Even though Grand River was not recognized in 1934, we have continued to act 

as a Tribe. For example, our leaders were instrumental in forming the Northern 

Michigan Ottawa Association (NMOA), the group that brought land and accounting 

claims before the Indian Claims Commission in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. 

Those claims took many years to process and the Grand River Bands’ first judgment 

award was enacted by Congress in 1976. (P.L. 94–540, October 18, 1976) The Tribe 

continued to work on these claims and in 1994 we filed a letter with the BIA stating 

our intent to file a documented petition for recognition. In that same year, Congress 

legislatively recognized two of our sister tribes: the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Our elders preferred 

the BIA process because they feared that if we were not successful, we might be 

precluded from going through the BIA/OFA process. 

In 1997, Congress passed the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (P.L. 

105–143) which, in addition to providing for distribution of judgment funds to the 

successor recognized treaty tribes, also provided for distribution to treaty tribes not 

yet recognized, particularly the Grand River Bands. The proviso was that the tribe 

had to submit its full petition by December 2000 and the BIA had to complete its 

action by the statutory deadline for distribution of the funds to individuals (March 

2007). 

Unfortunately, while the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians met its statutory 

deadline in filing its petition, the BIA failed to act on our petition. We did not even 

receive a technical assistance letter until January 2005 and by then we had approached Congress seeking help to secure a review of our petition. It took the Tribe 

nearly 17 months to gather the necessary documentation to respond to the technical 

assistance letter. We accepted money from investors to pay for the work of our historians and anthropologists. Our own members voluntarily did the very technical 

work of verifying our memberships through authenticated birth, death, baptism, and 

marriage records. We provided a full response to the BIA in May 2006. 

We were placed on the ‘‘Ready for Active’’ list 9 months later in February 2007, 

just 4 months before the BIA paid out the Judgment Funds to individual members 

in June 2007. This payment, while welcomed by many of our members who have 

waited a lifetime for payment, means that the tribe will not receive either the statutory 20 percent of judgment funds or the bonus money for newly recognized tribes 

authorized by the 1997 Act. Those funds, about $3 million, will revert to the U.S. 

Treasury. For some, this would seem to mean less incentive to pursue expedited recognition, but we disagree. While the time is now past for the Tribe to receive the 

judgment funds, we feel strongly that the BIA should be held accountable for its 

failure to act on our behalf and should be required to provide expedited review of 

our petition. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians are in grave danger of losing our Tribe 

if we are forced to wait another 15, 20 or 25 years for the BIA to act on our petition. 

The first petitioner on the Ready for Active list was placed there 11 years ago. Our 

Tribe is the tenth tribal group on that list. Our children do not have the health and 

education benefits that were promised in our treaties and that their cousins from 

Little River and Grand Traverse now enjoy. Our elders are dying without being sure 

that the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians will survive. Our hunting and fishing rights are being negotiated by others because the Tribe cannot be at the table 

due to its unrecognized status. The Tribe’s jurisdiction over our children under the 

Indian Child Welfare Act could be eroded and our ability to provide for the reburial 

of our ancestors’ remains under NAGPRA is also in danger. The State of Michigan 

is also considering the elimination of its higher education assistance to Michigan Indians. Most Indians in the State are now recognized and can access Federal and 

tribal education benefits. 

In fact, there is significant pressure on our members to enroll in other tribes 

where benefits are available. Since the judgment funds were paid in June 2007, at 

least two or three members each week have advised us that they are giving up their 

membership in the Tribe. They all continue to believe that the Grand River Bands 

of Ottawa Indians is their tribe, yet they become members at Little River or at Little Traverse or at Grand Traverse in order to be eligible for services. However, not 

all our members are eligible for membership in these other tribes. The Grand River 

Bands of Ottawa Indians must survive and to do so it must be recognized by the 

United States. 

In the years since the Tribe first filed its petition, we have observed the process 

closely and have reach several conclusions we would like share with the Committee: 

33

Accountability: A serious problem with the Federal acknowledgment process is 

that the OFA often does not follow its own regulations and there is no accountability 

of any kind for its failure to do so. Indian groups seeking Federal recognition have 

no recourse when OFA does not meet the requirements of 25 C.F.R. 83. For example, the regulations say that ‘‘Within 1 year after notifying the petitioner that active 

consideration of the documented petition has begun, the Assistant Secretary shall 

publish proposed findings in the Federal Register. The Assistant Secretary has the 

discretion to extend that period up to an additional 180 days.’’ (25 C.F.R. 83.10(h)) 

An objective read would say the Department is entitled to one extension but the Department has interpreted this rule to mean that the Assistant Secretary can extend 

the time for proposed findings for multiple 180 day periods. In one recent case, the 

Department has extended the review period three times—an additional one and onehalf years and counting. Unless Congress enacts statutorily enforceable rules, the 

BIA will continue to proceed at its own very slow pace with no recourse by petitioning tribes. And, as the Committee might imagine, petitioning groups are naturally reluctant to object because they can object only to the very people who will 

ultimately decide the fate of the tribe. 

Inherent Bias at the BIA: Another fundamental problem is the inherent bias 

against recognition of new tribes within the agency tasked with granting recognition. This bias is evidenced by the numbers of positive determinations and negative 

determinations in recent years. Recognized tribes are not anxious to share with 

newly recognized tribes the scarce money available at the BIA for tribal programs. 

The BIA, an Indian preference agency, serves only recognized tribes and Indians 

who can show that they are one-half Indian blood. An independent agency with recognition authority would be more suitable for this purpose. 

The burden of proving each and every detail of its existence over many decades—

even hundreds of years—should not be on the petitioning tribe. If a group is recognized as a tribe by other tribes, if it is recognized by the state, if it can show dealings with the United States through treaties and statutes, and if its members can 

show that they descend from an historic tribe—these items should be sufficient to 

show the group is entitled to recognition. Any reasonable person looking at an unrecognized group of Indian people now, in the early 21st Century, should be amazed 

that the group has preserved its tribal traditions, culture and sometimes even its 

language. This survival alone deserves much weight, given the poverty and other 

obstacles that unrecognized groups face, but there is seemingly no consideration 

given to such issues. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians believes that if a prima facie case can be made to show that a group has held together as a tribe, despite the tremendous 

pressures against survival, then the burden should be on others to prove that the 

group is not, in fact, an Indian tribe deserving of Federal recognition. Grand River 

is a treaty tribe, our members descend from treaty signatories, we have our language, we have our tribal traditions, we have demonstrated tribal leadership, we 

have our land and accounting claims. In fact, we have everything but recognition 

and the Federal services our members so desperately need. It is taking hundreds 

of thousands of dollars to prove our case and, until our petition is acted upon, we 

do not know if we have proved it to the BIA’s satisfaction. 

Certainly, a very critical issue is the subjective way in which the BIA/OFA staff 

review and interpret the documents that have so diligently been assembled for 

them. One tribe, the Miami Nation of Indiana, was told that, in the opinion of the 

BIA, their tribal picnic held annually from 1917 was not in fact a tribal event but 

merely a social gathering of related people. Thus, documenting the gatherings was 

pointless because even though the tribal members themselves believed they came 

together regularly as a tribe, some staff researcher ‘‘believed’’ otherwise. Like any 

community of people, tribes are organic and they do not put up walls to keep people 

in or keep people out. 

Influence of Gaming: The allegations made by some critics that the petitioning 

groups are in the process because of gaming are absurd and insulting. It would be 

short work indeed to weed out the groups that do not belong in the process and who 

are only looking at the gaming rainbow. But the fact is that many petitioning 

groups, including the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, have to rely on gaming 

investors to cover the costs of the basic research needed to document the Tribe’s existence. While it can be argued that many of the petitions filed after enactment of 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act were influenced by gaming, we can flatly state 

that ours was not. Grand River is a very traditional Tribe of Ottawa Indians and 

most members have never supported any attempts by out of state gaming developers to invest in us for gaming purposes. About 4 years ago, a group in Muskegon 

approached us because the City had agreed by referendum to explore gaming as a 

way to counter the growing economic decline in that area. The Tribe accepted their 

34

* The Commission’s other members were Representative Lloyd Meeds (WA), Vice Chairman; 

Senators Lee Metcalf (MT) and Mark Hatfield (OR); Representatives Sidney Yates (IL), Sam 

Steiger (AZ) and Don Young (AK) and five tribal leaders, John Borbridge (Tlingit-Haida), Louis 

Bruce (Mohawk), Ada Deer (Menominee), Adolph Dial (Lumbee) and Jake White Crow, 

(Quapaw-Seneca-Cayuga). 

help because we needed the financial support and because the investors are our 

neighbors who solidly support our recognition efforts. If the Tribe can develop a 

gaming and resort complex, it would mean a great deal to the entire area. We are 

grateful, not just to our investors, but to the numerous civic groups and officials and 

even ordinary citizens who are rooting for us to become recognized. 

On the gaming point, our attorneys have done an analysis of the petitions submitted to the OFA. They found that on the average 10 or 11 groups have filed every 

year since the regulations were first published in 1978. There is no sign of a huge 

influx because of Indian gaming that began in earnest in the early 1990’s. While 

we do agree that there may be marginal groups that would not have filed except 

for the lure of gaming, those petitioners can probably be dispensed with rather 

quickly under the current procedures. 

One Size Does Not Fit All: Another finding of our attorneys is that 23 percent of 

the petitioning groups are from California. As the Committee knows, the Indian 

tribes in California have a very special, and often dark, history of relations with the 

United States. We are not experts on their history but we know there was a concerted effort by the U.S. Government to exterminate the Indian people in California. 

Like many Indian groups in the Eastern United States, who basically went underground to survive racist laws, California Indians groups were quiet for decades and 

that quietness allowed them to survive. Now they are ready to take their rightful 

place among federally recognized tribes but the seven criteria do not always fit the 

small groups remaining on the Rancherias that were set aside for them. The Federal acknowledgment process needs to honor the special circumstances of these Indian tribes and to provide a system for acknowledgment that fits their needs and 

their culture. 

Conclusion: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians believes our situation is 

very unique and is deserving of Congressional action. In addition, we would like 

very much to assist the Committee in understanding and addressing the Federal acknowledgment issues presented today by us and by other witnesses. When the regulations were first formulated, petitions were less than 100 pages with minimal documentation. Now they are thousands of pages, dozens of boxes of documents and 

backup CDs, and the process has gone from a few months per petition to 20 or 30 

years per petition. It is no longer tenable. We hope that the Committee and the Congress will act very soon to remedy this process that is strangling in minutiae. 

Attachment A 

RECOGNITION REVISITED—NOTES FROM THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 1977 AMERICAN

INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION—PREPARED BY VIRGINIA W. BOYLAN, ESQ., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE GRAND RIVER BANDS OF OTTAWA

INDIANS

Introduction: Public Law 93–580 established the American Indian Policy Review 

Commission. The Commission was Chaired by Senator James Abourezk (SD), * and 

was directed to undertake a comprehensive review of the historical and legal status 

of the Indians’ relationship with the Federal Government and to make recommendations on policy and program revisions needed to meet the Federal Government’s responsibility to Indian people. The Commission established 11 Task Forces; Task 

force 10 was devoted to ‘‘Unrecognized Indians.’’

