U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51–984 u WASHINGTON : 1998

THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED

OJIBWA TRIBES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 2822, TO REAFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FEDERAL

RELATIONSHIP OF THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER

CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES AS A DISTINCT

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 7, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–116

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held October 7, 1998 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 1

Camp, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan .................................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 5

Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Rhode Island, prepared statement of ...................................................... 53

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Knollenberg, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan .................................................................................................... 6

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

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Chamberlain, Kevin, Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Mt. Pleasant,

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38

Gould, Gerald, Chief, Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa

Tribes of Michigan, Saginaw, Michigan ...................................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

Gould, Harold, Administrative Subchief, Swan Creek Black River ............. 35

Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior ...................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Jackson, Deborah Davis, Ph.D., prepared statement of ................................ 48

McClurken, James Michael, Ethno-Historical Consultant, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 45

Patterson, L. Brooks, County Executive, Oakland County, Michigan ......... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Additional material supplied:

Engler, Hon. John, Governor, State of Michigan, letter to Mr. Knollenberg ................................................................................................................ 55

Further letter to Mr. Knollenberg ............................................................ 69

H.R. 2822, text of .............................................................................................. 56

Lawson, Michael L., Ph.D., Senior Associate, Morgan, Angel & Associates,

Washington, DC, prepared statement of ..................................................... 76
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 2822, TO REAFFIRM AND

CLARIFY THE FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP OF

THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES AS A DISTINCT

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 1:06 p.m., in

room 1324, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert [acting chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Mr. CALVERT. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Today, we are meeting to adopt an oversight report

regarding the designation of the Escalante Grand Staircase National Monument. Immediately following the consideration of this

report, we will hear testimony on H.R. 2822, except that we’re

going to reverse that order—the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan Act authored by Congressman

Knollenberg.

I appreciate the hearing witnesses accommodating our change in

schedule, as Congressmen Miller and Kildee—who are very interested in this legislation—weren’t able to come here this morning at

11 a.m. So, we’re going to proceed with the hearing, since our witnesses are here, as a courtesy to them and I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses—and, without further comment, I will

recognize my colleague on my left for his opening statement. Thank

you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. As a senior member of this Committee and as co-chairman

of the Congressional Native American Caucus, there’s no one who

is more strong in his support of sovereignty but also unity and

today I am stating for the record my strong opposition to H.R.

2822, a bill that would grant Federal recognition to the Swan

Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa group.
2

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the scheduling of a hearing on H.R. 2822

this year because of my strong belief that Congress should not

interfere with the internal political affairs of sovereign tribes. We

should urge the Swan Creek members to utilize the internal processes of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to resolve their disputes. Although this Committee approved legislation in previous years

granting Federal recognition to various tribes, H.R. 2822 does not

warrant the same treatment by this Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Swan Creek

claimed to be the successors and interests to the Swan Creek and

Black River Bands of the Chippewa Indians. These bands, however,

have always been recognized and treated by the Federal Government as part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Swan Creek

have not existed as a political entity for more than 140 years. They

ceased to exist as a political entity after the 1855 Treaty of Detroit.

To recognize them now would severely undermine the sovereignty

of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

The United States has treated Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as one

entity through the Treaty of 1864, the Indian Reorganization Act—

a judgment upon legislation—and continues to treat it as one body

politic today. Congress should not now, in direct contradiction to

the historical evidence presented here today, split the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe into two entities.

In 1978, the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of

Indian Affairs promulgated regulations establishing procedures for

Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Any group of Indians

seeking Federal acknowledgment must first meet the scope of the

regulations found at 25 SFR, part 83. These regulations preclude

any—and this is a term used in that part—any splinter group from

gaining Federal acknowledgement by separating from the main

body of a federally recognized tribe.

In 1993, the Swan Creek made an ineffective attempt at administrative recognition. The Swan Creek submitted a letter of intent to

petition the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Branch of Acknowledgment

and Research for Federal acknowledgement. In 1997, the BIA

placed the Swan Creek file on inactive status for failing to submit

a fully documented petition. It is my understanding that a fully

documented petition includes, among other things, documentation

that a group has existed continuously as a political entity since the

first contract with non-Indians.

I strongly believe that the Swan Creek constitute a splinter

group. They cannot satisfy the mandatory criteria necessary for acknowledgment. Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate for the

Swan Creek to pursue the administrative route for their recognition.

Mr. Chairman, many members of the Swan Creek received services and per capita payments by virtue of their membership in the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and not by virtue of their Swan Creek

identity. In reviewing the multitude of programs provided to this

group—from education to health care to paying house payments—

it is hard to believe that the Swan Creek received disparate treatment in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, as they claim they do.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe met with the Swan Creek representatives to see how the tribe could better meet their needs. The
3

Swan Creek, however, claimed that no amount of increased services or benefits would accommodate them. This only begs the question of what it is the Swan Creek really wants.

It is no secret that the motivation behind H.R. 2822 is gaming.

H.R. 2822 is a gaming bill. This bill is nothing more than a product

of investors trying to create an Indian tribe in order to open a casino outside of Detroit. I’m appalled at this notion of a gaming interest seeking to create a tribe, then seeking a Member of Congress

to introduce a bill for that group, even though this group does not

reside in the member’s district, nor is the proposed gaming site in

the member’s district. If the Swan Creek was serious about becoming a tribe, they would have pursued the administrative process as

vigorously as they have pursued the legislative process.

I close by saying, once again, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

should be allowed to manage its affairs without intervention from

Congress, that I will oppose further legislative action on this bill.

And, I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. But, however,

Mr. Chairman, I intend to remain here today so I can benefit from

the testimony of all the witnesses.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

INTRODUCTION

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. As a senior member of this Committee and as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Native American

Caucus, I am stating today for the record my strong opposition to H.R. 2822, a bill

that would grant Federal recognition to the Swan Creek Black River Confederated

Ojibwa group (Swan Creek).

Mr. Chairman, I opposed the scheduling of a hearing on H.R. 2822 this year because of my strong belief that Congress should not interfere with the internal political affairs of sovereign tribes. We should urge the Swan Creek members to use the

internal processes of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to resolve their disputes. Although this Committee approved legislation in previous years granting Federal recognition to various tribes, H.R. 2822 does not warrant the same treatment by this

Committee.

HISTORICAL TREATMENT

Mr. Chairman, the Swan Creek group claims to be the successors in interest to

the Swan Creek and Black River Bands of the Chippewa Indians. The Federal Government has always recognized and treated these bands, however, as part of the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Swan Creek has not existed as a political entity for

more than 140 years. They ceased to exist as a political entity after the 1855 Treaty

of Detroit. To recognize them now would severely undermine the sovereignty of the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

The United States has treated the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as one entity—

through the Treaty of 1864, the Indian Reorganization Act, the judgement fund legislation—and continues to treat it as one body politic today. Congress should not

now, in direct contradiction to the historical evidence presented here today, split the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe into two entities.

BIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

In 1978, the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

promulgated regulations establishing procedures for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Any group of Indians seeking Federal acknowledgment must first meet

the scope of the regulations found at 25 C.F.R. part 83. These regulations preclude

any ‘‘splinter group’’ from gaining Federal acknowledgment by separating from the

main body of a federally recognized tribe.

In 1993, the Swan Creek made an ineffective attempt at administrative recognition. The Swan Creek submitted a letter of intent to petition the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, for Federal acknowledgment. In
4

1997, the BIA placed the Swan Creek file on inactive status for failing to submit

a ‘‘fully-documented petition.’’ It is my understanding that a fully-documented petition includes, among other things, documentation that a group has existed continuously as a political entity since first contact with non-Indians. I strongly believe that

the Swan Creek is a ‘‘‘‘splinter group’’ and that they cannot satisfy the mandatory

criteria necessary for acknowledgment. Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate

for the Swan Creek to pursue the administrative route for their recognition.

SWAN CREEK RECEIVES TRIBAL SERVICES AND PAYMENTS AS SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBAL MEMBERS

Mr. Chairman, many members of the Swan Creek receive services and per capita

payments by virtue of their membership in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and not

by virtue of their Swan Creek identity. In reviewing the multitude of programs provided to this group, from educational-to health care-to-paying house payments, it is

hard to believe that the Swan Creek receives disparate treatment from the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe as they claim they do.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe met with the Swan Creek representatives to see

how the Tribe could better meet their needs. The Swan Creek, however, claims that

no amount of increased services or benefits would accommodate them. This only

begs the question of what is it that the Swan Creek really want.

GAMING INTERESTS

It is no secret that the motivation behind H.R. 2822 is gaming. H.R. 2822 is a

gaming bill. This bill is nothing more than a product of investors trying to create

an Indian tribe to open a casino outside of Detroit, Michigan. I am appalled at this

notion of gaming interests seeking to create a tribe. Then seeking a Member of Congress to introduce a bill for that group, even though this group does not reside in

the Member’s district, nor is the proposed gaming site in the Member’s district. If

the Swan Creek was serious about becoming a tribe, it would have pursued the administrative process as vigorously as they have pursued the legislative process.

CONCLUSION

I close by saying once again, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe should be allowed to

manage its affairs without intervention from Congress. And that I will oppose further legislative action on this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. In

the meantime, however, I will listen attentively to our witnesses who have traveled

far to be with us today. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KILDEE. I’d also like to ask consent to submit a testimony

for Mr. Miller.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller of California follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I’d like to thank the tribal members who came here to testify as well as thank

Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover for being here to personally testify on this bill. I

think that there has been a real positive and noticeable turnabout in Indian relations under Assistant Secretary Gover and we all appreciate the excellent work he

has done with the Tribes this Congress. Unfortunately, this Congress has not been

what you’d call a ‘‘hotbed’’ of legislative activity, especially when it pertains to Indian affairs. So, we don’t have a lot to celebrate or even look back upon, but I still

have hope that we may get a few Indian bills such as Self-Governance or Employment Training to the President’s desk before we all go home.

As far as this bill goes, I would like to agree that there are some pretty substantial questions out there regarding the historical and legal issues that the Swan

Creek Black River Tribe and Congress need to address. Right now, the record that

we have is pretty thin. I understand that the basic issue is whether or not Swan

Creek is a separate distinct Indian tribe or whether it is really part of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe. I think we all agree that they once were a separate tribe and they

have the treaties to back them up. It’s what happened in subsequent years that

needs to be addressed and I want to see that happen. But I think that the Administration is correct that this probably should go through the BAR process which is

where a comprehensive and accurate historical and cultural record really ought to

be developed first. If it turns out that the Tribe is not a splinter group, then the
5

BAR process should work. If it doesn’t then that’s where we should get involved

again.

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman from American Samoa has an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

TO CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like——

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, this bill comes before us at

an unusual time. Not only are we within a week of our expected

adjournment date, but we are just 2 days from the House having

considered and rejected a bill to establish a fair administrative procedure to consider the recognition of Native American Indian

tribes.

As many in this room know, I have worked on that legislation

for over 6 years and I was very discouraged to see it defeated out

of fear of perceived future abuse, especially on this issue—gaming—is concerned. And, the hypocrisy of this whole thing, Mr.

Chairman—as I recall in the debate on the floor of the House yesterday—was the fact that the procedures to provide recognition of

Indian tribes had nothing to do with gaming whatsoever. The hypocrisy that members representing these very States who collect

hundreds of millions of dollars—oh no, horse racing is not gaming,

no, lottery is not gaming. Then, what is gaming?

Mr. Chairman, in the past 2 years, I have not supported bills for

recognition in an effort to force action on the legislative remedy.

Now, at the end of this Congress, I do not believe it is time to return to a course of legislative recognition. I recognize Congress’s

constitutional plenary authority over this country’s relations with

Native American Indians. But, I am convinced that an objective,

public administrative process remains the best approach toward

the resolution of this issue at this time.