The findings of the Commission are as instructive and relevant today as when 

they were made to the House and Senate in 1977. The Final Report (‘‘Report’’) said 

that ‘‘the past must be used as a backdrop, rather than as an indictment.’’ (p. 1, 

vol. 1, FR) The Commission addressed the historical ambivalence of the Federal 

Government toward Indians where, on the one hand, multiple methods were employed to force them to stop being Indians and, on the other hand, promises were 

made that the United States would protect their right to live as Indians and to practice their beliefs in accordance with their own tribal traditions. In developing recommendations to resolve problems and to insure that the United States would keep 

its promises, the Commission heard—for the first time in history—directly from the 

Indian people themselves. 

The recommendations contained in this seminal Final Report led Congress to restore virtually all of the tribes that were terminated in the 1950s. The Report also 

led the Congress to enact the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Indian Civil Rights Act, 

35

and numerous other laws to protect and enhance the right of American Indian 

tribes to determine for themselves how to operate their governments and to provide 

for their citizens. The importance of the Commission and its recommendations can 

hardly be overstated, particularly in conjunction with the virtually simultaneous enactment of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93–

638, that was signed by President Ford in January 1975, the same month that he 

signed P.L. 93–580. Taken together, these initiatives helped to lift the heavy hand 

of the Federal bureaucracy from the backs of tribal governments and allow them 

to move ahead financially and socially, while still preserving the trust responsibility 

of the United States for Indian resources. 

Unfortunately, Congress has failed to address the recommendations of the Commission on Federal recognition of Indian tribes. Given the other areas of such great 

success, it is unfathomable that Congress has neglected to give the Department of 

the Interior any statutory guidance about this very important issue. The rights of 

Indians everywhere in this Nation are being trampled daily by the failure of the 

Congress and the Department to even understand the extent of this failure or the 

very urgent need to remedy it. 

Summary of Recognition Recommendations: Fourteen of the Commission’s 206 recommendations (numbers 164 to 177) to the Congress on Indian issues deal with recognition issues. The most pertinent recommendations are shown below:

166. To insure that the above declaration is carried out, Congress, by legislation, create a special office, for a specific period of operation, such as 10 years, 

independent from the present Bureau of Indian Affairs, entrusted with the responsibility of affirming tribes’ relationships with the Federal Government and 

empowered to direct Federal Indian programs to these tribal communities. . . .

168. A tribe or group or community claiming to be Indian or aboriginal to the 

United States be recognized unless the United States acting through the special 

office created by Congress, can establish through hearings and investigations 

that the group does not meet any one of the following definitional factors:

(a) The group exhibits evidence of historic continuance as an Indian tribal 

group from the time of European contact or from a time predating European 

contact. ‘‘Historic continuance’’ includes any subsequent fragmentation or division of a specific tribe or group, and any confederation or amalgamation of 

specific tribes, bands, or groups and subdivisions.

(b) The Indian group has had treaty relations with the United States, individual States, or preexisting colonial and/or territorial governments. ‘‘Treaty 

relations’’ include any formal relationship based on a government’s acknowledgment of the Indian group’s separate or distinct status.

(c) The group has been denominated an Indian tribe or designated as ‘‘Indian’’ 

by an Act of Congress or executive order of State governments which provided 

for, or otherwise affected or identified the governmental structure, jurisdiction, or property of the tribal groups in a special or unique relationship to the 

State government.

(d) The Indian group has held collective rights in tribal lands or funds, whether or not it was expressly designated a tribe. ‘‘Lands’’ includes lands reserved 

for the group’s exclusive use, occupancy, or related general purposes which 

have been acquired by the group through Act of Congress, Executive or administrative action, or through such related acts by preexisting colonial and/

or territorial governments, or by State governments or through the purchase 

of such lands by the group. ‘‘Funds’’ includes money designated for the group’s 

exclusive use, possession or related general purposes by Act of Congress, Executive or administrative action, or by such related acts of preexisting colonial 

and/or territorial governments, or by State governments, or by judgment 

awards of the U.S. Court of Claims, U.S. Indian Claims Commission, Federal 

or State courts.

(e)The group has been treated as Indian by other Indian tribes or groups. 

Such treatment can be evidenced by relationships established for purposes 

connected with crafts, sports political affairs, social affairs, economic relations, or any intertribal activity.

(f)The Indian group has exercised political authority over its Members 

through a tribal council or other such governmental structure which the Indian group has determined and defined as its own form of government.

(g)The group has been officially designated as an Indian tribe, group, or community by the Federal Government or by a State government, county (or parish) government, township, or local municipality.

36

169. If the United States finds that the claimants do not meet any of these definitional factors, such a determination must be made in writing to the claimants 

and the decision shall be reviewable by a three-judge Federal district court with 

the burden remaining upon the ’United States to establish that the claimants 

are not an Indian tribal community.

170. If the United States affirms through the special office that a claimant tribe 

or group meets any one of the standards set forth above, it shall promptly begin 

negotiations with the tribe or group for purposes of extending all benefits and 

protections of the laws of the United States directed toward Indians to the extent agreed to by the tribe or group. The agencies designated to provide for the 

negotiation of protection and benefits shall submit to the Congress such additional requests for appropriations as are necessary to fulfill these obligations.

The key to the Commission’s recommendations was that Congress itself should 

adopt a statement of policy directing the executive branch to serve all Indian tribes 

and, further, that Congress should create a special Office outside the BIA to establish, by hearings and investigations, that a group met any one of seven factors. The 

recommendation was that if a group met any one of the seven enumerated factors, 

the Tribe should be recognized by the United States and its members should receive 

services. Only if the Office found that the group did ‘‘not meet any of these definitional factors’’ would the group not be considered an Indian tribal community. That 

would be subject to appeal. 

Compare this to the system at the BIA’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment where 

there are also seven criteria (that are far more rigid) and where the Department 

demands that a group meet all of the seven criteria. And while the criteria were 

developed by the Department, not the Congress, the intent of the drafters is not to 

be faulted. In 1978, staff who drafted the criteria with no statutory underpinnings 

believed it would take 2–3 months to review each petitioner’s file. Compare that to 

the current time range of 15 to 20 years for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment 

at the BIA to complete its work on any single petition, as well as the amount of 

expensive and even excessive documentation required by the OFA—which is simply 

numbing. 

Highlights of Task Force 10 Findings: With the exception of specific termination 

acts of Congress, the Commission found no ‘‘legitimate foundation for denying Indian identification to any tribe or community. The BIA has no authority to refuse 

services to any member of the Indian population.’’ The Final Report found that nonrecognition was incomprehensible to Indians who had been neglected and forgotten. 

The major indictment was the Department’s inconsistent determination about which 

groups it chose to recognize or not. ‘‘Trying to find a pattern for the administrative 

determination of a federally recognized Indian tribe is an exercise in futility. There 

is no reasonable explanation for the exclusion of more than 100 tribes from the Federal trust responsibility.’’ (p. 462, F.R.) 

The Final Report determined that before treaty-making was outlawed, treaties 

were the usual predicate for the special Federal–Indian relationship. However, the 

Report found that some tribes with treaties were not recognized while some tribes 

without treaties were recognized. Similarly, tribes mentioned in legislation sometimes received no Federal attention while tribes which never received any mention 

in legislation did receive services. The Report found that the BIA 

‘‘never... rationalized its vague policy of excluding a particular tribe.’’ Further, 

‘‘there is no foundation for the executive branch’s refusal to serve any tribe.’’ (p. 462, 

F.R.) 

The Final Report quotes the following from the Task Force 10 Report at page 

1695:

The results of ‘‘nonrecognition’’ upon Indian communities and individuals have 

been devastation . . . : The continued erosion of tribal lands, or the complete 

loss thereof; the deterioration of cohesive, effective tribal governments and social organizations; and the elimination of special Federal services, through the 

continued denial of such services which Indian communities in general appear 

to need desperately. Further, the Indians are uniformly perplexed by the current usage of ‘‘Federal recognition’’ and cannot understand why the Federal 

Government has continually ignored their existence as Indians. Characteristically, Indians have viewed their lack of recognition as Indians by the Federal 

Government in utter disbelief and complete dismay and feel the classification 

as ‘‘nonfederally recognized’’ is both degrading and wholy (sic) unjustified.

The Final Report discussed the impact of colonialism, post-colonial treatment including removal, and various other Federal Indian policies on the tribes that are not 

recognized. The criteria expressed by Felix Cohen in his Handbook of Federal InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Dec 12, 2007 Jkt 038917 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38917.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
37

dian Law in 1940 apparently gave guidance to the Department for determining 

whether a group is a tribe and those criteria were:

(a) Tribe had treaty relations with U.S.; 

(b) Tribe was mentioned in a Federal statute; 

(c) Tribal members have collective rights to tribal lands or funds; 

(d) Tribe is treated as a tribe by other Indian tribes; 

(e) Tribe exercises political authority over members.

The Department’s adherence to these guidelines was inconsistent and/or arbitrary 

and the Report notes that Members of Congress, ‘‘especially when they are not 

members of the House or Senate Interior Committee... have been as confused by 

recognition policy as their tribal constituents are.’’ (p. 478, F.R.) In one early 1970’s 

court case, the Department stipulated that the tribe was an Indian tribe but that 

because it was ‘‘unrecognized’’, the Department was not required to prosecute the 

tribe’s claim against a state. The court found that the Department had a trust obligation to the tribe.

The Commission’s policy recommendations included the following:

There must be a firm legal foundation for the establishment and recognition of 

tribal relationships with the United States.

There must be a valid and consistent set of factors applied to every Indian tribal group which seeks recognition.

Every Indian tribal group which seeks recognition must be recognized; every determination that a group is not an Indian tribal group must be justified soundly 

on the failure of that group to meet any of the factors which would indicate Indian tribal existence. (p. 479, F.R.)

Subsequent treatment of unrecognized groups by the Department has turned 

these recommendations upside down so that groups are not recognized unless they 

meet each and every one of the seven criteria found in the regulations drafted by 

the BIA (see: 25 C.F.R. 83). 

Conclusion: The Final Report recommends that Congress act in the area of recognition by establishing, for a specific period (e.g., 10 years), a special Office that 

is independent of the BIA. The Office would be responsible for affirming a tribes’ 

relationship with the Federal Government and ensuring that duties are spelled out 

in the recommendations (see #166 through #171). It is not too late for Congress to 

implement the directives of this Commission. In fact, it is even more urgent that 

Congress act—and act soon—because the system now in use even is more broken 

than the one visited by the Commission in 1976 and 1977. 

Attachment B 

QUESTIONS ABOUT FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF INDIAN TRIBES—PREPARED BY VIRGINIA W. BOYLAN, ESQ., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, ATTORNEY FOR THE

GRAND RIVER BANDS OF OTTAWA INDIANS

What does Federal Recognition Mean? 

Only Indians who are members of federally recognized tribes are eligible for the 

services provided by the United States through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

the Indian Health Service.

Tribes that are federally recognized enjoy a government-to-government relationship with the United States and, under self-determination, can contract to operate 

Federal programs for Indian people.

There is a trust relationship from the United States to each of the recognized 

tribes .

Where are the Tribes located that are Recognized by the Federal Government? 

According to the latest list published by the Secretary of the Interior in December 

2003, there are 565 federally recognized tribes:

Fully 58 percent of all tribes are located in just two states: 40 percent in Alaska 

(229 Native Villages and tribal entities) and 18 percent in California (103 tribes).

Another 20 percent of the tribes (111 tribes) are located in just five other Western 

states: Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Less than 4 percent of the total number of recognized tribes (21 tribes) are located 

in Eastern states such as Florida, South Carolina, Connecticut, Alabama, and Louisiana.

38

The other 18 percent (101 tribes) are located in 17 other states that span Nevada, 

Idaho, the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and the mid-West.

What is the Process for Achieving Recognition? 

Most tribes were ‘‘formally’’ recognized by the Secretary of the Interior after passage of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, although many did not actually organize under that Act.

Since 1978, regulations have been in place to allow Indian groups who believe 

they are eligible for Federal status to petition the Office of Federal Acknowledgment 

(OFA) for recognition. The group will be granted Federal status if it fully meets 

seven enumerated criteria regarding its history, its identification, its cohesion as a 

political entity, its descendancy from an historic Indian tribe and certain other requirements.

Since 1934, through legislation, the U.S. Congress has recognized a number of 

tribes or has restored to recognized status tribes that had been previously terminated.

In some cases, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at the Department of the Interior has recognized tribes after it determined that an administrative error was responsible for the tribe not being on the ‘‘list’’ of federally recognized tribes.

Some courts cases led to the restoration of tribes, particularly in California, 

through negotiated settlements of lawsuits.

How Does the OFA Process Petitions? 

As of February 2007 a total of 309 groups had sent letters of intent to petition 

since the criteria were first published in 1978.

The OFA maintains four ‘‘lists’’ that indicate the stage of review for each petitioning group.

The first list is the ‘‘Active’’ list of 8 petitions. These are the petitions that the 

OFA is actively considering for either a proposed finding (positive or negative) or 

a final determination (positive or negative) based on whether (or not) the petitioner 

meets the seven criteria.

The second list is the ‘‘Ready for Active’’ register of nine (9) petitioners that have 

fully documented petitions ready for review. The earliest petition was placed on the 

Ready register in February 1996 and the last was added in 2003 (another group was 

transferred from the Incomplete list to the Ready list in May 2007, the first in 4 

years to make any movement to this list).

The third list is the ‘‘Register of Incomplete Petitions’’ which includes the 78 

groups that have provided some documentation to the OFA. OFA has provided some 

technical assistance to all but 29 of these petitioners.

The final is the ‘‘Register of Letters of Intent’’—as noted, there are 147 groups 

on this list that have only sent letters indicating their intent to file a petition; of 

these, 26 were sent before 1990.

What is the Status of the Petitions? 

Over a period of nearly 30 years, the BIA has ‘‘resolved’’ 75 petitions or about 2.5 

petitions per year (4 of these are in post-determination appeals). There are now 95 

groups that have submitted all or part of their documentation that are awaiting BIA 

review. At the current rate, it will take 38 years to finish these. In reality, the BIA/

OFA actually reviewed only 40 petitions when the number of petitions addressed 

by Congress or resolved in another manner is taken into account. The real rate of 

BIA/OFA review is just over 1.3 petitions per year. Therefore, unless the Congress 

steps in, it will take 73 years to address the 95 petitions that have already provided 

some documentation to the BIA. And of course the 147 petitioners with only letters 

of intent will never receive any review or attention unless the Congress alters the 

system. In addition, some of the 26 petitioning groups that were denied acknowledgment by OFA are seeking opportunities to appeal those denials, some of which many 

observers agree were grossly unfair.

The average number of groups filing letters of intent to petition has remained 

fairly constant at an average of 10 or 11 each year from 1978 through 2006.

Since 1978, the Secretary of the Interior has acknowledged 16 groups as Federal 

tribes; another 26 groups have been denied acknowledgment-of these, two are in litigation and two have appeals pending before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals.

Congress legislatively recognized 10 tribes that had filed petitions with the OFA.

Another 23 groups have either withdrawn their petitions (5), merged with another 

group (4), are no longer in touch with the OFA (11), dissolved (1), been administraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:47 Dec 12, 2007 Jkt 038917 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\38917.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
39

tively recognized (1), or been determined not to be an Indian group (1). Six other 

petitioners are not eligible to go through the OFA process unless Congress acts to 

allow them to do so.

Where are the Petitioners Located? 

Of the 309 total petitioning groups, 72 (or 23 percent) are located in the State 

of California.

There are 128 petitioners (41 percent) from 22 states east of the Mississippi.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Yob, thank you very much for your 

testimony as well. 

Finally, we have representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

the Department of the Interior Mr. Lee Fleming, Director of the Office of Federal Acknowledgement with us today, Mr. Fleming, 

would you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF R. LEE FLEMING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, OFFICE OF THE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FLEMING. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Lee Fleming, Director of the Office of Federal Acknowledgement, and I am submitting the Administration’s 

statement on the process that the Federal Government follows 

when it receives a petition from a group seeking Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe under 25 C.F.R. Part 83 and changes 

we are undertaking to expedite this process. 

The acknowledgement of the continued existence of another sovereign entity is one of the most solemn and important responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the Interior. Federal acknowledgement enables that sovereign entity to participate in Federal 

programs for Indian tribes and most importantly, acknowledges a 

government-to-government relationship between an Indian tribe 

and the United States. 

These decisions have significant impacts on the petitioning 

groups, the surrounding communities and Federal, State and local 

governments. Acknowledgement carries with it certain immunities 

and privileges, including partial exemptions from State and local 

jurisdictions and the ability of newly acknowledged Indian tribes to 

undertake certain economic opportunities. 

Established in 1978, the Department’s Federal acknowledgement 

process allows for the uniform and rigorous review necessary to 

make an informed decision on whether to acknowledge a petitioner’s government-to-government relationship with the United 

States. The regulations require groups to establish that they have 

had a substantially continuous existence and have functioned as 

autonomous entities throughout history until the present. 

Under the Department’s regulations, petitioners must demonstrate that they meet each of the seven mandatory criteria. Let 

me abbreviate these criteria. First, the petitioner must have identifications as an American Indian entity since 1900. Two, the group 

must show distinct community from historical times until the 

present. Three, the petitioner must demonstrate political influence 

or authority from historical times until the present. Four, provide 

a copy of the group’s present governing document. 

40

Five, demonstrate that descent from a historical Indian tribe is 

there and provide a current membership list. Sixth, the petitioner 

must show that the group is composed principally of persons who 

are not members of any other federally recognized Indian tribes. 

And last, seven, the group must demonstrate that neither the petitioner nor its members are subjects of Congressional legislation 

that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. 

A criterion is considered met if the available evidence establishes 

a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to that 

criterion. A petitioner must satisfy all seven of the mandatory criteria in order for the Department to acknowledge the continued 

tribal existence of the group as an Indian tribe. 

The Federal Acknowledgement Office is composed of a director, 

a secretary, four anthropologists, three genealogists and four historians. A team composed of one professional from each of the three 

disciplines reviews each petition. Additionally, the Office of Federal 

Acknowledgement has a contract that provides research and administrative assistance. 

Currently, the Office of Federal Acknowledgement workload consists of 17 petitions, broken down as 7 petitioners are on active 

consideration and 10 are fully documented petitions that are ready, 

waiting for active consideration. We are considering several actions 

to expedite and clarify the Federal acknowledgement process. Some 

of these would require changes to internal workload processes to 

eliminate backlogs and delays, and some would require revisions to 

the regulations. 

We plan to distribute revised regulations and guidelines so petitioners and interested parties know what the OFA review teams 

expect and what the regulations require in order to provide more 

clarity in submissions. OFA could recommend an application form 

for petitioners to use to point to specific evidence in their submission that meets the criteria for specific time periods. OFA could 

also recommend that petitioners present their genealogies in a 

common format used by genealogists known as GEDCOM, and provide membership lists in an electronic data base. 

Once a petition has been received, the genealogist, historian and 

anthropologist in a research team evaluate a petition concurrently. 

We are considering changing this to a review in stages, with the 

genealogist first, followed by the historian and anthropologist. The 

genealogist’s advance work, prior to the petition going on the active 

list, would prepare the way for the other professionals during the 

active review process. We also plan on developing a list of common 

questions and procedures that the research teams or new research 

staff would use to speed up the evaluations and note the potential 

deficiencies in the petitions. 

Further, OFA is looking at the possibility of moving to the front 

of the ready, waiting for active consideration list groups that can 

show residence and association on a State Indian reservation continuously for the past 100 years or groups that voted for the Indian 

Reorganization Act in 1934, if the group appears to have met subsections (e), (f) and (g) of the regulations. 

Limiting the number of technical assistance reviews and imposing a time period for petitioner response to a technical assistance 

41

review letter would also help move petitions along faster. We will 

attempt to create more concise decision documents to speed the 

process and improve the public’s ability to understand the decision. 

The Department also plans to post decisions and technical assistance letters on the website for public access. These steps would free 

OFA to spend more time on review of the petitions and allow for 

greater transparency to the general public. Technological improvements would also speed OFA’s tasks. 

Our goal is to improve the process so that all groups seeking acknowledgement can be processed and completed within a set timeframe. We are considering various ideas for improving the acknowledgement process. Options including hiring and contracting additional staff, establishing a time line for responding to each step of 

the regulations to ensure that petitions move along, and moving 

the first sustained contact requirement for some cases to start at 

the point when that area became a part of the United States or at 

the inception of the United States in 1776 to ease the burden on 

petitioners and reduce time-consuming research into colonial histories. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my statement on the 

Federal acknowledge process, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fleming follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. LEE FLEMING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am submitting the Administration’s statement on the process that the Federal Government follows when it receives a petition from a group seeking Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe 

under 25 C.F.R. Part 83 and changes we are undertaking to expedite this process. 

Implications of Federal Acknowledgment 

The acknowledgment of the continued existence of another sovereign entity is one 

of the most solemn and important responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the 

Interior. Federal acknowledgment enables that sovereign entity to participate in 

Federal programs for Indian tribes and acknowledges a government-to-government 

relationship between an Indian tribe and the United States. 

These decisions have significant impacts on the petitioning group, the surrounding communities, and Federal, state, and local governments. Acknowledgment 

carries with it certain immunities and privileges, including partial exemptions from 

state and local jurisdictions, and the ability of newly acknowledged Indian tribes to 

undertake certain economic opportunities. 

For instance, the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council recently received a 

positive decision under the Federal acknowledgment process and is now eligible to 

receive Federal health and education services for its members, to have the United 

States take land into trust that will not be subject to state taxation or jurisdiction, 

and to operate a gaming facility under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act once it 

has met the conditions of that Act. 