To that extent, I agree with the administration’s prior statements. I appreciate the willingness of Assistant Secretary Gover to

go over with me in crafting legislation to address this very important area and hope our relationship will continue toward a final

resolution in giving proper recognition to these tribes that have

been waiting—some tribes have been waiting for 8 years, one tribe

I know particularly in North Carolina has been waiting for over

100 years and, given the fact that even the Congress officially recognized this Indian tribe and the only reason why it was rejected

was because supposedly limited resources to be given to other federally recognized tribes, which to me is absurd.

Concerning the bill today, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with

the detailed history of the relationship between the Swan Creek Indians and the Saginaw Chippewa Indians but I do look forward to

hearing from the witnesses this afternoon. I thank the chairman

for the opportunity.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

We have a vote on the floor on the rule—on something dear to

our hearts for this Committee. So we will suspend this hearing and

come back immediately for the vote and Mr. Knollenberg and Mr.

Camp are both here to be in the first panel. So, hopefully they’ll
6

be able to come right back. We’ll be back here in 15 minutes and

reconvene at 1:30.

[Recess.]

Mr. CALVERT. This hearing will come to order.

Our first panel, we have the Honorable Joe Knollenberg and the

Honorable David Camp. So, without any further hesitation, we’ll

recognize our colleague, Joe Knollenberg.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity to come before the Committee. I want to thank you for

presiding today and I just want to take exception to some of Mr.

Kildee’s comments saying that this is nothing but a casino bill. If

Mr. Kildee is so opposed to casino gambling, I’d recommend he

criticize the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who have been operating a

casino for years. This bill is about doing justice and that, as Mr.

Kildee pointed out—correctly, I think—has been put off for over

100 years.

I want to ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and provide an extended commentary.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Swan Creek Black River’s aboriginal land, ceded to the

United States by treaty in 1807, are located in my district and in

southern Michigan. Both county and local officials support my effort to help this tribe regain its Federal recognition.

Since I introduced this bill in November 1997, I have been urging

action on it. Despite the lateness of this hearing in the session, we

are determined to move H.R. 2822 expeditiously through the legislative process.

The Swan Creek Black River is recognized by the State of Michigan as a tribe and, for centuries, the Swan Creek Black River has

been a tribe separate and distinct from any other tribe. As you will

hear in greater detail this afternoon, Swan Creek Black River is

the political successor in interest to the signatories of numerous

18th and 19th century treaties and its government-to-government

relationship with the United States continued well beyond the treaty period.

Unfortunately, when the tribe submitted its request in 1936 to

reorganize under the Indian Reorganization Act, the Department of

Interior made a terrible mistake and, in effect, illegitimately terminated the Swan Creek Black River’s Federal recognition.

It is well settled, however, that administrative action cannot terminate an Indian tribe’s Federal recognition. This Congress has

cured administrative mistakes and legislatively restored the Federal recognition of many other Michigan tribes, tribes such as the

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the Little Traverse Bay

Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.

As the evidence demonstrates, the fact pattern of the Federal relationship with the Swan Creek Black River is almost identical to

these other Michigan tribes.
7

[Chart.]

As indicated by the chart—and the chart is displayed, I believe—

the Federal Government often entered into treaties with more than

one tribe. This joiner, however, was simply for administrative ease

and did not in any way lessen the integrity of any of the tribes’ political structures. Yet, in the 1930’s, when these tribes attempted

to reorganize under the Indian Reorganization Act, their Federal

recognition was unilaterally and wrongfully ended by the Department of the Interior.

Just as Congress legislatively reaffirmed these tribes, so too

should we reverse the effective termination of this tribe by promptly enacting H.R. 2822. Swan Creek Black River’s mission is to reaffirm its Federal recognition and restore to its tribal members some

of their aboriginal lands and Federal services to which they are entitled because of their status as Indians.

It is neither the intent of Swan Creek Black River nor my bill

to infringe on the rights of any other federally recognized tribe or

seek to acquire property that is rightfully within another tribe’s aboriginal lands or diminish or compete with their Federal funding

or other revenue sources or compete for membership or health and

other services. Quite frankly, a cause of great frustration to us

these past months has been the inaccurate characterization of

Swan Creek Black River as nothing more than a disgruntled splinter group with a mere intra-tribal conflict with the Saginaw Band

of the Isabella Reservation.

It has been suggested that these two tribes should resolve their

conflicts between themselves, first before the Swan Creek Black

River presents its case to Congress. To this end, the Swan Creek

Black River advised me they had initiated calls to the Saginaw

Tribe and arranged an attentive one cordial but inconclusive meeting with the Saginaw Tribe’s leadership. Then, the Saginaw Tribe

postponed the planned follow-on meeting and never returned subsequent phone calls by Swan Creek Black River to reconvene.

I am told that last week the general counsel of Saginaw Tribe

contacted a representative of the Swan Creek Black River, suggesting that a meeting could be held between the leadership of the

two tribes if the Swan Creek Black River would agree to cancel this

hearing. Neither the Swan Creek Black River nor I believe that

tradeoff—that particular tradeoff—is constructive nor do I believe

that a meeting of the minds between these two tribes should be a

precondition to congressional action to restore Swan Creek Black

River’s Federal recognition.

I do, however, believe, that a meeting of these tribes’ minds

would smooth the path. And, therefore, I call on my colleagues who

have taken the greatest interest in this matter—Congressman Kildee, Congressman Camp, Congressman Barcia, and Congressman

Stupak—to join me in hosting a meeting between the two tribes to

discuss and agree on amendments to H.R. 2822 that will resolve

outstanding concerns.

With or without such a meeting, I am committed to fight for

prompt enactment of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the relationship between the government of the Swan Creek Black River and the government of the United States. It is time to begin to correct the injustices that the Swan Creek Black River has suffered for so long.
8

I urge the members of the Subcommittee to support this bill, H.R.

2822, and report it to the House of Representatives without further

delay.

And, once again, Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, I thank you very much for my allowance to testify today.

I would also like to suggest if I could—I noticed his name was

omitted from the roster, the agenda today—the county executive of

the county in which I live, L. Brooks Patterson, would also like to

make some comments and I would urge if we possibly can see fit

to allow him to speak his mind during the panel 2 session.

Mr. CALVERT. We could add him to the panel, without objection.

No objection, we will add him to panel 2.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d be glad to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knollenberg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for presiding today and to thank Chairman

Young for scheduling this long-awaited hearing on H.R. 2822, the bill I sponsored

along with Congressman Barcia to reaffirm the Federal relationship with the Swan

Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan. The Swan Creek Black

River’s aboriginal lands, ceded to the United States by treaty in 1807, are located

in my district and in southern Michigan. Both county and local officials support my

effort to help this tribe regain its Federal recognition.

Since I introduced this bill in November of 1997, I have been urging action on

it. Despite the lateness of this hearing in the session, we are determined to move

H.R. 2822 expeditiously through the legislative process.

The Swan Creek Black River is recognized by the state of Michigan as a tribe,

and for centuries the Swan Creek Black River has been a tribe separate and distinct

from any other tribe. As you will hear in greater detail this morning, Swan Creek

Black River is the political successor in interest to the signatories of numerous 18th

and 19th century treaties, and its government-to-government relationship with the

United States continued well beyond the treaty period. Unfortunately, when the

tribe submitted its request in 1936 to reorganize under the Indian Reorganization

Act, the Department of the Interior made a terrible mistake and, in effect, illegitimately terminated the Swan Creek Black River’s Federal recognition.

It is well settled, however, that administrative action cannot terminate an Indian

tribe’s Federal recognition. This Congress has cured administrative mistakes and

legislatively restored the Federal recognition of many other Michigan tribes, such

as: (1) the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; (2) the

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians; (3) the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa

Indians; and (4) the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.

As the evidence demonstrates, the fact pattern of the Federal relationship with

the Swan Creek Black River is almost identical to these other Michigan tribes. Like

the Swan Creek Black River, these tribes are the political successors in interest to

the signatories of treaties with the Federal Government, treaties which were signed

both independently and together with other tribes. As indicated by the chart, the

Federal Government often entered into treaties with more than one tribe. This joinder, however, was simply for administrative ease and did not, in any way, lessen

the integrity of any of the tribes’ political structures. Yet, in the 1930s, when these

tribes attempted to reorganize under the Indian Reorganization Act, their Federal

recognition was unilaterally and wrongfully ended by the Department of the Interior.

Just as Congress legislatively reaffirmed these tribes, so too should we reverse the

effective termination of this tribe by promptly enacting H.R. 2822. Swan Creek

Black River’s mission is to reaffirm its Federal recognition and restore to its tribal

members some of the their aboriginal lands and Federal services to which they are

entitled because of their status as Indians. It is neither the intent of Swan Creek

Black River, nor my bill, to infringe on the rights of any other federally recognized

tribe, or seek to acquire property that is rightfully within another tribe’s aboriginal

lands, or diminish or compete with their Federal funding or other revenue sources,

or compete for membership, or health and other services. If we need to clarify or
9

otherwise amend provisions of my bill to accommodate legitimate, documented concerns, we are and have been open to and available for those kinds of constructive

discussions.

As you will hear in more detail later in this hearing, the Swan Creek Black River

seek to reaffirm Federal recognition of their government-to-government relationship

with the United States, established in the early 1800s through numerous treaties.

The Swan Creek Black River’s sovereignty must be restored and the tribes granted

their rightful Federal recognition because: (1) they had treaty relations with the

U.S.; (2) they were denominated as tribes by Acts of Congress; (3) they were treated

by the U.S. as having collective rights in tribal lands and funds; (4) they meet these

primary, and all other criteria for Federal recognition; and (5) they have never relinquished their tribal sovereignty (although the U.S. unilaterally and improperly

abandoned the Federal relationship). For these reasons, the Swan Creek’s case for

Federal recognition is equally or more compelling than the other six Michigan tribes

which have reclaimed their status as distinct tribal governments.

Quite frankly, a cause of great frustration to us these past months has been the

inaccurate characterization of Swan Creek Black River as nothing more than a disgruntled splinter group with a mere intra-tribal conflict with the Saginaw Band of

the Isabella Reservation.

It has been suggested that these two tribes should resolve their conflicts between

themselves first before the Swan Creek Black River presents its case to Congress.

To this end, the Swan Creek Black River advised me that they initiated calls to the

Saginaw tribe, and arranged and attended one cordial but inconclusive meeting with

the Saginaw tribe’s leadership. Then the Saginaw tribe postponed the planned follow on meeting, and never returned subsequent phone calls by Swan Creek Black

River to reconvene.

I am told that last week the general counsel of the Saginaw tribe contacted a representative of the Swan Creek Black River suggesting that a meeting could be held

between the leadership of the two tribes if the Swan Creek Black River would agree

to cancel this hearing. Neither the Swan Creek Black River nor I believe that trade

off is constructive. Nor do I believe that a meeting of the minds between these two

tribes should be a pre-condition to congressional action to restore Swan Creek Black

River’s Federal recognition. I do, however, believe that a meeting of these tribes’

minds would smooth the path. Therefore, I call on my colleagues who have taken

the greatest interest in this matter—Congressmen Kildee, Camp, Barcia, and Stupak—to join me in hosting a meeting between the two tribes to discuss and agree

on amendments to H.R. 2822 that will resolve outstanding concerns.

With or without such a meeting, I am committed to fight for prompt enactment

of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the relationship between the government of the Swan

Creek Black River and the government of the United States. It is time to begin to

correct the injustices that the Swan Creek Black River has suffered for so long. I

urge the members of this Committee to support H.R. 2822 and report it to the

House of Representatives without further delay.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today.

Mr. CALVERT. Before we start with Mr. Camp, I would remind

the audience that any phones or beepers, please put them on vibrate or turn them off. We would appreciate your courtesy.

And with that, Mr. Camp, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID CAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this

hearing and for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2822.