Background of the Federal Acknowledgement Process 

The Federal acknowledgment process set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, ‘‘Procedures 

for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe,’’ allows 

for the uniform and rigorous review necessary to make an informed decision on 

whether to acknowledge a petitioner’s government-to-government relationship with 

the United States. The regulations require groups to establish that they have had 

a substantially continuous tribal existence and have functioned as autonomous entities throughout history until the present. Under the Department’s regulations, petitioning groups must demonstrate that they meet each of seven mandatory criteria. 

The petitioner must:

42

(a) demonstrate that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a 

substantially continuous basis since 1900;

(b) show that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the 

present;

(c) demonstrate that it has maintained political influence or authority over its 

members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present;

(d) provide a copy of the group’s present governing document including its membership criteria;

(e) demonstrate that its membership consists of individuals who descend from 

a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity, and provide a current membership list;

(f) show that the membership of the petitioning group is composed principally 

of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian 

tribe; and

(g) demonstrate that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of 

congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal 

relationship.

A criterion is considered met if the available evidence establishes a reasonable 

likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to that criterion. A petitioner must satisfy all seven of the mandatory criteria in order for the Department to acknowledge 

the continued tribal existence of a group as an Indian tribe. 

The Federal acknowledgment process is implemented by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA). OFA is currently staffed with a director, a secretary, four anthropologists, three genealogists, and four historians. A team composed of one professional from each of the three disciplines reviews each petition. Additionally, OFA 

has a contract that provides for three research assistants and three records management/Freedom of Information Act specialists, as well as one Federal acknowledgment specialist. 

OFA’s current workload consists of seven petitions on active consideration and ten 

fully documented petitions that are ready, waiting for active consideration. The administrative records for some completed petitions have been in excess of 30,000 

pages. Two hundred forty-three other groups are not ready for evaluation because 

they have submitted only letters of intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment 

as an Indian tribe or partial documentation. 

The Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) just affirmed the negative final determinations for the Nipmuc petitioning groups 69A and 69B, but referred to the Secretary of the Interior issues as possible grounds for reconsideration. In addition, 

there are two pending lawsuits seeking review of acknowledgment decisions. 

Proposed Improvements to the Federal Recognition Process 

We are considering several actions to expedite and clarify the Federal acknowledgment process. Some of these would require changes to internal workload processes to eliminate backlogs and delays and some would require amendments to the 

regulations. 

For example, we plan to distribute revised guidelines so petitioners and interested 

parties know what the OFA review teams expect and what the regulations require 

in order to provide more clarity in submissions. Additionally, to speed up the review, 

the OFA could recommend an application form for petitioners to use to point to the 

specific evidence in their submission that meets the criteria for specific time periods. 

OFA could also recommend petitioners present their genealogies in a common format used by genealogists (GEDCOM) and provide membership lists in an electronic 

database. 

Once a petition has been received, the genealogist, historian, and anthropologist 

in a research team evaluate a petition concurrently. We are considering changing 

this to a review in stages, with the genealogist first, followed by the historian and 

anthropologist. The genealogist’s advance work, prior to the petition going on the 

‘‘active’’ list, would prepare the way for the other professionals during the active review process. 

The OFA plans to develop lists of common questions and procedures that the research team or new research staff will use to speed up the evaluations and note the 

potential deficiencies in the petitions. 

Further, OFA is looking at the possibility of moving to the front of the ‘‘Ready, 

Waiting for Active Consideration’’ list groups that can show residence and association on a state Indian reservation continuously for the past 100 years or groups that 

43

voted for the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934, if the groups appear to have 

met subsections (e), (f), and (g) of 25 C.F.R. § 83.7. 

Limiting the number of technical assistance reviews and imposing a time period 

for petitioner response to a technical assistance review letter would also move petitions along faster. We will attempt to create more concise decision documents to 

speed the process and improve the public’s ability to understand the decision. 

The Department also plans to post decisions and technical assistance letters on 

its website for public access. These steps would free OFA to spend more time on 

review of the petitions and allow for greater transparency to the general public. 

Technological improvements would also speed the OFA’s task. We plan to revise 

the Federal Acknowledgment Information Resource (FAIR) computer data base. The 

final version of FAIR 2.0 will also allow for electronic redaction of documents under 

the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. In addition, revisions to the FAIR 

computer data base would allow faster work. FAIR provides OFA researchers with 

immediate access to the records, and the revised version will speed up the indexing 

of documents and allow for more data review capabilities, allowing OFA researchers 

to make efficient use of their time. The Department plans to purchase a heavy duty 

scanner, new computers and printers, establish an internet connection and software 

for faster scanning and work. 

Our goal is to improve the process so that all groups seeking acknowledgment can 

be processed and completed within a set timeframe. We are considering various 

ideas for improving the Federal acknowledgment process. Several options we may 

consider include:

• Hiring or contracting additional staff.

• Establishing a timeline for responding to each step of the regulations to ensure 

that petitions move along.

• Issuing negative proposed findings or final determinations based on a single criterion would also speed work and maximize researcher time use.

• Allowing for an expedited negative proposed finding if a petitioner has failed 

to adequately respond to a technical assistance review letter or refuses to submit additional required materials in response to this review.

• Moving the ‘‘first sustained contact’’ requirement of 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(b) and (c) 

for some cases to start at the point when that area became a part of the United 

States or at the inception of the United States in 1776 to ease the burden on 

petitioners and reduce time-consuming research into colonial histories.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my statement on the Federal acknowledgment process. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fleming, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I am going to ask a couple of questions, then I have to depart. 

Senator Murkowski is going to complete the hearing and I very 

much appreciate that. 

Let me ask, Chairperson Tucker, you have had a petition in front 

of the Interior Department for how long? 

Ms. TUCKER. Our first one was filed in 1978. It didn’t make the 

new restated regs, so it was returned. We started over. We wrote 

two in between. Our latest one, I think, was filed in the 1990s. And 

now, we have had to revamp that petition. So when we go on active 

consideration, we will have another restated document with the 

changes that have taken place, including the digitizing of information. 

The CHAIRMAN. Of the three tribes recognized here, Mr. Goins, 

I am not asking this question of you, because you are actually prevented at the moment from going through this process, of the three 

tribes represented here, is it your testimony that your petitions are 

completed, you have filed all that is required to be filed, you have 

a complete petition in the process and you are only waiting at this 

point for action by the Interior, is that correct? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Yes. 

44

Mr. YOB. Yes. 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Fleming, in your testimony, you talk 

about working on seven current petitions. What I have here is, 

those seven petitions started in 1979, 1974, 1982, 1980 and 1978. 

Is that about right, do you think? 

Mr. FLEMING. That’s about correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, at least the oldest of those petitions would be 

33 years. 

Mr. FLEMING. Petitioners submit letters of intent and then the 

ball is in the court of the petitioner to do research and then to provide documentation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. Ten petitioners are now awaiting 

review, the oldest of which is 1971. That is 36 years, and again, 

recognizing that is not necessarily the date in which all the information has been produced. But it describes, it seems to me, if you 

have petitions that you are now working on dating back to 1971, 

what we here in Congress see is, ‘‘Look, we have been working on 

this process with the Department of the Interior for 36 years. We 

have put all of our information in, we have submitted everything 

that was required of us, and still we wait.’’

Now, your testimony says there are 243 other groups not ready 

for evaluation, because they have submitted only letters of intent. 

Does that mean that in addition to what I have just described—

seven that you are currently working on, ten that are awaiting a 

review—you have not yet started to review, and there are 243 

other potential groups that say, we want Federal recognition as 

tribal organizations? 

Mr. FLEMING. That is correct. We have a good number of groups 

that have only contacted us by submitting a letter of intent which 

is a letter that says we are interested in going through your process. And then when we publish notice of that letter of intent, then 

the groups are then responsible for documenting their petitions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fleming, when Chairperson Tucker, Chairman Yob, Chairman Sinclair have submitted everything that you 

have requested, how long does it take you to make a decision? 

Mr. FLEMING. The Federal acknowledgement process regulation 

itself designed a due process system that is 25 months, which is 

broken down into a 12 month review, formal review. At the end of 

that review, a proposed finding is published, so that the petitioner 

and interested parties know of the proposed decision to acknowledge or not to acknowledge. Then it opens to a 180 day public comment period to allow the petitioner and interested parties to provide any additional documentation regarding the proposed finding. 

Then there is the preparation of responses to those comments by 

the petitioner and then after that period, there is the period of 2 

months for the Department to review all the evidence to issue a 

final determination. You also then have a 3-month period after a 

final determination is published to allow the petitioner or interested parties to request reconsideration. 

So under the regulation, just by those time phases, it is a 25 

month process. However, we do have the backlog that we have 

been working under for quite some time. And add that to the waiting list, then you see how the delays have been——

45

The CHAIRMAN. And that backlog would be, would add to the 

delay of the 25 months how long? Twenty-five months is a period 

which you now describe. But the backlog would extend that to how 

many years, do you think? 

Mr. FLEMING. The GAO estimated it to be approximately 15 

years, I believe. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, now, Mr. Fleming, you indicated on 

page four of your testimony that you are considering hiring, contracting additional staff, perhaps, establishing time lines and so on. 

Do you have authority at this point, or have you requested authority or has the Department of Interior requested funds to hire additional staff? 

Mr. FLEMING. The budget process is being undertaken and those 

considerations are——

The CHAIRMAN. Was a request made by your office and the Secretary of the Interior for additional staff? 

Mr. FLEMING. It is a joint effort. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that request was made? 

Mr. FLEMING. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make a comment. I don’t really know 

how long you have worked in this area, Mr. Fleming. This is a 

process that has, over several decades, and many administrations, 

proven to be a process that relates to undue delays, unfortunate 

misery, I would think, and expenditure for tribes or for those who 

seek to be recognized. 

I understand the recognition of a sovereign is a pretty awesome 

responsibility, because there are very substantial and important results from that determination. So I understand that we don’t say, 

send us some papers and let us take a look at it, we will get back 

to you next month. I understand that. But I also understand that 

establishing a process that in some cases takes 15 years, 25 years 

or 30 years is untenable. And it is unfair, it is unfair to the folks 

that Mr. Sinclair has described and Mr. Yob, Chairperson Tucker. 

It is just unfair. And we have got to find a way to fix this. We can’t 

say there’s a process if the process doesn’t work. 

Mr. Goins is in a different situation. And it seems to me that 

Congress has two choices with Mr. Goins’ situation. One is to enact 

legislation directly, as my colleagues have suggested, or the second 

is to eliminate the impediment for them to go to the Department 

of the Interior and require of the Department of the Interior an expedited opinion. 

But it seems to me that whether it is Mr. Goins or Chairman 

Sinclair, Chairperson Tucker, Chairman Yob, it seems to me that 

everyone who has testified here has a very legitimate complaint 

about the Federal Government, its bureaucracy and its inability to 

meet a time line or a reasonable time line to make the decision, 

yes or no. 