I, too, have a written statement that I would ask be made part

of the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. CAMP. I also have a letter from the Governor of the State of

Michigan, written to all members of the Michigan Congressional

Delegation, expressing his explicit opposition to congressional acknowledgement of additional Indian tribes and would ask that that

be made part of the record as well.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.
10

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]pages 14 to 20

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe

has its home in the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan, located in the heart of the Fourth Congressional District which I represent. I’m here today to testify in opposition to H.R 2822, a bill

that would accord Federal recognition to the Swan Creek Black

River group.

Several of the individuals who are advocating Federal recognition

of the Swan Creek Band of Chippewas are currently members of

the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. These individuals have several disagreements with the leadership of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

and I fear that Congress is on the verge of interfering in the internal matters of a recognized tribe, which would clearly violate their

sovereign right to determine their own membership.

This is, in my mind, a matter that should not be before the Congress. There is already a process in place for recognizing tribes.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been given the authority to review the recognition petitions, not the U.S. Congress.

Federal recognition is a very serious matter. Federal recognition

grants tribes protection, services, and monetary benefits of the Federal Government. Acknowledgement also entitles tribes to the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized tribes by

virtue of a government-to-government relationship with the United

States of America as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of those tribes.

In 1978, Congress recognized that the issue of reestablishing

Federal recognition of tribes was difficult and subject to too many

political considerations. The Branch of Acknowledgement and Recognition, BAR, was established under the Bureau of Indian Affairs

for the specific purpose of deciding these issues on the facts. The

specialized staff of the BAR exists for the sole purpose of reviewing

and analyzing petitions for Federal recognition.

In 1993, the Swan Creek Band of Chippewas filed a petition with

the BAR and, while that petition remains open, little action has

been taken to proceed with this congressionally established recognition process. I understand that the BAR is understaffed and underfunded and that many tribes with valid cases must wait years for

actions on their petitions. However, I am very concerned that in

the last 5 years not enough information has been provided to move

the Swan Creek petition forward. Instead, Congress is being asked

to play the role of the BAR, a task we are unsuited to undertake.

We have passed legislation recognizing tribes in the past, including several in Michigan, but those situations were significantly different. Congress should be the last stop in seeking Federal recognition. There are over 100 groups currently awaiting action by the

BAR. To allow the Swan Creek to circumvent the entire BAR process would be a grave injustice to those groups who are awaiting

BAR action. This Committee must consider these other groups also

when acting on this bill.

We should encourage groups to follow the guidelines established

by Congress 20 years ago. A precedent could be set which would

have this Committee holding dozens of similar hearings in the future, as groups see that the BAR process need not be followed.
11

I want to close by stressing my disappointment with the slow

pace of the BAR process. On May 20 of this year, this Committee

marked up and passed H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal Recognition

Administrative Procedures Act of 1997 and—although I had some

concerns with certain aspects of that legislation which the House

failed to pass—I applaud the Committee for moving to reform the

process and provide a third party to review and approve petitions.

In light of your work on this legislation, I urge you to continue to

work to improve the process so that groups may have the confidence that their requests will be met in a timely and fair manner.

It is my hope that the Committee will recommend that the Swan

Creek follow the BAR process and not pass a bill until BAR has

a chance to conduct a thorough review. I hope the Committee will

also consider the sovereign rights of the Saginaw Chippewa and

their rights to determine their own membership. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Camp follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE CAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF MICHIGAN

I want to thank the Committee on Resources again for the opportunity to testify

on H.R. 2822.

My reason for testifying on this bill is because of my deep concern for the rights

of a federally recognized tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and for need to abide

by the Congressionally established process of tribal recognition. The Committee

today will hear testimony in support of and in opposition to a bill that would accord

Federal recognition to the Swan Creek Black River band. I am in opposition to H.R.

2822 because it fails to recognize the rights of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and circumvents the recognition process put into place by Congress itself. I have met with

both of the interested parties on numerous occasions to listen to their arguments.

I have come to two conclusions based on these meetings.

First: I am not an expert in 17th and 18th century treaties and Native American

ethnogenealogy and I would venture to say that neither is any other Member of

Congress. There are however, a group of people who not only have expertise in this

area but are directed by Congress to use their considerable skills in these areas to

determine whether a group of Native Americans meet the Congressional defined criteria for recognition as a federally recognized tribe.

In 1978, Congress recognized that the issue of re-establishing Federal recognition

of tribes was difficult and subject to too many political considerations. The Branch

of Acknowledgment and Recognition (BAR) was established under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the specific purpose of deciding these issues on the facts. The

specialized staff of the BAR exists for the sole purpose of reviewing and analyzing

petitions for Federal recognition.

The Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) is set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83. Any

group that petitions the BAR for recognition must, under the FAP, be able to demonstrate that it is a distinct social and political entity that existed continuously from

the period of first sustained contact with Euro-Americans until the present day. For

Congress to determine this, along with the other criteria, would be difficult to say

the least. Other than the standards Congress set and instructed the BAR to enforce,

Congress has no discernable criteria by which to judge tribal status. We established

criteria and assigned the BAR to ensure that these criteria are met in order for a

tribe to be recognized.

Federal recognition is a most serious matter. Bestowing Federal recognition

grants recognized tribes with the protection, services and monetary benefits of the

Federal Government. Acknowledgment also entitles tribes to the immunities and

privileges available to federally recognized tribes by virtue of government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers,

limitations and obligations of such tribes.

The Swan Creek band has presented me with a case for their recognition as a

separate tribe. I do not believe I possess the knowledge to determine whether their

statements are factual. The BIA’s own publication ‘‘What is the Background of the

Federal Acknowledgment Regulations?’’ states the following:

The BIA cannot take the petitioners’ statements on face value, as much as the

petitioner themselves may believe in them. This is why petitioners must docu-
12

ment their claims, and professional staff employed by the BIA must verify the

claims.

In the case of H.R. 2822, Congress is being asked to play the role of the BIA, a

task we are unsuited to undertake. Congress should not be the first stop in seeking

Federal recognition, as it is with the Swan Creek. There are over 100 groups who

have filed petitions with the BAR and are currently awaiting action on those petitions. One of these groups is the Swan Creek, who submitted their petition on May

4, 1993. What has happened since 1993 that would warrant Congress acting ahead

of BAR on this matter? Nothing. The Swan Creek have not provided their information to the BAR that might prove their case. They have, however, provided me with

a great deal of information that seems like it should belong at the BAR to be researched and verified. To allow the Swan Creek to circumvent the entire BAR process would be a grave injustice to those groups who have spent years and even decades in some cases working with the BAR to meet the criteria. This Committee

must consider these groups when acting on this bill.

True, we have, years ago, passed legislation recognizing tribes, including several

in Michigan, but those situations were significantly different. The Swan Creek will

argue that their case is similar to those cases. One of the three Michigan tribes recognized legislatively was the Pokagon Band, who had nearly completed the BAR

process at the time of legislative recognition. The Little Traverse Bay Band of

Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians pursued the BAR process and were recognized because of their long histories of separate political organizations. They also had the support of the Tribes with which they were previously

associated, who endorsed their efforts to gain legislative recognition. That situation

does not exist with the Swan Creek, who face strong opposition from the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe.

My second conclusion: The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has rights as a sovereign

nation that must not be trampled by Congress. Many of the individuals who are advocating Federal recognition of the Swan Creek are presently members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who have differences with the tribal leadership. Under the approach of H.R. 2822, the ties which have bound these Chippewa Indians would be

broken. Congress cannot remove a member of a tribe from his tribe. This legislation

might actually do just that by forcing currently enrolled members of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe to essentially choose between competing factions of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe. I fear that Congress is on the verge of interfering in the internal

matters of a recognized tribe, which would clearly violate their sovereign right to

determine their own membership. This, in my mind, is a matter that should not be

under the jurisdiction of Congress.

I want to close by stating that I am disappointed with the effectiveness of the

BAR process. On May 20 of this year, this Committee marked-up and passed H.R.

1154, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997. The

House recently considered this bill just two days ago but failed to approve it. I applaud the Committee for moving to speed the process and provide a third party to

review and approve petitions. In light of your work on this legislation, I urge you

to continue to work to improve the process so that groups may have the confidence

that their requests will be met in a timely and fair manner, and not seek to avoid

the process altogether.

It is my hope that the Committee will recommend that this group follow the BAR

process and not pass a bill until BAR has a chance to conduct a thorough review.

I hope that the Committee will also consider the sovereign rights of the Saginaw

Chippewa and their rights to determine their own membership. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

Mr. Kildee, do you have any questions?

Mr. KILDEE. Pardon me.

Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the members, both for

whom I have the greatest respect even though they have different

points of view on this. But, we have a deep friendship and respect

and this is what makes the Congress work. I appreciate it.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Any other member have any questions?

The gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just want to compliment both gentlemen

for their fine statements and I appreciate their support for what

was supposed to be a significant improvement in the procedures on
13

how to recognize Native American Tribes but, unfortunately, some

of our colleagues thought that this was a gaming scheme behind

the whole proposed legislation and I say, Mr. Chairman, that was

a very unfortunate turn of events on the legislation on the floor

yesterday.

And, I want to compliment Mr. Camp’s statement that I’ve been

following this issue of tribal recognition since I’ve been here, for almost 10 years now, and, given the fact that Assistant Secretary

Gover and I have made every earnest effort to see that we were

not asking for making the process easier for the tribes—we’re only

asking for making the process more fair. We’ve got situations

that—I think Assistant Secretary Gover will testify to that situation—but it’s really unfortunate to see that both groups are here

before this Committee and expecting us to find a resolution to the

problems that I think it’s really inherent to the State of Michigan.

And, I want to acknowledge—certainly want to thank—Congressman Knollenberg for his suggestion that the congressional members in Michigan and the two tribes get together and see if this can

be done outside of parameters of having a committee to decide

whether or not this tribe is a tribe. I mean, it’s—I just wish we

wouldn’t have to be forced into making these kinds of decisions,

which I honestly believe ought to be done outside of this Committee.

But, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and, Mr.

Chairman, I thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman and, as a courtesy to our

two colleagues, if you would like to remain and come up to the dais

with unanimous consent, I’m sure that no one here would mind, if

you would like to join us for the second panel.

Mr. CAMP. I appreciate that.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

OK. Panel No. 2: Mr. Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary of

Native American Affairs, the United States Department of Interior;

Chief Kevin Chamberlain, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Mt. Pleasant,

Michigan; and Chief Gerald Gould, Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, Saginaw, Michigan. And the

gentleman, Mr. Brooks Patterson, would also please—a county executive of Oakland county, Michigan.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, if I may—while they’re taking their

seats—I always point out whenever I see L. Brooks Patterson that

L. Brooks Patterson was a student at University of Detroit High

School when I was teaching there and I will add a very, very good

student. I won’t add the second part—you might want to add

that—but he was a very, very good student, person for whom I

have enormous respect. We worked very closely together.

Mr. PATTERSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, he always adds that it’s obvious that I didn’t teach him political science.

Mr. KILDEE. That’s right. That’s usually a line I add to that——

Mr. CALVERT. Right. The gentleman must have graduated from

college at a very young age.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CALVERT. OK. If everyone is present, we welcome this panel

and would recognize Mr. Kevin Gover first. Before you start your
14

opening statement, just as a reminder, we have those little lights

there. We ask that each of the witnesses keep their opening remarks to 5 minutes. If you have extended remarks, we’d be more

than happy to accept them and make them part of the record.

Again, a light will come on, we’ll give you 1 minute warning and

then the red light.

So, with that, Mr. Kevin Gover, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. GOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve submitted written

testimony which we request be made a part of the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GOVER. Mr. Chairman, first, since this may be the last time

I’ll appear before the Committee in this Congress, I want to thank

the Committee for all of its assistance and work during the past

year and that we look forward very much to working with all of

you in 106th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, our testimony is very simple this morning. We oppose this bill for the simple reason that we are unable to say with

any degree of confidence whatsoever that this is or is not a tribe.

The group has submitted to us a petition—or more accurately—a

notice that it intends to petition for Federal recognition and did so

in 1993. Since that time, there’s been no further action on the petition and I want to make clear that we don’t fault the tribe for that.

There’s been no call for any action because it’s simply not at the

point in the process where they’re required to submit materials but

certainly they could if they choose to do so.

We have no opinion as to exactly what the status of this group

of Indian people is. What we would prefer very much is to be allowed to develop such an opinion, to review a complete petition,

and to either recognize or not recognize this group as a federally

recognized tribe.

We have a number of specific concerns about the bill that—were

this Committee and the Congress to choose to move forward, we

would certainly want to see those other matters addressed as well.

But, our primary concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this group simply

has not yet gone through the process that’s been established and

that we’ve been administering for some time.

Let me also say that I’m very sensitive to the criticisms of the

Branch of Acknowledgement Research (BAR) and that there clearly

has been a problem over the years that we’re not proceeding quickly enough on these petitions. We recently had a change in leadership in BAR. We’ve been working with Mr. Faleomavaega this year

to try to find some common ground and to improve upon this process. We are very hopeful that that would have moved forward so

that we could join the debate further in the Senate and perhaps

agree on an appropriate way to handle what is, perhaps, the most

fundamental of questions when it comes to our Indian communities. That is, whether or not there is a group that is going to be

recognized by the United States of America and if it will be afforded the many benefits and advantages and, frankly, some of the
15

disadvantages that accompany being recognized as a Indian tribe

by the United States.

That’s a summary of my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I’d be happy

to answer any specific questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gover may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Kevin

Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2822, a bill to ‘‘to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes as a distinct federally recognized Indian tribe, and for other

purposes.’’

H.R. 2822 would extend Federal recognition to an organization known as the

Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, Inc. (Swan

Creek). Swan Creek submitted a letter of intent in 1993 to petition under the acknowledgment regulations, 25 CFR Part 83. To date, they have not submitted any

documentation to the Department to support their petition. They remain on inactive

status on the ‘‘Register of Letters of Intent to petition.’’

The Department opposes H.R. 2822 for the following reasons:

There are many unanswered questions concerning the group’s membership, history, community, and tribal government that should be resolved before legislation

is considered. For instance, the group has not submitted a current membership list,

which is the one document that is essential in identifying the group. Additionally,

we do not know whether they represent the main body of current descendants of

the historic Swan Creek Band.

A good possibility exists that a significant proportion of the Swan Creek membership is also part of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (Saginaw Chippewa), a federally recognized Indian tribe. If the Swan Creek people are closely related to and have participated in the political life of the Saginaw Chippewa, Swan

Creek may be a splinter group from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Department

opposes the splintering of recognized tribes. However, because so little information

has been submitted to the Department about the group and its membership, it is

not possible to adequately evaluate the current political relationship between the

group and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. We note that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

has expressed strong opposition to the Swan Creek petition on the grounds that it

is a splinter group and that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is the exclusive successor

in interest to the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians.

Historically, the Swan Creek Band has been associated with the Saginaw Chippewa Band since the early 19th century. The two bands co-signed a treaty in 1855.

This treaty and a subsequent 1864 treaty established a reservation for these bands

near modern-day Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The historical record is clear that

while some members of the Swan Creek Band refused to relocate to the Isabella

Reservation as contemplated by the treaties, others did so. Some Saginaw Chippewa

Band members also did not relocate to the reservation. We do not have clear evidence that a separate Swan Creek Band remained after treaty times, or that those

who did not choose to move to the reservation formed an independent tribe.

No information has been provided to the Department to substantiate the claim

that the Swan Creek have maintained a separate political existence from the Saginaw Chippewa since the organization of a tribal government under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1937, or that Swan Creek had previously maintained a separate political existence between 1855 and 1937.

Because of the complex history of enrollment of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and

the lack of a membership list for the Swan Creek organization, it is impossible to

develop a clear picture of the group and it’s relationship to the recognized Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe. However, some conclusions can be drawn which illustrate that the

circumstances of this case merit further study before any legislation is enacted.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as organized in 1937 under the IRA included all of

the residents of the reservation, including descendants of the Swan Creek Band.

However, it excluded from membership a large number of the descendants from the

Saginaw Chippewa and Swan Creek Bands who had not relocated, as well as others

who had migrated from the reservation. This exclusion was the subject of protests
16

for some years. This circumstance changed in 1986, when the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe modified its constitution and opened its enrollment for 18 months to individuals who could demonstrate Swan Creek or Saginaw Chippewa ancestry and onefourth or more degree Indian blood. This change was made to allow many descendants of these bands who had not been eligible for membership under the 1937 constitution the opportunity to enroll. The enrollment change resulted from a compromise between the tribe and unenrolled off-reservation descendants over whether

the latter were entitled to share in funds awarded in Docket 59 and 13-E before

the Indian Claims Commission, and 13-F before the United States Court of Claims.

The compromise was incorporated in Public Law 99-346, the ‘‘Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Distribution of Judgment Funds Act’’ of 1986.

Approximately 1,900 people enrolled within the 18-months, tripling the membership of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe from about 900 to 2,800. Thus, much of the

off-reservation Swan Creek Band descendants are likely to have become members

of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in 1986. Because the expansion of the enrollment

included so many non-residents, it is likely that there is a substantial overlap between the Swan Creek organization’s membership and that of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

We offer the following additional comments on H.R. 2822:

Section 4 (b)(2) describes the service area of the tribe. It concludes by providing

that Federal services came provided to members outside the named service area unless prohibited by law or regulation. At the same time, the preceding paragraph,

Section 4 (B)(1), authorizes the provision of services and benefits without regard to

the existence of a reservation or the location of the residence of any member on or

near a reservation. It is not clear what function, if any, it serves to define a service

area and at the same time authorize the provision of services and benefits without

regard to residence. The provision of services to Indian tribal members generally is

limited to those residing on or near a reservation or within a defined area.

Section 4 (b) would establish a very large, twelve county service area which includes highly populated counties and the city of Detroit. Given the size of this area,

without an analysis of the tribe’s population in these counties and present access

to services from other sources, it is difficult to reach definite conclusions. However,

we have concerns about the manageability and appropriateness of such a large area

from the perspective of providing social services. We are concerned about whether

it would be feasible for the tribe to operate Federal and Bureau programs in twelve

counties. The designation of service areas for programs is usually accomplished administratively, with an appropriate analysis of needs, funding and staffing.

The language in Section 6, Tribal Lands, could be read to limit the Secretary’s

discretion in accepting title to lands in trust for the tribe. We suggest that this section read that ‘‘The Secretary may accept land in the tribe’s service area specified

in this Act pursuant to his authority under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461

et seq. Commonly referred to as the ‘Indian Reorganization Act’).’’

For purposes of gaming, Section 6 places no limitations on the number of parcels

that the tribe can acquire, and does not limit the amount of time that the tribe can

acquire land, that would qualify under the exceptions in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). From the Department’s experience and from

actions the Department has taken with other tribes, the bill should establish reasonable limits on the amount of land that would qualify under the exceptions and

the period of time during which it could be acquired.

Sections 7 and 8 do not clearly designate either a membership list/roll or a constitution or bylaws that would articulate the criteria for membership. Section 8 refers only to ‘‘the governing documents in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.’’

The Act should designate a specific governing document or documents, identified by

their date of adoption by the group. Ideally, it should also designate an existing roll

as the base or initial roll, and specify the criteria for adding members either by describing them in the legislation or by identifying a specific governing document. We

have not seen the governing document and thus cannot comment on it. There is

presently no way to clearly determine who would be recognized as the Swan Creek

Tribe and no legislative guidance as to what the criteria for membership should be.

Section 7 stipulates that ‘‘[n]ot later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this act, the Tribe shall submit to the Secretary membership rolls consisting

of all individuals eligible for membership in the Tribe.’’ The phrase ‘‘all individuals

eligible for membership’’ should be omitted, since it may create unintended difficulties. Commonly, tribal rolls do not include all eligible persons, since individuals eligible to enroll in more than one tribe may choose to enroll elsewhere, e.g., the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The roll should be a complete list of all of the enrolled members of the tribe. We would also note that while we’re aware of a couple of statutes
17

which require publication of the roll in the Federal Register we believe such publication is an unnecessary invasion of privacy of the members.

Section 8 stipulates that ‘‘the governing body of the Tribe shall be the governing

body in place on the date of the enactment of this Act, or any new governing body

selected under the election procedures specified in the interim governing documents

of the Tribe.’’ Without a clear designation by Congress of the governing documents,

there could arise problems determining how such an election would proceed.

Section 8 of the bill requires the Secretary to call and conduct an election in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to ratify the Tribe’s constitution.

Is this to imply that the Tribe has committed itself to organize under the IRA? Section 8 also calls for the Secretary to conduct the initial election of tribal of finials

after adoption of this constitution. The election of officers should be the responsibility of the Tribe and not the Secretary.

The Department has strongly opposed dividing recognized tribes. There are presently a substantial number of instances around the country where parts of recognized tribes are seeking or have recently sought to separate themselves from the

main body of the tribe, usually as the result of intra-tribal disputes. These conflicts

are often the result of historical circumstances under which separate bands or tribes

were placed on the same reservation and combined into a single tribe. While these

groups, as here, may have some separate history, we do not believe it is an adequate

or appropriate solution to tribal disputes to now divide the tribes. Resolution should

be sought within the constitutional processes of the tribe. We believe that legislation

here would encourage other groups to seek a similar solution, which we do not believe is appropriate except under very special circumstances such as that at Lac

Vieux Desert.

If, however, the Swan Creek is not a splinter group and has historically remained

a separate, politically autonomous Band since treaty times, then the most appropriate route is for them to be evaluated under the acknowledgment process.

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions

the Committee may have.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Chief Chamberlain, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, CHIEF, SAGINAW

CHIPPEWA TRIBE, MT. PLEASANT, MICHIGAN

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is

Kevin Chamberlain, Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe

of Michigan. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished body to voice our tribe’s opposition to H.R.

2822.

My testimony will consist of brief remarks on why the Committee

should oppose H.R. 2822. I respectfully request that my full written

testimony, including our historical analysis, be entered into the

record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thank you.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe opposes H.R. 2822. Any action on

this bill is of utmost concern to the tribe because its effect would

be to separate the federally recognized Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

into two separate tribes and it would allow a splinter group to

claim treaty-preserved rights, political jurisdiction, and sovereignty

currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Our position is

staunchly set upon our desire to preserve our tribe’s heritage and

sovereign status and to protect tribal sovereignty of all Indian nations by preventing political factions and splinter groups from

being able to secede from their tribes and create sovereign nations

unto themselves.

This claim has no merit; it is an attempt by businessmen to buy

a tribe and push a bill through Congress to further their goal of

opening a casino.
18

The membership issues—the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe not only

opposes this bill’s content but also opposes the holding of this hearing today. This bill deals directly with an intra-tribal membership

matter. The United States courts have consistently held that one

of the Indian tribe’s most basic powers is the authority to determine the questions of its own membership. There should be no congressional intervention on a matter so fundamental to a sovereign

nation’s existence. The sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe should handle this membership issue.

The Swan Creek group, the party pushing this bill, claims that

they are a successor in the interest of the Swan Creek and Black

River Bands of Chippewa Indians. Since the 1855 Treaty of Detroit,

the Swan Creek and Black River Bands have been considered part

of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Before then, they were considered

a part of the Missisauga Chippewa, the name used for the large

group of southeastern Michigan bands before and during the treaty

era.

The Swan Creek group, however, claims that they are a separate

entity deserving of sovereign nation status. This is absolutely untrue. Many of the Swan Creek group’s participants are currently

enrolled members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, including Mr.

Gerald Gould, the Swan Creek’s organizer. They wish to split from

the tribe, obviously.

Individuals who are members and beneficiaries of one Indian nation should not be able simply secede from the Nation and create

their own nation complete with the rights and privileges of all

tribes whether because of political differences, personal choices to

live away from the reservation, or for any other reason. The existing sovereign nation to which the individuals belong should resolve

membership issues internally. Tribal politics is not a matter for

Congress; it is a matter for members of the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe and its elected leaders.