My understanding is that since the regulations were established 

in 1978, 40 decisions have been made. So that is about, in 30 years, 

40 decisions, 16 petitioners were acknowledged, 24 were denied. 

During the period that the Interior Department has rendered 40 

decisions, of which 16 petitioners were given sovereign status, Congress in that same period has recognized, restored or otherwise 

changed the status of 28 tribal groups by an act of the Congress. 

46

So that is where we are. We are going to hold other hearings on 

this subject. But Mr. Fleming, I must say, and I am not denigrating your work, because I don’t know how long you have been 

there or what your role is, whether you have asked for additional 

funding and you are not getting it. But somebody is bleeding this 

process dry and the process isn’t working for a lot of folks who are 

vulnerable and who at some point will deserve recognition, tribal 

recognition, in my judgment. And they are not getting it at this 

point. So your page four describes what you would like to do. I am 

going to ask in six or 8 months, Senator Murkowski and I will ask 

you back and I want to find out what you have done as opposed 

to what you are thinking of doing. 

Mr. FLEMING. I will be here. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will. We will ask you. 

Mr. FLEMING. Hopefully. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. This is important business, and let me 

thank all four of you for testifying. We are trying to think through 

this, Senator Murkowski and I and other members of the Committee. And we consider this something that is a serious responsibility of the Federal Government, a Federal responsibility to those 

that believe they have the documentation to establish their historical recognition as a tribe or their historical circumstances that 

would give them tribal status. So we appreciate very much your 

being here today. 

Let me ask Senator Murkowski to continue the chairmanship of 

this Committee, as I have to go down to the other meeting. We are 

joined, however, by Senator Burr. And Senator Murkowski, if you 

perhaps want to recognize Senator Burr for a statement. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. That is certainly appropriate at 

this time. Senator Burr? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. I thank the Chairman, I thank the Vice Chairman. I apologize to the Committee and my colleagues, but I am 

also in a Veteran’s hearing downstairs. I apologize to our witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you on your understanding of 

the challenges we have before us, and I think you stated them very 

clearly. I am delighted to be here today. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, Senator Dole and Representative 

McIntyre for their unbelievable work as it relates specifically to the 

Lumbee issue. I believe it is long past time that the Lumbee Tribe 

receive the full recognition they deserve. I have been an advocate 

for Congressional consideration of Lumbee recognition since my 

tenure as a member of the House of Representatives representing 

the Fifth District of North Carolina. 

In fact, I testified before the House Committee on Resources in 

2004 to facilitate a decision on Lumbee recognition. I felt then and 

still do today that the pursuit of Lumbee recognition, which has 

touched three centuries, should finally be resolved. I want it to be 

clear that the Lumbees are in a unique situation, as the Chairman 

stated. In 1956, Congress designated the Indians residing in Robeson County and adjoining counties as the Lumbee Indians of North 

47

Carolina. However, this act also prevented the Lumbees from ever 

being eligible for any services performed by the Federal Government or any benefits derived by law or on behalf of other recognized groups. 

When the Bureau of Indian Affairs established this process for 

formal recognition in the 1970s the Lumbees were denied from 

seeking recognition due to the 1956 Act. In 1989, the Department 

of Interior decided that the 1956 Act prevented the Lumbees from 

being considered for Federal recognition under the administrative 

process. Therefore, the limited Federal recognition of the Lumbees 

in 1956 has been as much of a detriment as a benefit. 

Since my testimony last year, the full Senate has still not given 

consideration to Lumbee recognition. I have not wavered in my advocacy for Lumbee recognition and it is my hope that the Senate 

will fulfill its commitment to achieve fairness and justice for the 

Lumbees. 

I certainly appreciate the Vice Chairman’s indulgence so that I 

could get back to the Veterans hearing. I would say to this group, 

I think the Chairman stated it very simply, we have two choices. 

Not the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Congress of the United 

States has two choices. And any group, individual who had fought 

a process since 1956 deserves some resolution to that process. 

I thank the Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Burr. I appreciate your 

advocacy and that of Senator Dole’s and the Congressman on this 

important issue to the Lumbees. 

We are scheduled to have a vote beginning at 10:45, but Congressman, I would turn to you for any questions that you might 

have prior to us recessing and Senator Dole, if you would like to 

direct any questions to the witnesses. Then we will take a short 

break so I can go vote and come back. 

Congressman, do you have anything? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I have no questions at this time but thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Senator Dole? 

Senator DOLE. Let me just ask Chairman Goins, the Lumbee 

Tribe, as we have all heard, has sought Federal recognition for 

more than 100 years. Why do you think the Tribe has never succeeded? Could you just sum that up for the record? 

Mr. GOINS. Very simply put, Senator, and thank you for asking. 

Since 1890, the BIA leadership has repeatedly opposed our recognition because of one thing: our size. 

Senator DOLE. How important do you think State recognition is 

in the Federal process? Do you think that the current BIA process 

gives enough weight to State recognition, Chairman Goins? 

Mr. GOINS. Senator Dole, it should be very important. My understanding of the current process does not give much weight to such 

a relationship. I don’t understand how the Federal Government can 

cast aside such a relationship, particularly in a case like Lumbee, 

when the Lumbee has enjoyed such a relationship for over 120 

years with the State of North Carolina. 

Senator Dole, you know personally, you know that we have an 

active, longstanding political relationship with the State of North 

Carolina. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Chairman Goins, and thank you. 

48

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Dole. We will keep on 

until we get the notification of the vote. 

I want to ask Chairmen Sinclair, Tucker and Yob, the stories 

that you have conveyed here today in terms of the many years of 

basically trying to do what you have been asked by the Federal 

Government, by the Bureau, in terms of the records that you have 

had to pull together, everything that you have done, you are now 

sitting here decades out with no resolution to your issue. And if I 

understand Mr. Fleming correctly, even though you are the lucky 

ones to be on the active consideration, those cases on the active 

file, you may still be decades from resolution. 

In your opinions, what could be done to help facilitate this process? And we are talking about installing new data bases and 

digitizing records. I am not convinced that that is going to yield 

you a quicker result to this. What could make the process move 

more expeditiously? Are there deadlines that need to be put in 

place? You surely have given some thought to this. What can be 

done? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. That is a hard question, because I am not completely familiar with how OFA internally operates, just from day 

to day. But I think some sort of time limit, because we want an 

answer, yes or no. Right now we have been dangling, basically. 

Well, we have been dangling for almost 200 years. But it has been 

dangled over our heads for the last 30, almost. 

That would be my best——

Senator MURKOWSKI. So some form of deadline. How about you, 

Chairwoman Tucker or Chairman Yob? 

Ms. TUCKER. From our experiences in this process, there are 

some things that Mr. Fleming has said that I understand for new 

tribes. But what we have found is that when agencies reform, that 

this causes delays. While you are beefing it up and you are putting 

the allocated resources in there, and then the burden of proof is on 

the tribe to answer this back. 

I think that the process does need to be looked at. I think that 

there are time lines that need to be established. I think that there 

are open doors of communications that need to be made now between the agency and those of us who are sitting. We are considered ready, waiting for active consideration. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you think that communication has been 

lacking in the past? Is that what you are suggesting? 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes, I do. And if I can add one thing, the elder 

stateswoman of our council, who volunteers 5 days a week at our 

tribal house, is 83 years old. And if we have to wait another 15 

years, I mean, I love her dearly, but I am just not sure about that. 

I would really like Congress to act on the old ones and then let’s 

see what can be done for the rest. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chairman Yob? 

Mr. YOB. That is a really hard question. It is probably where I 

put my foot in my mouth, here, but I do appreciate what Mr. Fleming is doing. Because I know if this wasn’t such a thorough process, 

there would be probably 2,000 people on that list instead of 200. 

I just know that whatever they ask us, we will do for them, and 

we hope that they do it in a fair manner back to us. 

49

Senator MURKOWSKI. That is fine. And several of you have mentioned not only the time and energy that the delays cause, but the 

expense. Is the expense of going through this process prohibitive to 

some? I think it was you, Chairwoman Tucker, that indicated you 

are not only burying generations, but the expense is perhaps debilitating as well. 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes, because any time you are looking at a process 

that requires anthropologists, genealogists, sociologists and all 

those other ologists, you are looking at a tremendous amount of 

money. They are not going to come and work for nothing. We dealt 

with volunteers for many, many years, Senator. The Administration for Native Americans, they had status clarification. We used 

that process to help solve our problems and at the same time, 

maintain our culture. Because that was the way that we could keep 

our language safe. 

But now those grants are not there. So we are in a state now 

where we are desperate, we don’t know where to turn. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chairman Sinclair, you wanted to add 

something? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Yes, what we wanted to say was one thing. We 

had a preliminary proposed finding of recognition back in 2000. We 

had no Government entity that opposed us, no tribal entity that opposed us. And we also have the Supreme Court, Montana Supreme 

Court has ruled that we meet the Federal criteria as a tribe of this 

Country. 

We would like to see that used to short-circuit this system. We 

should be able to be recognized at this point, because of those factors. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So an expedited process, because of the factors that had been laid in your case? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you, Mr. Fleming, when Chairman Dorgan asked you what the timeframe is, and you set out the 

timeframe within the regulations at about 25 months, and I have 

to admit, when I heard 25 months I thought, well, that is within 

the realm of reason. But then when pressed further to appreciate 

that because of the backlog, that has the potential to add an additional 15 years, potentially, or even more, I have to concur with the 

Chairman, it is unacceptable. It is not right, it is not a system that 

is working under any stretch of the imagination. 

Now, you have indicated that you are going to be presenting 

some revised guidelines. What will this do to those who are waiting 

who have submitted, the seven tribes that have submitted their petitions and they are in that active status? Do they have to now conform to something new? Is this going to cause further delay to 

them? 

Mr. FLEMING. No. The revised guidelines would be for those petitioners who are currently documenting their petitions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So those that have just submitted their intent, is that correct, or does the other ten under active consideration, are they under new requirements? 

Mr. FLEMING. There are no new requirements. These are guidelines that simply will provide technical assistance for those petitioners who are working on documenting their petitions. A good 

50

part of the work is done by the petitioner. A good part of the work 

is done by the Department. 

If the petitions are better prepared, then that will help ease the 

review. Many of the groups have been documenting their petitions, 

I will give you an example. One petitioner submitted their letter 

of an intent in 1978. They did not submit their documented petition until 1998. Whatever the delay was on their part for 20 years, 

we then get part of the blame for that delay. 

Once the petitioner submits their material, we provide a technical assistance review letter that points out any deficiencies or 

significant omissions, and this one particular group then took 5 

years to respond to that letter. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you believe that it is entirely clear on 

its face as to what is expected to be submitted, or is this part of 

the problem, that perhaps the tribes are left guessing as to what 

it is that you need and require? 

Mr. FLEMING. This is why we are recommending to revise the 

guidelines to allow clarity on what is expected, not only by what 

the review teams are looking for, but also what is required under 

the regulations. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. When do you anticipate those guidelines 

will be out? 