For the record, the Saginaw Chippewa’s Tribal Council serves all

of its members with health, education, vocational, housing and

other programs without distinguishing bands they may descend.

The tribe provides an at-large program which specifically serves

those living off the reservation.

Annually, the tribe spends approximately $970,000 on at-large

programs, which include but are not limited to health services,

medical services—including transportation to medical appointments—living expense needs, food costs—house payments, rent,

land tax payments, utilities—burial grants, educational seminars,

and family services. Further, the tribe spends roughly $550,000 per

year on cultural enrichment programs for the at-large residents

and $468,000 on medical coverage.

The programs are freely accessible to all at-large persons. Over

1,290 at-large persons live within 2 hours of the reservation and

take full advantage of these programs. If the Swan Creek group is

stating that they get disparate treatment for not living on the reservation, this is absolutely not the case. They are free to take advantage of all programs. It is not the tribe’s fault if persons live

far away from the reservation. It can only provide the services and

programs to the best of its ability. The at-large programs funded
19

and administered by the tribe generously provide for a myriad of

needs for the tribe’s at-large membership.

Also, there is a seat guaranteed on the Council for a representative of the tribe in the at-large district, so that such individuals

that comprise this district are fully represented and have a voice

in the governing body.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council has also met many times

with representatives of the Swan Creek group to better understand

and address its concerns. In most recent meetings held earlier this

year, the Swan Creek group informed the tribal leaders and myself

that no political accommodations or additional benefits would appease them; they simply want their own tribe.

H.R. 2822 obviously circumvents the administrative process.

Since Congress has decided to become involved in the intra-tribal

issue, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe wants to voice its opinion that

this bill is nothing more than an attempt to politically circumvent

the appropriate process for becoming a fairly recognized tribe.

In closing, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe would like to reiterate

its opposition to holding this hearing. The tribe firmly believes that

this is a tribal membership issue in which Congress should play no

role. Further, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe believes that since the

Swan Creek group would not be able to meet the administrative

criteria, it certainly should not gain recognition from Congress

based upon 5 minutes of testimony. Federal recognition of sovereign nations should be granted only after careful research and

deliberate review. If Congress takes any action on this bill, it

should only be to the extent of directing the Swan Creek group

back to the line at the BIA.

For these reasons, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe respectfully requests that this Committee vote against H.R. 2822. I have attached

our historical analysis and relevant documentation as part of my

testimony. I’d like to thank you again for my opportunity to testify

and I also welcome questions from the Committee as would our

tribe’s ethno-historian, Dr. James McClurken. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamberlain may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Next, Chief Gould is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF GERALD GOULD, CHIEF, SWAN CREEK BLACK

RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES OF MICHIGAN,

SAGINAW, MICHIGAN

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,

members, and guests. My name is Gerry Son-non-quet Gould and

I am Chief of the Swan Creek Black River Ojibwa Tribe.

I would first like to thank Representatives Knollenberg and Barcia for sponsoring H.R. 2822 and recognizing issues facing my people today. This is an historic moment in our tribe’s history. I am

honored to address you on behalf of our tribe, many of whom have

traveled all night by bus in order to witness this historic occasion.

We come to ask that Congress enact promptly H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the trust relationship promised to our ancestors over 190

years ago.
20

When I was a young boy, my mother shared with me, as her

mother shared with her, and as my great-grandmother shared with

my grandmother, the rich traditions of our people. My great-grandmother was born in 1848 and lived in the areas beyond the white

settlements. The story my mother told me was of a land of abundance, and a time of health and simple prosperity in southern

Michigan. My people were trappers, fishermen, hunters, and farmers. They were communities of grandfathers and grandmothers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, elders and infants. It was

a time before the reservations when our people lived in harmony

with their environment, with nature, and with each other. This

was our proud heritage before the settlers came.

As my mother explained to me, and her mother to her, the nonIndians promised that if we would sign the Treaty of Detroit of

1807, the United States would take only a small portion of our

lands, leaving us the rest upon which to hunt, fish, and make our

living. We signed with the belief and hope that our people and the

non-Indians would dwell together in peace. As white settlements

grew, we were forced to move numerous times during that period.

We have awaited this moment with great anticipation and also

with some regret, for there is much to be said in the yet precious

few moments that we have together. This afternoon I would like to

describe how, as a result of Federal Government action—which violated the trust relationship—the BIA refuses to acknowledge our

tribe. As a result, our people are disenfranchised by the very governmental agency which is obligated to act in our trust.

We have signed 15 treaties with the United States, including one

where we are the sole tribal signatory. Despite our extensive treaty

relationship with the United States, Federal actions and policies

have resulted in the effective loss of our Federal recognition.

First, the United States artificially combined us with other tribes

on the same reservation, solely for its administrative convenience

pursuant to the Treaty of 1855.

Second, in 1936, the BIA compounded this error by rejecting: one,

the Swan Creek Black River’s request to organize as a separate

IRA tribe; and two, the draft constitution whose preamble listed

the Swan Creek Black River and the Saginaw Bands as separate

tribes. Instead, the BIA organized an IRA tribe on the Isabella Reservation, decreeing that only members living on the reservation

were eligible for membership. At that time, the individuals residing

there were Odawa, Potawatomi and Ojibwa—mostly Ojibwa of the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. In contrast, the overwhelming majority

of the Swan Creek Black River lived off the reservation.

To complicate matters, in 1939 the Department of the Interior

determined to withdraw funding gradually and prohibit any future

tribal organization under the IRA. By ignoring the Swan Creek

Black River’s separate tribal existence, the United States breached

its trust obligations to our tribal members. Notwithstanding the

Federal Government’s unilateral action—which was legally and

morally wrong—the Swan Creek Black River people continued to

function as a tribe. Indeed, we remain a tribe, since only the Congress can terminate a tribe and it has never taken this action.

[Chart.]
21

This chart that we have brought with us depicts how the United

States, through treaties, combined tribes in Michigan together. In

virtually every case, the United States has untangled these artificial groupings, reaffirming the individuality, sovereignty of each

previously combined tribe.

We appeal to you today to remedy this historic injustice. The

Swan Creek Black River has never surrendered or relinquished our

sovereignty. We have undertaken extensive historical, anthropological, and genealogical research, all of which supports our position.

We are submitting this box of documents as part of this hearing’s

official record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. GERALD GOULD. This research proves that we have maintained ourselves as a distinct tribe with distinct kinship relationships, distinct annuity roles, distinct genealogy, distinct culture,

and a distinct geographic area. In addition to the substantial documentation we have submitted for the record, we are accompanied

by our experts to answer any questions you may pose.

We do not seek to harm any other tribe; we simply seek to be

treated like the other sovereign Michigan tribes whose Federal recognition, in recent years, has been reaffirmed by Acts of Congress.

We sincerely hope that you will support our effort toward the

restoration of our trust relationship with you. In the Civil War,

Swan Creek Black River tribal members fought and died for the

Union to emancipate other subjugated peoples. The outcome of that

great conflict brought new meaning to the phrase ‘‘we, the people.’’

Thus, the concept ‘‘we, the people’’ holds an even special meaning

for us. At this time, ‘‘we, the Swan Creek Black River people’’ request the Congress to restore these same rights possessed by other

sovereign Indian nations.

Thank you. We also have brought Dr. Michael Lawson, our expert on the BIA acknowledgement process, to address the Committee if you would like. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerald Gould may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Next, Mr. Patterson, would you like to have an opening statement?

STATEMENT OF L. BROOKS PATTERSON, COUNTY EXECUTIVE,

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Mr. PATTERSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and ladies and

gentlemen. My name is Brooks Patterson and I’m the elected county executive from Oakland county, Michigan.

Permit me to set the stage for my brief remarks by telling you

a little bit about the 910 square miles that we call Oakland. It’s

a naturally beautiful county with rolling hills and 450 lakes. We

are the headwaters for five separate rivers that wind their way

through the county, some ending up in neighboring Lake St. Clair,

others pouring eventually into the Detroit River. By our very name

you can imagine the sturdy oak trees that crowd the landscape.
22

Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, Indian tribes—specifically

the Swan Creek Black River tribe—roamed this beautiful territory,

fishing its streams and hunting its thick forests.

Much has changed since those early days in Oakland county.

Now nearly 1.2 million residents enjoy a unique and rich quality

of life in Oakland county. We have 40,400 businesses thriving

there. We are headquarters for many Fortune 500 companies, not

least among them Chrysler Corporation, K-Mart and Meritor.

Oakland was beautiful and rugged in the 17th and 18th centuries and it combines an urban and rural beauty today. To preserve much of what the Swan Creek Black River tribe enjoyed, we

have set aside in our county over 87,000 acres of public park land.

For purposes of identifying my county still further for members of

the Committee, we are also home to some of your colleagues—

Spence Abraham lives in Auburn Hills, Carl Levin in Southfield,

Sandy Levin in Royal Oak, Representative Joe Knollenberg, in the

heart of the territory claimed by this tribe, in Bloomfield township.

Those are the residents.

As Oakland county executive, among my many responsibilities, I

am broadly charged as the steward of Oakland county’s vast resources. To that extent, I feel a real connection with those stewards

similarly charged 200 years ago. Out of deep sense of respect and

duty to the ancestors of Chief Gerald Gould—who sits to my

right—I am here to acknowledge the past and rectify a 2-centuryold miscarriage.

My testimony today is small repayment for what the Swan Creek

Black River Indians lost. What they seek today is recognition of a

historical fact: Oakland county was their aboriginal land and,

through the inevitable passage of time and events, they have been

disenfranchised.

Their case for recognition is replete with compelling evidence of

the tribe’s existence and territorial claims contained in that box.

Not least among the evidence are signed treaties with the very

Federal Government before which I appear this afternoon. Some

experts familiar with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the whole

recognition process have stated that the Swan Creek Black River

has presented as compelling a documented case as they have ever

examined.

I fear some oppose the rightful restoration of the tribe’s identity

and heritage this afternoon for one simple albeit selfish reason:

what will the tribe do with its new found recognition? Will they

eventually open a casino? Maybe. Will they build clinics and

schools for their people? Probably. Will they bask in the pride that

their heritage has been restored, their historical role has been recognized, and the long nightmare in search of their identity and

self-esteem is finally over? Absolutely.

What we are engaged in here this afternoon rises far above attempting to influence or manipulate a congressional committee in

hopes of protecting one city or one tribe’s avaricious gaming monopoly. What we are engaged in here is a far more noble cause; it truly

touches upon dignity, self-esteem, morality and justice.

In conclusion, let me respectfully suggest that the question before this Committee is not what the tribe may or may not do when
23

granted Federal recognition. The question is, have they proven

their case by clear and convincing evidence.

And, as to a comment made by Chief Chamberlain, I can assure

you, sir, that Oakland county is not interested in buying a tribe.

As its elected representative, I am interested in them fighting

against the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Patterson may be found at end

of hearing.]

[Applause.]

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Kildee, you’re recognized for questions.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question first of all for Chief Chamberlain. From what

I’ve heard today, there seems to be some confusion about the circumstances surrounding the reorganization of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. Could you explain to this Committee exactly what occurred and the impact it

had?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. In 19—under our—when our constitution was

formed?

Mr. KILDEE. The Indian Reorganization Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. For our tribe specifically?

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Well, again, the group of the Swan Creek

Black River and those living within the area of Isabella Reservation, which were comprised of both the Ojibwa, Odawa and the Potawatomi—our whole existence is based on the compilation of those

people. The same treaty areas that we’re talking about today and

that have been discussed by them are the same exact treaties we’re

formed under. The same ceded land territories. How are you going

to split that?

You’d have to split that. When we were organized in 1936—when

IGRA came about and our tribe was formed and we formed our

first constitution—it was based on everything that they’re claiming

now, that this particular group is claiming. And, I guess my question is—and kind of a question back to just anybody in the room—

how can they split off from everything we’re based on? Everything

we’re based on. I mean, that’s what the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe—

and I’m sorry but the majority of the treaties were also signed by

our group, too, and only one or two were solely done by the Swan

Creek Black River.

I sit before you as a Swan Creek Black River person, myself. I

don’t know if that answers your question or not, but——

Mr. KILDEE. It does. Could you also—there seems to be some confusion about article VI of the 1855 Treaty. Could you give some explanation of its impact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I would like to defer, if I could, those questions to our ethno-historian.

Mr. KILDEE. Sure.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Mr. Chairman? Could I——

Mr. KILDEE. Chief Gould, I’m still talking to——

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman, Mr. Kildee, controls the time at

the present moment.
24

Mr. KILDEE. Could I have counsel come forward?

Mr. CALVERT. Will the gentleman recognize himself at the microphone, please?

Dr. MCCLURKEN. Thank you for calling me, Congressman.

Mr. CALVERT. Please recognize yourself for the record.

Dr. MCCLURKEN. My name is James Michael McClurken and I’m

an ethno-historical consultant for the tribe.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the gentleman can sit on the dais there in the bottom? It would probably

be easier——

Mr. CALVERT. I would say the gentleman—he can pull up a chair

or——

Mr. KILDEE. I will pull up a chair, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. If you could please spell your name for the Clerk?

Dr. MCCLURKEN. M-C-C-L-U-R-K-E-N. Sir, the dissolution language in the 1855 Treaty has no implemental meaning for the

Saginaw Swan Creek or Black River Chippewas at all. That language was created in a treaty that was negotiated 2 days earlier

with the Ottawas and Chippewas on the west side of the state.

In 1836, Henry Schoolcraft and Lewis Cass invented a tribe

called the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation of Michigan. That tribe

was created to compel the Ottawas—who had determined not to

sell their land in Michigan to the United States—to sell. The Chippewas who were also parties to that treaty were determined to sell

the land. And, the Chippewas who were part of the delegation were

also the relatives of the Indian agent at the time. To force the Ottawas to sell, he told them that the Chippewas were willing to sell

and if the Ottawas didn’t sign the Chippewas would get all the

benefits from the sale.

The Ottawas were angry about that for 20 years. They lost all

of their land, they lost their annuities, they lost their reservation

and, when they made a treaty with the United States in 1855, they

insisted that the fictitious tribe called the Ottawas and Chippewas

of Michigan be dissolved and that each of the independent tribes

be allowed to negotiate in their own interest. That was done at the

insistence of the tribe itself. I’ve submitted documentation in my

report from the treaty journal itself to show the origin of that language.

The Treaty of 1855 negotiated with Saginaw Chippewas 2 days

later incorporated a lot of the language of the treaty that was made

previously. The treaty with the Saginaw Chippewas was almost an

afterthought for the treaty negotiators at that time. The Chippewas

had no reservations in Michigan, they had no remaining annuities,

and, as an afterthought, they negotiated a treaty to try to solve a

bad political problem.

The dissolution clause in the 1855 Treaty with the Saginaw

Chippewas had no operative meaning; in fact, that language was

never raised in any discussions about that treaty with the Saginaw

Chippewas until the year 1870, after the Saginaw Swan Creek and

Black River Chippewas had negotiated another treaty with the

United States.

The Indian agent in 1870 questioned the Commissioner of Indian

Affairs on whether or not a tribe that was dissolved could negotiate

a valid treaty with the United States. And, the Commissioner of In-
25

dian Affairs examined the situation and said, yes, they are an Indian tribe and they can negotiate a valid treaty. The dissolution

language of the 1855 treaty was never again used in documents

that I’ve seen concerning the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, though it

was raised and was used consistently to harm and damage the interests of the Ottawas and Chippewas from 1870 up until 1970.

Mr. KILDEE. The time has expired——

Mr. CALVERT. Does that answer your question?

[Laughter.]

Mr. KILDEE. And that is—you will submit that for the record?

Dr. MCCLURKEN. That has been submitted for the record, sir.

Mr. KILDEE. It has been, for the record. Right.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. KILDEE. Very good. I think my time has expired.

Mr. CALVERT. I’m sure we’ll be coming right back to you——

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, the second round.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Knollenberg.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you very much. I would like to extend

as a matter of courtesy to all of the witnesses the opportunity to

revise and extend their remarks and to submit in its entirety all

of their summary, comments, charts, et cetera and, in particular,

I believe it may already be a part of the information——

Mr. CALVERT. Indeed, all of these can be submitted to the

record——

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Including the chart, in particular?

Mr. CALVERT. Including the chart.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I had to pause a little bit when I have heard it from a couple

of different people—in fact, I think three now—that have testified

that Congress should not meddle in this affair, Congress should get

out. Congress was involved in the problem in the first place. That’s

why we have the difficulty that we’re trying to straighten out

today. That’s why the injustice was created.

And, frankly, Congress has the responsibility of taking care of its

problems and this is one we’re bringing to their attention today. So,

I think it’s perfectly within the rights of Congress obviously to deal

with that.

Let me suggest also—I know there’s been reference made by a

couple of the folks who have testified here—that we should use the

system that’s in place which may take 10, 15, 20 years. And, when

you think about it for a moment, when an injustice was created by

Congress why should it take 10 or 15 or 20 years? There should

be something far simpler, far more quickly done that would provide

the proper recognition for the Act that took away their sovereignty

some time back.

I would like to refer to Chief Gould for a moment to respond to

the testimony which I have a very difficult time understanding provided by the historian just a moment ago. And, if he wishes and

if it were in order, Mr. Chairman, he could refer to the historian

of their tribe.

Chief?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Thank you very much. What I’d like to do

is take this opportunity to have our consultant, Dr. Michael
26

Lawson, to respond to the comments made previously, if the Chair

will allow.

Mr. CALVERT. The Chair will allow it.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Just find a microphone on the other side.

Mr. LAWSON. I have prepared a statement that runs approximately five——

Mr. CALVERT. Please identify enter your name into the record.

Mr. LAWSON. Yes. My name is Michael Lawson. I am a historian

and I have a wide range of experience evaluating and comparing

relative the merits of tribal entities seeking recognition through

both the Bureau of Indian Affairs process and through legislation.

I am also familiar with Ojibwa history, having grown up in Genesee county, one of the six counties in which the Swan Creek Black

River people primarily reside.

For nearly 10 years, I was a historian with the BIA’s Branch of

Acknowledgement and Research, providing technical assistance to

unrecognized tribes, evaluating the evidence contained in documented tribal petitions, and occasionally reviewing the evidence

presented by tribes seeking recognition or restoration by Congress.

I also helped draft the current revisions to the acknowledgment

regulations. As a private consultant, I have conducted research and

assisted unrecognized tribes seeking Federal recognition over the

last 5 years.

On the basis of my experience and the extensive and high quality

documentation I have reviewed, it is my conclusion that Swan

Creek Black River presents a particularly compelling case for Federal reaffirmation.

Swan Creek Black River is a legitimate, treaty-based, tribal entity that represents a politically, socially and geographically distinct

Indian community whose members have verifiable Ojibwa ancestry.

For years, Swan Creek Black River and its members and researchers have been gathering historical, anthropological and genealogical information and evidence that fits both the BIA and congressional evaluations of what is required based on the seven mandatory criteria set forth in the acknowledgment regulations. In my

opinion, based on this evidence, if Swan Creek Black River were to

submit a documented petition to the BIA, this tribe would have a

very favorable chance of being acknowledged as a federally recognized tribe.

I am also of the fervent opinion that Swan Creek Black River

could qualify for expedited consideration under the acknowledgment regulations based on its previous Federal recognition, perhaps as recently as 1982, when it was treated as having collective

rights in a tribal judgment award of the U.S. Court of Claims—and

I might add that Swan Creek Black River is still considered an active petitioner in the BIA process.

I have submitted to the Committee a more detailed statement

summarizing the evidence collected by Swan Creek Black River

that likely meet all seven of the acknowledgement criteria. However, I think it is important to note that Swan Creek Black River

satisfies the tribal membership criterion, contrary to the claim that

we’ve heard here that it is a splinter group where membership is
27

composed primarily of people enrolled in Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

About 80 percent of the Swan Creek Black River members are enrolled only with Swan Creek Black River, while the number of

Swan Creek Black River members currently constitute approximately less than 1 percent of the Saginaw Chippewa membership.

Most of these people are members of an unrecognized tribal group

and do not receive Federal services.

[Applause.]

Mr. LAWSON. It is not unusual for members of unrecognized

tribes also to be enrolled in other tribes prior to recognition. Such

was the case, for example, of Lac Vieux Desert Band of Michigan,

nearly all of whose members were previously enrolled in other

tribes. Congress has recognized tribes for which it determines the

administrative process is not appropriate because of compelling, extenuating, historical circumstances and because the administrative

process has proven neither timely nor efficient.

In the 20-year period since the acknowledgement regulations

were established in 1978, the BIA has resolved only 25 cases, a historical average of 1.25 cases per year. Still lacking adequate resources, the BIA now faces an overwhelming backlog of 27 fully acknowledged—fully documented but yet unresolved cases. At the

present rate, the BIA might not take final action on Swan Creek

Black River—for more than 20 years. This would mean that a generation of Swan Creek Black River elders would pass on without

ever having the benefit of their right to continuous Federal recognition.

[Applause.]

Mr. LAWSON. It is neither appropriate nor fair that this tribe

should have to wait 20 years or more to demonstrate that it meets

the acknowledgement criteria since 1982 and, even if H.R. 1154 or

a similar bill or reform legislation were enacted, it could take years

before the new procedures were promulgated and even more years

to clear the present backlog of cases.

Since 1982, Congress has legislatively recognized or restored

eight worthy tribes that were also acknowledgement petitioners, including four in Michigan. Of the four Michigan tribes, however,

only two proceeded very far in the BIA’s process: the Little Traverse Band of Odawa and the Little River Band of Ottawa submitted letters of intent to proceed through the acknowledgement

process. But, they never did. Instead, these tribes secured legislative recognition in 1994.

My review of the evidence in these cases convinces me that Swan

Creek Black River is similarly situated—if not better situated—

than these other legislatively recognized tribes. In summary, while

the acknowledgement process might be the best method for evaluating probably 95 percent of the unrecognized tribes that are still

out there, given the extenuating circumstances that I have described it is more appropriate and fair for Swan Creek Black River

to be reaffirmed legislatively.

And, in closing, I’d like to say that based on my knowledge of the

history and issues involved it appears that the Saginaw Chippewa

have badly distorted the facts and mischaracterized the Swan

Creek Black River people and their history. Such——

[Applause.]
28

Mr. CALVERT. The Chair would ask the audience to refrain from

public adulation.

Mr. LAWSON. Such audacious prejudgment of the case also ignores the fact that, one, the granting of tribal recognition or restoration is solely the Federal Government’s decision to make and

not the Saginaw Chippewas; and two, that this is not an adversarial process. Furthermore, not even the Saginaw Chippewa can

credibly deny that the Swan Creek Black River have a constitutional right to petition Congress to address an unresponsive governmental bureaucracy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from American Samoa. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a couple of questions and I wanted to thank my good

friend, Congressman Knollenberg, to again reemphasize the fact

that Congress has the plenary authority to do whatever it pleases

as it relates to the nations of the Indian tribes under the Constitution of the United States.

There are some problems that I would like to share with the

members of the panel.

I would like to ask Chief Chamberlain, how many members make

up the Saginaw Tribe?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Approximately 2,800.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Twenty-eight hundred. And, Chief Gould,

how many do you claim to represent in the Swan Creek Tribe?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Approximately 200.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Am I correct to say that every Swan Creek

and Saginaw are interrelated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am Swan Creek Black River.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Chief Gould, are you also Saginaw?