Mr. FLEMING. Very soon. It is one of the ideas that we have expressed that we would like to get out to the petitioners and the interested parties. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How many employees do you actually have 

within OFA? 

Mr. FLEMING. We have 14 full-time employees and we have 7 

contracted individuals that help with the research and administrative tasks. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And in order to get your time line addressed, or your backlog addressed, how many employees do you 

think you would need to bring on? 

Mr. FLEMING. We have expressed that analysis in the GAO report and review, and I would be happy to provide that to the staff. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you need to double it? 

Mr. FLEMING. It depends on expectations. If you want the backlog to be completed by X number of years, then here are the resources necessary to do that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, then let me ask you another way. If 

our regulations say that basically there is a 25 month process, that 

is an expectation that I think your petitioners can reasonably expect. That is what is outlined in your own set of regulations. 

Mr. FLEMING. Correct. And I might point out that the regulations 

do allow for extensions. There are opportunities for the petitioner, 

if they need more time to develop their comments during the public 

comment period, then they may wish to ask for an extension. We 

have had one group that has asked for over ten extensions. And 

with that in mind, the current Administration is looking conservatively at granting extensions because of these concerns of delay. 

The extensions are in increments of 180 days or less. And so we 

want to give the petitioner the opportunity to enhance their petition. If they have a plan on how they are going to use their extension, that is another idea that we would like to institute, so that 

51

we know that extension time is being warranted and used effectively. Because one extension in one group may also cause a delay 

in the review of other groups, because we have the limited resources. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate what you are saying. I do not 

believe that a 15 year backlog is acceptable within your department or agency or any that we are dealing with. As I have said before, it is not fair, it is not right. We do need to have some better 

resolve to how we are going to process this and provide an answer, 

either up or down, for those that are seeking this recognition. 

Mr. Goins, I appreciate, too, your travel here today. It has been 

suggested by some that what you need to do is pursue, rather than 

pursue the legislative recognition that you are doing, is to start 

down the road of administrative recognition. My guess would be 

that after this hearing, this is not a road that you are interested 

in at all. 

Mr. GOINS. No, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I just wanted to confirm that. 

If in fact you had no other choice but to do that, and I am just 

playing devil’s advocate here, do you have any idea how long it 

might take you to compile a petition to submit to the Office of Federal Acknowledgment? 

Mr. GOINS. Senator, I have no idea. Let me go back to Mr. Fleming’s comment about limited resources. Now, the tribes, not only 

the Lumbees, but everyone here at this table, we don’t have a lot 

of money. We are out here asking the churches to have plate sales, 

love offerings, we are having to raise this money like this, this is 

a heavy burden on the tribes. So it costs millions of dollars to go 

through the process. And that is something I couldn’t give you an 

answer, it depends basically on the funding. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Sure. One last question for you. You had 

mentioned in your written testimony that Congress should transfer 

the Federal acknowledgement process to another agency or perhaps 

some kind of an independent commission. Do you have any suggestions on where that might be, what kind of an agency, or what 

would be appropriate to consider administering the acknowledgement process? 

Mr. GOINS. No, but the reason for that statement was this. When 

you look at the mission of the BIA itself, it is to give service and 

protect the rights of federally recognized tribes. Then you are turning around and asking the same BIA to qualify a tribe to come in 

that is not federally recognized. That is why we would just like to 

see this whole process just go to an independent commission, whatever the Congress could come up with, an independent commission 

outside of the BIA. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So just remove it from BIA altogether? 

Mr. GOINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me just check quickly and make sure 

I have had all my questions answered. I believe that I have. It appears that we have beat the clock to the vote, so we don’t need to 

take a break. Again, I appreciate the testimony of each of you who 

has appeared before the Committee today. I appreciate what you 

do for those that you represent, those you serve. 

52

This Committee will keep working on this issue. The testimony 

I think has been very, very helpful this morning to allow us to better appreciate what you are dealing with on a daily basis as you 

attempt to work through the Federal bureaucracy to achieve that 

recognition. 

I concur with Chairman Dorgan that we probably need to do a 

followup with your agency, Mr. Fleming, to see how this process is 

coming, because I do think that it is clear we need to be doing more 

to achieve the very important goals that have been mentioned by 

so many here. 

So with that, we will conclude this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(53)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Chairman Dorgan and Vice Chairman Murkowski: 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing to examine the federal tribal recognition process and for inviting Chairwoman Ann Tucker of the Muscogee Nation of 

Florida to testify before you today. 

As Chairwoman Tucker will outline very eloquently, the Muscogee Nation has 

been struggling for nearly 30 years to gain federal recognition through the bureaucratic and broken federal recognition process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 

She has been a tireless advocate for the Muscogee Nation and for her people to 

prove that they actually exist, and are eligible for important programs at the BIA. 

The Muscogee Nation is headquartered in Bruce, Florida, which is a small community situated in the northwestern part of the state. The Tribe has a 7-acre land 

base in Bruce and has 13 acres of 4,000 year old shell mounds that it keeps in protective trust for the benefit of all people in their community to enjoy. 

The Muscogee Nation are descendents of Creek Indians native to Florida that 

were relocated by the U.S. Government during the Trail of Tears. The Treaty of 

Washington and Treaty of Fort Gibson (1832–1833) required that the Creek Nation 

relocate from Florida to land west of the Mississippi River. Not all of the Creek 

agreed to leave and resisted being removed by President Jackson. These remaining 

Creek later became named the Muscogee Nation of Florida. In 1852, the General 

Assembly of Florida enacted legislation that made it illegal for any Native American 

to remain in Florida. The Tribe was also subjected to the racial segregation of Jim 

Crow laws in Florida. 

Even though the Tribe was impacted by 1852 laws, the Muscogee Nation of Florida continued to function. The Tribe maintained its traditional form of leadership, 

subsistence type of living, and shared economic practices. During the early 20th century, the Tribe saw an increase in its membership, and the BIA made an announcement in 1947 of a Land Claim Settlement impacting the historic Creek Nation. The 

people of the Muscogee Nation of Florida were parties to this litigation, and it was 

determined in 1957 that they were eligible to share in the settlement. 

Unlike the controversies surrounding others involved in the recognition process, 

the Muscogee Nation is not interested in acquiring gaming rights. They have not 

petitioned our Governor or state legislature in pursuit of these rights, or sought to 

acquire additional lands to expand gaming operations. Instead, the Tribe is seeking 

an acknowledgement of the simple fact that they are indeed a tribe. The Tribe has 

been recognized by the State of Florida and has the support of local leaders, business, and hundreds of individuals who have signed petitions in support of recognition. 

Under the leadership of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the myriad of problems with the Federal recognition process have been highlighted and exposed. 

Chairwoman Tucker’s testimony today will shed further light on the past inadequacies of this process. I look forward to working with the Committee and assisting in 

their efforts to bring a more open and transparent tribal recognition procedure at 

BIA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend the Committee for holding this important 

hearing on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes. 

Although the Federal acknowledgment process was set up with the intent of providing tribes with a fair and unbiased track for obtaining Federal recognition, there 

are some tribes that cannot go through the process, and there are some tribes that 

feel the process is too slow, too expensive, and too cumbersome. I agree with you, 

Mr. Chairman that this process needs to be looked at carefully and remedied where 

appropriate. However, that may take many years. Today, we will hear from tribes 

54

that have been waiting a long time—13 years and 29 years—just to go through the 

Federal acknowledgement process. These figures do not include the decades they 

have been waiting for Federal recognition prior to the establishment of the process. 

How much longer must they wait for an efficient and effective process? 

Of the four tribes we are examining today, the Lumbee’s experience is particularly 

disheartening because they are ineligible to go through the Federal acknowledgement process. Since 1885, the Lumbee have been recognized by the State of North 

Carolina, yet their tribe is the only tribe in the country acknowledged as Indian by 

Congress but have no access to the Bureau of Indian Affairs recognition process because of an act of Congress. I think the time has come to correct this wrong that 

was done so many years ago and extend Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe. 

Over the years, the Congress has attempted to do so. Most recently, the House of 

Representatives passed H.R. 65, the Lumbee Recognition Act. 

In addition to the Lumbee’s experience, today we are examining the plights of the 

Little Shell Tribe, the Muscogee of Florida, and the Grand River tribe. All three of 

these tribes are at different stages in the federal acknowledgment process. Little 

Shell and Muscogee submitted their petitions when this process was first developed 

back in 1978. Grand River has been going through this process for the past 13 

years. Although, I understand that there many requirements that the tribes must 

meet, there must be a more efficient way for tribes to gain federal recognition. 

According to the Department of Interior, since 1978, there have been 314 groups 

who have stated their intent to seek acknowledgment through the administrative 

process. Of this number only 82 groups have submitted completed petitions. Of the 

82 completed petitions, the Department of Interior has resolved 41 cases. Also, it 

should be noted that of the 82 completed petitions, 19 cases were resolved by an 

act of Congress or through other means. Currently the Department has 10 petitions 

under active consideration and 9 petitions are awaiting active consideration. 

The four tribes who are represented here today all have unique circumstances, as 

well as experience with this process, and I hope that they will have adequate time 

to provide their thoughts and insights on this issue. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that 

the legislation for these tribes receive fair consideration before the U.S. Senate. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS CHAMBERS, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, BURT LAKE BAND

OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS

My name is Curtis Chambers. I am the Tribal Chairman for the Burt Lake Band 

of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This prepared statement is submitted for your 

last hearing on the Federal Recognition Process, it is my hope that this will give 

you some insight on how this entire process has completely failed my people. My 

statement will be strong, and I am sorry about that, but my level of frustration is 

over the top and someone has got to start telling the truth about what is really 

going on here. 

The historical facts and background) including our two ratified treaties and the 

approximately 40,000 pages of pictures, documents and cd’s etc. . .submitted by my 

Tribe to the BIA are irrefutable proof that Burt Lake was and is a treaty tribe 

which still exists. The other federally recognized tribes in Michigan agree with this 

position. Now the last that I understood it, the BIA does not have the authority to 

terminate a treaty tribe unless Congress gives it that power. I may not have the 

same education that some of the BIA staff have, but I do understand separation of 

powers. What Congress passes the BIA cannot undo on its own. If it can and we 

are not going to get our Federal benefits, can you please help us get our land back 

from the U.S. because we need to sell it to someone who will actually pay for it! 

As a matter of fact, the OFA does not disagree that the Burt Lake Band signed 

two treaties with the United States, that those treaties were ratified by the Congress, and that the U.S. represented the Burt Lake Band in Federal court as our 

‘‘guardian and trustee’’ well after 1900. They also do not disagree that our members 

comprised a distinct Indian community until 1989. That’s right 1989!!! Yet, according to the BIA we no longer exist. Now if that does not sound ridiculous, my members and I do not know what does. 