Mr. GOULD. No. No, I’m not; I’m just Swan Creek Black River.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I noticed that Secretary Gover had indicated

that the Swan Creek did file a letter of intent with the division of

the BAR, they call it—the fancy title of the BAR—in 1993. Was

that true?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Did you then receive an OD from the Department of the Interior—it’s called an letter of Obvious Deficiencies and Significant Omissions. Has your tribe followed through

since 1993 in responding to those areas of concern by the division

of BAR?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. We have done extensive research since

1992, 1993 and we looked at the difficulties of going through the

current Federal application process and, based upon being a treatybased tribe, have not continued that process after we researched it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, in other words, after receiving your OD

from the—from this division that there——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Well, because we did not receive an OD.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You didn’t?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. No.
29

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Secretary Gover, can you respond to that?

Mr. GOVER. No, that’s correct. They’ve not received a letter of

Obvious Deficiencies. They’ve only filed a notice. They haven’t actually filed a petition, yet.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But, the BAR did not provide any response

to the tribe?

Mr. GOVER. Only to acknowledge receipt of their letter of intent.

But, we’ve received no further information from the tribe since that

time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to say to both Chiefs here, this is the

very thing that I feared very much. Now we have two historians

fighting among themselves as to who’s telling the gospel truth

about the case at hand and it’s really sad to see that we’re—I just

can’t conceive how we, as members of this panel, are going to be

overnight experts and say who’s telling the truth and who’s not.

And, I find it very difficult to see how we’re going to find a solution to the fact that everybody agrees that the current system of

giving recognition to tribes is totally unacceptable. But, coming to

that agreement and having tried for the past 6 years to provide legislation to provide a more fair system of recognition—and that has

failed—so we’re right back to ‘‘square one’’ and I’m sorry to say

that we were not able to resolve that issue.

I’d like to ask the historian for Chief Gould, if I could, you were

personally involved as a historian with the recognition process and

worked for the Department of the Interior, am I correct?

Mr. LAWSON. Yes, that’s correct; from approximately 1984 until

1993.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And during that 10-year period, did you

think the BAR was doing a great service to the Indian communities

seeking recognition?

Mr. LAWSON. I think we were doing the best job that we could

under the circumstances and I think that the circumstances are

that there weren’t enough resources for us to do a job in a timely

manner.

Neither, I might add, do I think that there are enough resources

for tribes that are seeking Federal recognition to adequately have

allowed them to document, to present the large documentary record

that’s required by the acknowledgement process.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Recognizing the fact, Chief Gould, that since

1993 you felt that the system of Federal recognition was just bizarre, why have you waited until now to ask the Congress to give

full recognition to your tribe? Why didn’t you request immediately

that let the Congress do the recognition process rather than BAR?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Well, it’s—even the legislative process is difficult. Even the legislative process is complicated for people who

don’t understand it. Plus, we were gathering documentation.

The case that we present to you today is the result of years and

years of research, both here in Washington, DC—where you have

the majority of the records and we don’t live—and the State of

Michigan, and we have spent many, many years gathering the documentation that we provide to you today. But, also, we’re not familiar with the entire legislative process as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My problem, Chief Gould—I know, Mr.

Chairman, my time is up—you’re to come up with 5,000 pages to
30

justify your position and Chief Chamberlain is going to come up

with 5,000 pages justifying his position and then it puts us in a

very difficult situation who is who and what and where and, you

know, what do we want to do about this. That’s my problem and

I’m sorry that my time is up.

Mr. CALVERT. You have the staff worried. That means they’d

have to read 10,000 pages.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to follow up

on the comments of my friend from American Samoa.

Mr. Gover, let me ask you this. If I understand your testimony

correctly, the Department of Interior is opposed to H.R. 2822 because there are many unanswered questions regarding this situation.

Mr. GOVER. That’s correct.

Mr. CAMP. And, I know that you have questions regarding the

group’s membership, their history, their community and their tribal

government. In fact, I believe you don’t even have a current membership list of the Swan Creek Black River Tribe. Is that correct?

Mr. GOVER. That’s correct.

Mr. CAMP. And, because of that I know that you feel you could

use more information and that because so little information has

been provided to you that you aren’t even in a position to adequately evaluate the political relationship between the group and

the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

Mr. GOVER. That’s right. At this point, we have no idea. We don’t

even know who the group is because we don’t have a membership

list. So, we’re unable to say whether they’re even Indians except by

looking at them and that’s usually not good enough for Federal recognition. That’s why we would much prefer to, at least, make some

progress on the BAR process so that we can have our historians

who have no axe to grind here take a look and give us their best

opinion on whether or not this group is a separate Indian tribe.

Mr. CAMP. And, the two bands signed a treaty in 1855 and a

later one in 1864 which established a reservation for these bands

right near Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Is that accurate?

Mr. GOVER. That’s my understanding, yes.

Mr. CAMP. And that you don’t have any clear evidence that the

Swan Creek band remained after these treaties as a separate and

distinct entity or independent tribe?

Mr. GOVER. We don’t rule that out but we have no such evidence

at this point.

Mr. CAMP. And you haven’t received any evidence since 1993 to

the contrary?

Mr. GOVER. Only a very minimal amount of evidence.

Mr. CAMP. Is it also true that, in 1986, in the Distribution of

Judgment of Funds Act, there was a provision that said that the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe should open its enrollment for 18 months

and that was open to individual who could demonstrate either

Swan Creek or Saginaw Chippewa ancestry, is that correct?

Mr. GOVER. Yes.

Mr. CAMP. And, because of that, tribal membership increased

during that 18 month enrollment period?
31

Mr. GOVER. Considerably, yes; it tripled.

Mr. CAMP. And you believe that much of the off-reservation Swan

Creek band were likely to have become members of the tribe during that open enrollment process——

Mr. GOVER. Yes.

Mr. CAMP Is that true?

Under this legislation, there is a 12-county service area proposed

for this tribe, which would include the most populated counties in

the State of Michigan—including the entire city of Detroit. Are

there any problems with a service area of that size?

Mr. GOVER. Well, there are. That’s unusually large for the tribes

in Michigan and I notice that they define a service area as basically the aboriginal lands before their Treaty of Detroit. And, that’s

a very considerable service area for a tribe in that part of the country. It will certainly tax the tribe’s resources and our own to be

able to serve people in that broad of a geographic area.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much and I would just say that I

think this is why the specialized staff of BAR exists—for reviewing

this complex information and for analyzing these petitions for Federal recognition—and I guess, again, I would say that this process

has not been utilized fully. There are some situations where unfair

denial has occurred in the history of this country but there is a

process there that is available and open and it’s clear that that has

not been used yet. And I would again thank the chairman for allowing me to testify and also to be a part of the panel later. Thank

you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. If everyone will be patient

for a minute, Mr. Kildee has a couple of extra questions——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. CALVERT But before I do that, I’m going to go through a little

business of this Committee and then I’ll be recognizing Mr. Kildee

and others for another round of questions.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Could we have an opportunity to respond to

the——

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman will have some time to respond

after I get through with this additional business.

[Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the committee proceeded to other business, to resume at 2:37 p.m.]

Mr. CALVERT. [presiding] Mr. Kildee.

Mr. KILDEE. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Back in the—it would be 10 years ago or more, I introduced and

was chief sponsor of a settlement bill for the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe. Were the Swan Creek Black River members of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe involved in that settlement and in the distribution

of that settlement? Chief Chamberlain?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes, they were.

Mr. KILDEE. They were. So—and, in that, the settlement was between the sovereign nation of the United States and the sovereign

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the Swan Creek Black River people

participated in that settlement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Definitely. Again, I want to clarify the earlier

question just for your own clarifications, if you don’t—if it didn’t

make sense. When he asked me how we’re interrelated, I said I

was Swan Creek Black River. What I mean by that—and this is
32

how I participated—I’m a descendant of the Swan Creek Black

River people. Within tribes, they’ll ask you, I’m a turtle clan, I’m

bear clan. I am a descendant—and that’s where I descend totally

from—but I’m Saginaw Chippewa and that’s what compiles—I

mean, it was a question that you asked earlier, that’s why——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It was my question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Yes. But, that goes and it correlates into

what you just asked. Yes, they participated.

Mr. KILDEE. So, they were—it was a settlement between the sovereign United States and the sovereign Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

and the Swan Creek Black River were involved in that settlement

as members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Definitely.

Mr. KILDEE. Let me ask this to Mr. Gould. You sent your letter

of petition—or a letter of intent, I should say—in 1993. Why did

you not ever followup with a formal petition?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. For two reasons, Congressman. One, we

were following—we examined the process of the BAR, which is extensive, we realized it could take us 15 to 20 years. Two, we were

in the process of doing research and the research and documentation that you have here today. And, three, after realizing that we

had been federally recognized before in numerous treaties, that we

wanted to reaffirm our trust relationship through the legislature,

which was the appropriate method to go.

Mr. KILDEE. I always, myself, whenever I introduce a bill call it

reaffirmation because you’re—the sovereignty of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, for example, was not granted to them. It was a sovereignty they retained before the first Europeans ever came here.

Let me ask you this—another question. Were you ever yourself,

Mr. Gould, considered a member of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Yes.

Mr. KILDEE. Did you participate in the government——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. I was a member of Swan Creek——

Mr. KILDEE. [continuing] of the Saginaw——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. [continuing] Black River.

Mr. KILDEE. OK. As the present Chief participates.

Were you ever involved in the government of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Yes, I was involved and I felt I was representing Swan Creek Black River.

Mr. KILDEE. What capacity were you involved in the government

of the Saginaw Chippewa?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. The tribal council of Swan Creek Black

River.

Mr. KILDEE. You were on the tribal council of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

You brought documentation here. Do you intend to turn that documentation over and complete your letter of intent to Kevin Gover

on trying to achieve recognition in that manner?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. What is the question?

Mr. KILDEE. Well, you brought a box of documentation here——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Right.

Mr. KILDEE. [continuing] for our staff to look over. Will that documentation also be sent to the BIA as part of the BAR process?
33

Mr. GERALD GOULD. It’s part of the legislative process that we’re

involved in now. That’s why we’re turning the documentation over

to you.

Mr. KILDEE. So, you are precluding, then, using the BAR process?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Because we feel that it’s not appropriate.

Just like other tribes that you have supported to go through the

legislative process, we feel it’s not appropriate for us either.

Mr. KILDEE. Well, the Huron Potawatomi band, about 2 years

ago, went through the BAR process and achieved recognition.

That’s another Michigan tribe that received recognition through

the BAR process. It would seem to me that you might want to pursue that BAR process as the Huron band of the Potawatomis did.

And, they did get their sovereignty reaffirmed. Why are you reluctant to go through the BAR process?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Because we feel we’re akin to the two

Odawa groups—Little River and the Grand Traverse bands—which

went through the legislative process which didn’t really provide—

well, it provided probably as much as documentation as we have

to the BAR.

Mr. KILDEE. Yet, the Huron Potawatomi—they found a successful

road to follow and got recognition through the BAR process and

that’s a Michigan tribe——

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Right.

Mr. KILDEE. [continuing] also. The Potawatomi, I know, are not

quite Odawa or Chippewa but—or the Algonquin—it would seem to

me that precluding the BAR process and not following through

with your letter of intent might be reconsidered.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Well, that’s what Little River did and we

know the process that we’re going through now is one that is not

precedent-setting and we know that you’re aware of, for example,

in Michigan that Sioux Saint Marie had previously been a part of

Bay Mills and they realized—the U.S. Government realized—that

they had made an error, that they had combined two tribes that

were separate politically. They were both Ojibwa but they had different tribal Indian entities.

This error occurred again by previous government when

Keweenaw Bay was combined with Lac Vieux Desert; two different

Ojibwa groups of people—like we are—geographically apart and

the United States, at their request, was able to resolve the situation and allow the two groups to be recognized separately.