According to the BIA, we ‘‘ceased to exist as a distinct Indian community’’ in 1989 

simply because some of our members, many of who were quite sick, became convinced that the U.S. was never going to hear our case, so they took the advice of 

our local BIA Agents and signed up for health care and education services with the 

Little Traverse Bay Band. Little Traverse opened its doors to help our people, until 

our recognition status could be resolved by the Congress, but when you are dealing 

with the BIA, no good deed goes unpunished. The problem, according to the BIA 

55

is that even though these people signed up with Little Traverse, they never left Burt 

Lake. So because, on paper, we have members in two tribes and that violates some 

Federal regulation, we have to be terminated. It does not matter that our community is still intact, that the majority of our people never signed up for those Little 

Traverse services, or that Little Traverse itself continues to argue that Burt Lake 

is still a separate community, according to the BIA all that counts is what is on 

paper and what’s in their regulations. After all, they are lawyers, and we are just 

dumb Indians!!!! 

The mere fact that some of our people took these steps only after being assured 

by the BIA Agency staff that they could return to Burt Lake’s rolls as soon as it 

was reaffirmed did not matter either, because OFA is separate from the rest of the 

BIA and should not be bound by the fact that these other BIA people gave ‘‘bad advise.’’ So in short, OFA cares more about what is in its regulations than it does 

about what really happened. I guess Indians just do not think like that! 

The whole idea that Burt Lake ceased to exist as a separate tribe is ridiculous 

to us, because we know how our people see themselves and who we are seen by 

other Indians in the state. Besides, we see these people who the BIA says have ‘‘left’’ 

our community every day and I personally have seen almost all of them at Burt 

Lake functions in just the last month. No other Little Traverse people were there, 

just those who ‘‘left Burt Lake’’ and those who stayed! But the BIA spent a whole 

4 days up here with clipboards and tape recorders and that was enough time for 

them to see’’ the true picture.’’ Me, I just live here. 

Now it does not matter that the other federally recognized tribes in Michigan, the 

University of Michigan whose professors worked with us, and which has studied 

Michigan Indians since the University was formed, the local governments who deal 

with our tribe on a regular basis, the Catholic Church which has had a Burt Lake 

Indian Mission Church on our land at Burt Lake from the early 1800 through today, 

the State of Michigan, and our State Representatives and Congressional delegation 

who all have met with our community regularly for over 50 years all disagree with 

the BIA, because the BIA spent 4 days here with clipboards and tape recorders and 

knows better than all of them. After all, it interviewed 10 people!!1!! 

This is what is wrong with this process; To this day, the BIA has not been able 

to point to one legal document terminating our tribe, so when NARF and our other 

lawyers demanded that they give us the services that we are legally entitled to 

under our treaties, the BIA went into a panic and spent four whole days interviewing ten to twelve people, and another 8 months comparing us to their own picture of what a federally recognized tribe should look like and declared us extinct. 

That was some 4 days—these people must be brilliant. 

Let’s put aside for a minute our two signed and ratified Treaties, the Federal 

court case that the United States litigated as the ‘‘guardian and trustee’’ of our ‘‘federally recognized tribe’’, the opinions of the federally recognized tribes in Michigan, 

the opinion of the folks at the University of Michigan, the opinion of the State of 

Michigan, and all the documentation we presented, and look at the process that has 

become so complex and convoluted that nobody is satisfied with it. Now I am the 

first to admit that I am just a stump jumping halfbreed from northern Michigan, 

but it seems to me that the process is exactly backward. Instead of figuring out how 

to live up their treaty obligation as the Supreme Court and the Constitution say 

they are supposed to, this OFA group just ignores the Treaty, ignores the Constitution and sets out to prove why a treaty tribe who they mistakenly left off their list 

has ceased to exist. 

The list they use to do that is a good one too—less than 60 percent of our people 

voted in the last election, our Tribal Council meetings do not draw more than 25 

percent of our people, even though these are Council meeting not public meetings, 

less than 50 percent of our people live on our tribal land (even though we lost virtually all of our reservation land to taxes so there is no place for them to live), and 

oh yes, some of our people were members of inter-tribal organizations and some 

married into other tribes. Under these tests, they could terminate the Navajo, the 

Blackfeet and every Sioux Tribe tomorrow and use our decision as precedent. So 

who knows, maybe the BIA will go after them next. 

Don’t think they couldn’t do it either—because in many cases our numbers are 

as good as theirs—we have two ratified treaties, the majority of our people lived 

next door to one another until WWII, we had 80 percent Indian to Indian marriage 

at the end of WWII and 50 percent of our people were still speaking the language 

at the end of WWII, but that does not count to the BIA. 

I know a lot of federally recognized tribal leaders and a lot about how federally 

recognized tribes actually function because these are my cousins, and I thank God 

that they have never had to face the BIA’s tests, because I know that they would 

end up in the same boat we are in. Standing Rock, Rosebud, Pine Ridge and Three 

56

Affiliated for example would not qualify because their members come from more 

than one band—thus they are not technically ‘‘from a single Tribe or tribes who 

combined to form a single entity.’’ Under the BIA’s test, they are merely a group 

of people from different historic Bands who got forced to move to a specific location—so in that regard they are worse off than we are. Less than 60 percent of Oglala’s members voted in the last tribal election according to Indianz.com, and the 

tribal council meetings for every one of these tribes generally don’t draw more than 

40 non council members, which is less than 1 percent of their population. So. that 

is far below our numbers as well. Also, a lot of Oglala Sioux are married to Rosebud 

members, and Standing Rock members are married into other Sioux Bands so that 

too is a negative as well. Finally less than 50 percent of the Oglala Sioux actually 

live on the reservation. The fact that many live in Rapid City and go back and forth 

every week does not count in the OFA process. So God help them if they ever had 

to face the BIA’s regulations. 

Are we Indians—well yes. The BIA own genealogists just recently awarded most of our Tribal members judgment fund monies of over $12,000.00 each as 1⁄4 blood 

Indians who descend from the two ratified treaties that we gave the BIA, so they do 

not dispute that we are Indians, just not the Indians they want us to be. They also 

do not dispute that our entire council is descended from historic treaty signers, we 

just do not fit into the pigeon hole they want us to. The OFA’s assertion that we 

somehow ceased being a Tribe because: we did not continue using services that no 

one offered to us in the first place; some of our people had to leave the area in order 

to get jobs to feed their families and only made it home once a month, and that 

our people should be punished for doing what they had to do to get the health care 

that they needed and that the U.S. denied to us illegally is patently absurd and 

pretty damn cruel too, That would be like the Catholic Church closing a church and 

then saying wow—no church—I guess that means that there are no more, Catholics 

living there. 

Incidentally, the Burt Lake Indian Mission Catholic Church we rebuilt on our 

tribal lands after our Burn-out in 1900 is still is use today, so I guess they must 

be violating their obligation by keeping it available to those of us who are ‘‘no longer 

Burt Lake Indians.’’ Maybe that’s why the Catholic Church supports our reaffirmation so strongly. 

Sir, the entire process started off in an adversarial situation. First we had to wait 

24 years for someone to tell us when and how they had incorrectly concluded that 

we were terminated and then instead of doing that they sent us to OFA, Then, we 

finally got a chance to inform the BIA who we were and what our intentions were 

and from that moment on the Bureau started trying to prove that we were liars. 

I don’t know, maybe they were afraid that we would sue them or something for the 

services that we had been illegally denied. Our treaty meant nothing because after 

all, it was signed and ratified ‘‘over 100 years ago.’’ The fact that the majority of 

our members traced directly back to the signers of that treaty meant nothing because ‘‘maybe they didn’t want to be Indians anymore?’’ Can’t prove that they don’t 

have a treaty, so you better prove that they decided to terminate themselves!!! A 

treaty tribe not on their list of federally recognized tribes gets to wait, get called 

liars and then try to find the money to fight back. That Sir is how the OFA process 

really works, in just three sentences. And if your like us, living in an area where 

gaming is never going to make a lot of money, good luck finding the money that 

you need to fight back. 

The BIA hires lawyers, historians, genealogist and staff to prove what bad liars 

we are. They have their own idea of what a tribe should look like, and the fact that 

their picture conflicts with what every federally recognized tribe in the state looks 

like does not matter. They have the formula because they are anthropologists. We 

on the other hand are just Indians. We are then forced to hire lawyers, historians, 

genealogists, and staff to challenge their arguments. We are also forced to give the 

BIA every single thing that they ask for no matter how much it costs to collect, because the BIA decides whether our people get the medicine they need for their diabetes, cancer and other problems or whether they die at home without it. That is 

what happened to one of our most beloved elders Bernie Parkey just last month. 

He died at home, because he could not afford a hospital bed and IHS said he was 

not Indian enough! Imagine that, a treaty Indian of almost full blood, living on his 

original land, dying without medical attention because he is not the right kind of 

Indian!! So when we complain and demand that they prove that they terminated 

us, the Bureau hires more of the same along with a solicitor for each. ‘‘Do you see 

a pattern here?’’ The Tribes do not have much money, so they are forced to find investors and the process starts all over again. All because living up to the terms of 

our treaty might cost them some money to pay for the land that those treaties took 

away. 

57

It seem to me that things would be much simpler if the Bureau would use its resources to help live up to the Treaties that we signed instead of trying to get rid 

of treaty Indians! It has been my experience that it is much easier to prove a positive than a negative. But, if we disagree with the ruling that the BIA hands down, 

the burden of proof falls on us and that is dam hard to deal with when you are 

up against Federal lawyers paid for by our own tax dollars. 

Sir, the bottom line is that we are treaty Indians still living together as a community. Our Tribe still honors the agreements and commitments made by our ancestors and your predecessors in those treaties. I do not believe the Bureau does. Will 

you? 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED SOUTH AND

EASTERN TRIBES, INC.


919cook1.eps 919cook2.eps
58

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. EASLEY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA


919eas1.eps 919eas2.eps
59

Attachments


919eas3.eps
60


919eas4.eps
61


919eas5.eps
62


919eas6.eps
63

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES WRIGHT, TRIBAL CHIEF, MA-CHIS LOWER CREEK

INDIAN TRIBE OF ALABAMA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and honorable members of the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I thank you for the opportunity to present this 

testimony to the Committee. As Tribal Chief of the Ma-Chis Lower Creek Indian 

Tribe of Alabama my name is James Wright and it is an honor to submit our information to this Committee for the record. 

This Tribe is recognized at many different levels of government but we have been 

unable to get the Federal Recognition from BIA because of the process that now is 

in place. We recommend that the process be changed to a realistic format that will 

allow an affordable process for Native American Tribes. 

The Ma-Chis Tribe was denied Federal Recognition with the present format that 

is in place because a number of reasons that we as Native Americans were unable 

to comply with, such as: we had to deny who we were to government officials in 

order to stay in our homeland in the southeastern part of the present day United 


919eas7.eps
64

States of America so we were not killed or removed in the Indian Removal Act of 

the 1830’s. By doing this act of survival, we can not show the continuous ‘‘government-to-government’’ relations that is in the present process. 

Without going into a long explanation of our unique circumstances, we will offer 

a little background information. 

The Ma-Chis Tribe is made up of Native Americans who are descendants of the 

Creek Confederacy and Native Americans who have kept the native ways close to 

their hearts and remain today in our homeland. We are party to signatures to several treaties with the United States between 1790 and 1836, which led to many of 

our ancestors being forced in a march west. 

Our tribal members who stayed in our homeland retreated into the forested lands, 

swamps, caves, and lived along the following streams: Pea River, Conecuh River, 

Yellow River, Coosa River, Tallapoosa River, Little Tallapoosa River, Alabama 

River, Choctawhatchee River, Little Choctawhatchee River, White Water Creek, Big 

Judy Creek, Little Judy Creek and others located in our homeland. We maintained 

a close knit community and at times the closeness was only known by tribal members. We are proud to be united as a Native American Tribe that is anti-gaming 

and faith based. Our tribal owned businesses and tribal church is spreading its’ 

work base and faith base in and ever-growing World Wide recognition. 

We note that it has been brought to the attention of this committee, a number 

of flaws in the existing process of Federal Recognition and would like to work with 

you in the process to rework the process for Federal Recognition of Native American 

Tribes. 

When we become BIA Recognized, it will allow us to overcome some present day 

problems we have as Native Americans in Alabama such as allowing us to put Native American on the Drivers License in the State of Alabama, and allowing us to 

overcome a number of educational problems that our tribal members go through 

with discrimination. 

We still face the fact today of not being BIA Recognized with such issues as getting the HUBZone Certification. As an example, we have been denied this certification for our tribal business because we ‘‘do not exist’’, but the fact is we live in 

a HUBZone and are United States Citizens but because BIA does not have us listed 

on their (BIA List), we can not get the certification, and that denies our tribal 8(a) 

SDB Company the opportunity to bid on HUBZone projects. 

In conclusion, you can see there are many problems that we have with the present 

process, and I urge you to change the process for the better. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY RIVERA, JR., CHAIRMAN, JUANEN ̃ O BAND

OF MISSION INDIANS, ACJACHEMEN NATION

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, on behalf of the Juanen ̃ o Band Of 

Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation of Orange County, CA, I would like to thank 

you for holding today’s ‘‘Hearing on the Process of Federal Recognition of Indian 

Tribes’’. For the reasons I set out below, today’s exercise of the Committee’s oversight responsibilities over the Federal recognition process is long overdue and needs 

to be continued in order to reform a badly broken administrative process. 

For the record, my name is Anthony Rivera, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the 

Juanen ̃ o Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (‘‘the Nation’’) located in San 

Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California. 

First western contact with the Nation came with the arrival of Spanish missionaries in 1769 and our history is not unlike the many other California tribes that 

suffered under the yoke of Spanish oppression yet persevered and fought to preserve 

our culture and political integrity. It is a testament to those that went before me 

that I am here before you today, on behalf of the Nation and still fighting for formal 

acknowledgment by the U.S. Government. Today I am indeed standing on the shoulders of giants who never gave up hope that the Nation would assume its rightful 

position among the family of federally recognized Indian tribes in the U.S. 

Our contemporary fight for recognition really began in 1919, when the Nation 

joined the Mission Indian Federation to protest the abuses to Indian people carried 

out by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs—the same Bureau of Indian Affairs 

that literally has the power of life or death over the Nation’s petition for acknowledgement. Around the same time the Nation submitted a signed petition to the Department of Interior requesting Federal acknowledgement and restoration of tribal 

lands. 

The Nation has been in the queue of the administrative federal recognition process since 1982, when a formal letter of intent was filed with what was then called 

the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, and currently bears the name ‘‘Office 

65

of Federal Acknowledgement’’ (‘‘OFA’’). The letter and the subsequent filing of the 

application and related documents were done pursuant to the regulations found at 

25 CFR Part 83, ‘‘Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe.’’ These regulations were first promulgated in 1978 and continue to govern the review of recognition petitions. 

The recognition by the U.S. of a sovereign Indian tribal entity is an occasion of 

some solemnity because with it comes all the privileges and immunities of Indian 

tribal status under Federal law. The event also marks the establishment of a unique 

legal, political, and government-to-government relationship between two sovereigns: 

the United States and the Indian tribe. 

In theory, the OFA is guided by and operates according to regulations intended 

to establish a uniform administrative process for Indian groups seeking formal recognition. 

Petitioners are required to satisfy seven strict criteria before recognition will be 

accorded. The recognition process, like all administrative processes, should be rigorous, transparent, fairly administered in a timely fashion, and include procedural 

safeguards and certainty. The process, and those that administer the process, should 

instill in petitioners, interested parties, and the Congress a high level of confidence 

that petitions will be reviewed in timely fashion and decisions will be made on the 

merits of the application—without passion or prejudice. 

In America we demand of our officials and decisionmakers transparent decisions 

made in a timely fashion not only because huge—and sometimes unsustainable and 

prohibitive—economic costs are borne by petitioners due to the extremely long administrative process but out of our collective belief in fundamental fairness and decency. 

The Nation first filed its letter of intent in August 1982 and has been extremely 

patient with the administrative process for over 25 years. We have worked diligently 

to gain national, state, and local support for our petition. For example, the California State Assembly issued a Resolution of support for our Federal recognition in 

1993; the National Congress of American Indians, on behalf of the General Assembly, unanimously passed a Resolution in support of our Federal recognition petition 

in the fall of 2005; and the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association has 

also endorsed a Resolution of full endorsement for our recognition efforts. On the 

local level, in 2006 the Orange County of Supervisors passed a County Resolution 

supporting the Tribe’s ancestral lands and Federal recognition; the cities of San 

Juan Capistrano and San Clemente have also endorsed our bid for recognition. The 

‘‘Jewel of all California Missions’’—the Mission San Juan Capistrano—and the Orange County Archdiocese have similarly submitted letters of support as well. 

Our diligence in garnering support has been matched by our work at presenting 

a solid and comprehensive application for recognition. Since 1982, the Nation has 

been not only patient with the OFA but also cooperative with OFA’s demands for 

additional information; requests that I might add did not significantly add to the 

weight or content of the petition. 

In September 2005, the Nation’s petition finally reached ‘‘Active Status’’ within 

the OFA due to the Federal court filing in the Mashpee Wampanoag vs. Norton case. 

Since then, the OFA has not adhered to the decisionmaking schedule it agreed to 

and instead has granted no fewer than five extensions of time within which to issue 

a ‘‘Proposed Finding.’’ The stated rationales behind OFA’s need for extensions have 

been various, vague, and unjustified according to our tribal government. For example, the OFA has alternatively indicated that:

1. The ‘‘Department needs more time in order to finalize its analysis and legal 

review of the two proposed findings’’;

2. The ‘‘OFA is working on its recommendations for the proposed finding but 

needs additional time to complete its recommendations’’;

3. The ‘‘Department needs additional time in order to finalize its analysis and 

legal review of the two findings’’;

4. The ‘‘Department needs the full 180-day extension of time in order to finalize 

its analysis and legal review of the two findings’’; and

5. The ‘‘OFA has requested and received an extension of the deadline for completing the recommended proposed findings.’’

In extending the deadline for a Proposed Finding, the OFA has repeatedly relied 

on an interpretation of 25 CFR 83.10(h) that defies logic and the plain meaning of 

the regulation. The regulation states:

‘‘Within 1 year after notifying the petitioner that active consideration of the documented petition has begun the Assistant Secretary [for Indian Affairs] shall 

66

publish proposed findings in the Federal Register. The Assistant Secretary has 

the discretion to extend that period up to an additional 180 days.’’

The OFA’s interpretation of the phrase ‘‘up to an additional 180 days’’ is that such 

extensions are ‘‘limited to increments of not longer than 180 days, but allow for 

more than one extension.’’ This interpretation strains credulity, logic, and the plain 

meaning of the regulation. 

On a more substantive matter, the Nation has been informed that the OFA is 

combining the membership list of the Nation with a variety of other entities, including petitioners outside of the tribe and other unrelated entities without providing 

us, the Petitioner, with ample justification or adequate reasoning for this action. 

This unorthodox—and ultimately destructive—effort is unfounded and we question 

the reasoning and appropriateness of such an activity. 

As the congressional body which undertook the investigation of Jack Abramoff 

and his associates, this Committee knows that the Abramoff Affair raised an important question about good government which is especially relevant to the recognition 

process: What protections are there in the law or in the political arena for legitimate 

tribal petitioners, often of modest means, facing intense, well-heeled lobbying by private interests? 

It is sad that in our time there are Indian tribes actively working against the aspirations and needs of their sister tribes when it comes to efforts to acquire land, 

to develop economically, or—in our case—whether or not we will be accorded recognition. These actions are disgraceful. 

Mr. Chairman, Jack Abramoff may be on the sidelines but ‘‘Abramoffism’’ is alive 

and well in 2007. If the tactics by OFA in delaying the Nation’s Proposed Finding 

were not enough, economic interests including, sadly, already-recognized Indian 

tribes and privately held card rooms are taking advantage of the OFA’s elongation 

of the administrative process to lobby Members of Congress and others in an effort 

to have the Nation’s petition delayed or denied. The last time I checked Mr. Chairman, ‘‘market share’’ was not a criteria included in the regulations found at 25 CFR. 

I am profoundly and personally disappointed to have learned about these efforts but 

those responsible should know that in the end they will fail. 

Today the Committee is asking the question as to why Indian groups see the 

value in pursuing Federal legislation in lieu of the OFA administrative process. 

With all respect, I would ask a slightly different question: how can Congress countenance a situation such as ours and then with a straight face suggest that Indian 

groups pursue the administrative route? The Nation has been nothing but diligent 

and cooperative and these efforts and our reasonableness have been met with endless delay and dilatory tactics by the OFA, political interference by Members of Congress, extant Indian tribes, and corporate interests, and no end in sight to our battle 

for justice. 

I will close with this thought Mr. Chairman. This Committee has done the required hard work over the years to protect and enforce the rights and prerogatives 

of Indian nations. I urge you to continue this good work and find ways to ensure 

that the Federal recognition process is transparent, free from outside and undue political influence, and gives this committee and Congress sufficient confidence so that 

pursuing a legislative remedy is left to those groups which, for one reason or another, are not eligible to pursue the administrative process. Due process, let alone 

fundamental fairness and traditional notions of decency, require no less. 

I thank you for your commitment to Indian country and the important work that 

you do and I look forward to working with you and your staff on improving the federal recognition process. 

67

Attachment


919riv1.eps
68


919ven1.eps 919ven2.eps
69

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MONROE SKINAWAY, CHAIRMAN, SANDY LAKE BAND OF

OJIBWE


919mon1.eps
70


919mon2.eps
71


919mon3.eps
72

Attachments


919mon4.eps
73


919mon5.eps
74


919mon6.eps
75


919mon7.eps
76


919mon8.eps
77


919mon9.eps
78


919mon10.eps
79


919mon11.eps 919mon12.eps
80


919mon13.eps
81


919mon14.eps 919mon15.eps
82


919mon16.eps
83


919mon17.eps
84


919mon18.eps 919mon19.eps
85


919mon20.eps
86


919mon21.eps
87


919mon22.eps
88


919mon23.eps
89


919mon24.eps
90

Æ


919mon25.eps 919mon26.eps