So, now there is Lac Vieux Desert, there is Keweenaw Bay, there

is Sioux Saint Marie, there is Bay Mills. These are separate, political Indian entities and the U.S. Government realized that mistake

just like when we had been artificially combined with other groups

of Ojibwa, Potawatomi, Odawa up in Mt. Pleasant. We had been

relocated there by our Treaty of 1836 and our previous Treaty of

1807, which established our own—our singly own—reservation, and

an amendment was made that, you know, the geographic areas are

going to be separated.

No, we are not from the Saginaw Valley area. Unfortunately,

good, bad, or indifferent, we have no control over history but we

are from southeastern lower Michigan, which is Swan Creek. That

is where our people lived, that is where our treaties were devel-
34

oped, that’s where our reservations were. We had approximately 12

square miles of reservations down in that area and that’s where

we’re from. That’s where our people lived until we were relocated.

And, even after we were relocated to the reservation, we continued to be separate because we still maintained our annuity roles

separately from other tribes while we were there.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. Before I close, I’d like to just thank

Kevin Gover for everything he’s done to improve this administration’s relationship with the Indian tribes. I find it a pleasure of

working with you, Kevin, and I just wanted to put that on the

record.

Mr. GOVER. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Knollenberg.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I have a quick question for Mr. Gover. How long would it—if you

had everything tomorrow—if you had all the documentation you

needed, everything in your lap, how long would it take you to come

to a point of Federal recognition?

Mr. GOVER. I don’t know the answer to that. It’s a hard question.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. No, no, no. You had it all tomorrow. If you

had all tomorrow. It’s on your lap. You’ve got it. How long does it

take you to come to the grips with the question and determine one

way or the other?

Mr. GOVER. It would depend upon my willingness to bump aside

a number of other petitioners who have been waiting a long time.

If we took in that information and told you we were going to consider it starting tomorrow, maybe a year from now we’d have a determination from the BAR staff.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Maybe a year?

Mr. GOVER. I’m not going to tell you that we would do that because I’m not, at this point, willing to set aside those other petitioners.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. But you could do it in a year?

Mr. GOVER. We could probably do the initial round of findings.

The way the process works, we do an initial round of findings, put

it out for comment from the public from the interested parties and

the petitioner, and then we consider those comments. So, it’s a

process of probably 2 years from the moment that we actually

begin active consideration.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. With all of the other petitions, how long

would it take?

Mr. GOVER. Well, that’s what I say. I don’t know. A lot of those

petitions fall by the wayside over time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So, it could be sooner.

Mr. GOVER. Pardon me?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It could be sooner.

Mr. GOVER. Sooner than 2 years? No, sir; it cannot be any sooner

than that.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It’s interesting how you came to that determination. But, I would just say to you that it would seem to me

that if you had everything tomorrow, it would not take quite so

long. And, you could give us something in terms of a finite date

that might suggest when.
35

I want to turn and yield some time now to Chief Gould, who

might wish to respond in closing or through the historian on any

matter that was brought up during the previous questioning.

Chief Gould.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Thank you, Congressman. I would like to

have our expert from the BAR respond to your question on the

length of the BAR process, assuming that they had all of the documents immediately.

Mr. LAWSON. Well, if there was a consideration to waive the

other active petitioners at this point, there are approximately 27

fully documented petitions before the BAR as of their latest petition status sheet. There are approximately 15 that are in various

stages of active consideration and about 12 that are on the waiting

list.

So, if you do the math—there’s 27 cases that are unresolved at

this point and the historic record has been that they’ve been resolving 1.25 cases per year, then—without a waiver of those other

cases—you’re looking at approximately 20 years before you’d get a

final decision, in my view.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That contrasts sharply with what I just

heard from the other gentleman.

Any other comments? Chief Gould?

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Congressman Knollenberg, may our allow

our subchief to do our summary for us?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Very good.

Mr. GERALD GOULD. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. This will be the final witness.

Would you please recognize yourself for the record?

STATEMENT OF HAROLD GOULD, ADMINISTRATIVE

SUBCHIEF, SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER

Mr. HAROLD GOULD. My name is Harold Gould, Administrative

Subchief of Swan Creek Black River.

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. HAROLD GOULD. OK. I’m here—it’s very much of a preponderance to me of what words I put forward to you of our peoples.

We were a separate nation. We’ve been waiting a long time. In

1934, we were rejected. In 1855, we were combined.

We just seek justice. We seek justice for our people—for our old

people and our children and children unborn. We’ve been waiting

a long time. I’ve been associated with the Saginaw Chippewa. I

dearly love those people, a wonderful people. But, they are not my

people.

Kevin has worked earnestly and hard to bring about change and

he has been successful in some areas and I’ve been very supportive

of him in this change. I feel that, all in all, we still need our people

who are the leaves in the fall which blow across a stream, who fill

the earth. We just want a small piece to reside. That is all we ask

for; we don’t ask for all of Detroit, we don’t ask for anything like

that, we just want a place to raise our children, a place to continue

our culture. That’s all we ask for.

We want to work with the Saginaw Chippewas. They’re brothers,

just like us. And, we want to help each other, lift each other up.

That’s what it’s all about. These people have travelled a long dis-
36

tance here. Most of them are not members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe or will never be members of the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe, as the constitution has forbade. And, for them, we strive. We

are willing to give up all for them. That is the hope of our future.

That is true tribalism, as we understand it; giving to each other,

sharing with each other, and maintaining our culture together.

This, I feel—this striving effort which we must make—we understand Kevin Gover here is working very diligently for Indian people

but, unfortunately, Congress has chosen repeatedly in the past to

underfund the Bureau. That is the reason for the bottleneck. If he

had had enough money, he could resolve these issues immediately.

But, Congress is the fault, not Kevin, not the previous Director.

We only ask for our little piece of land. We ask for a future for

our children. That’s all we ask for. I ask you to render a favorable

decision for us. Give us a chance for the future. Give us an opportunity to live as we’re meant to live. We have been pursuing this

vision for decades; one generation after another have been handed

this same vision. It is an effort and a burden upon. We have spend

unending hours pursing it. And, now, we are about to achieve, or

we hope to achieve, with your help and that’s all we ask.

Mr. Kildee, you have been strong in supporting Native people

through out history. Your whole life is dedicated to helping Native

people. We ask that you support us. Don’t turn your back. We ask

that you bring—vote for it and we hope that, in the future, our people and the Saginaw Chippewa people will work together to uplift

ourselves, bring out some meaningful change for the entire Native

American community.

Thank you very much for hearing me out. Any questions? I’ll be

happy to answer them.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions.

I would like to yield back my time. Thank you, thank Mr. Kildee,

thank the entire group that’s assembled here today for your courtesy in allowing this testimony and we very much appreciate your

allowing us that extension of courtesy. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Kildee has a quick change in a statement that I know. The

gentleman from American Samoa has a quick closing statement.

I’m attempting to close the hearing up by 3 o’clock for our commitments.

So, Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. This is primarily for the court reporter but I meant

to say the Huron Band of Potawatomi and I may have said Huron

Band of Pokagon. But, there’s a Pokagon Band of Potawatomi. So,

for the record, I was referring to the Huron Band of the Potawatomi.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman..

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. For the record, I want to commend Assistant Secretary Gover with whom I’ve had the privilege of working

very closely with in developing and streamlining this proposed legislation that was defeated yesterday by the House to better improve the procedures on how to federally recognize a Native American Indian tribe.

I would be the last person sitting here, as a member of this Committee, to say that I know all about the differences between the
37

Chippewas and the Ojibwas. And, to suggest that we’re going to

make a judgment on this thing—I want to, again, recall the suggestion by our friend from Michigan, Congressman Knollenberg.

It is my sincere hope that Congressman Kildee, our colleague on

this side of the aisle, and the members of the Majority will sit in

council again with the leaders of both groups and hopefully that

there will be some common solution to this problem. I sincerely

hope that we will be able to do that and, again, thank both Chief

Gould and Chief Chamberlain, again. I can’t make a judgment. I

mean, I’m a chief myself but a small chief. But, I sincerely hope

that we will find a remedy to this problem before the Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman, and, in closing, I would say

as the others have pointed out that hopefully during the Thanksgiving holiday, everyone gets together and attempts to work out

some remedy to this very complex problem. And, we thank you for

traveling such a great distance to testify at this hearing today. I’m

sure we have not heard the last of this and look forward to seeing

you probably next year, if Mr. Knollenberg has anything to say

about it.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
38

1Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). 2 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978). 3Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law citing Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,

436 U.S. 49 (1978); Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U.S. 76 (1906); Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S.

218 (1897).

STATEMENT OF KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, CHIEF OF THE SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF

MICHIGAN

Introduction

Good morning, Congressman Calvert, Congressman Kildee and Members of the

Resources Committee. My name is Kevin Chamberlain, Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this

distinguished body to voice the Tribe’s opposition to H.R. 2822.

My testimony will consist of brief remarks on why this Committee should oppose

H.R. 2822. I respectfully request that this written testimony, including the Tribe’s

historical analysis prepared by Dr. McClurken, be entered into the record.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe vehemently opposes H.R. 2822. Any action on this

bill is of utmost concern to the Tribe because its effect, if passed, would be to separate the federally recognized and long-standing Saginaw Chippewa Tribe into two

separate federally recognized tribes. It would allow a splinter group to claim treatypreserved rights, political jurisdiction and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Our position is staunchly set upon our desire to preserve our

Tribe’s heritage and sovereign status and to protect the tribal sovereignty of all Indian nations by preventing political factions and splinter groups from being able to

secede from their tribes and create sovereign nations unto themselves.

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe opposes H.R. 2822 because (1) the bill deals with

a tribal membership issue; (2) the bill seeks to circumvent the appropriate administrative process; (3) because the driving factor behind H.R. 2822 is gaming; and (4)

because the Swan Creek Group cannot meet the criteria necessary to become a

tribe.

This is not a meritorious claim—it is an attempt by wealthy businessmen to buy

a tribe and push a bill through Congress for the ultimate purpose of establishing

a new casino in Southeastern Michigan.

Membership Issue

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe not only opposes H.R. 2822’s content, but also opposes the holding of this hearing today. With all due respect, we challenge the Resources Committee’s decision to hold a hearing on this bill. H.R. 2822 deals strictly

with an intra-tribal membership matter. There should be no Congressional intervention on a matter so fundamental to a sovereign nation’s existence.

As you know, Indian tribes are ‘‘distinct, independent political communities’’1

qualified to exercise powers of self-government, not by virtue of any delegation of

powers by Congress but by reason of their original tribal sovereignty.2 The United

States’ courts have consistently held that one of an Indian tribe’s most basic powers

is the authority to determine questions of its own membership.3 The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has long been recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation and

should be allowed to handle this membership issue as such.

The Swan Creek Group, the party pushing this bill, claims that they are the successor in interest of the Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians.

Yet, the Swan Creek and Black River Bands had always been two constituent parts

of the Missisauga Chippewa, the name used before and during the treaty era when

referring to the Chippewa Bands in Southeastern Michigan. Later, after the 1855

Treaty of Detroit, these bands combined with the Saginaw band to become the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The United States has consistently recognized the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe as the exclusive successor in interest to the Saginaw, Swan Creek

and Black River Chippewa Indians. These bands are indistinguishable from one another and have no separate existence as distinct entities. For over 140 years, the

Tribe has accepted the bands within its membership and provides services to all

members in the process, regardless of band affiliation.

The Swan Creek Group, however, claims that they are a separate entity deserving

of sovereign nation status. This is absolutely untrue. Most of the Swan Creek

Group’s participants are currently enrolled members of the Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe, including Mr. Gerald Gould, the Swan Creek Group’s organizer. In forming

his group, Mr. Gould recruited members for his group by sending membership forms

to enrolled members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Swan Creek Group is

merely a group of individuals who wish to split from the Tribe. Individuals who are

members and beneficiaries of one Indian nation should not be able to simply secede
39

4 Article IV, The Amended Constitution and By-laws of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe

of Michigan, approved by the United States Congress by Public Law 99-346.

and create their own nation complete with the rights and privileges of all Indian

tribes whether because of political differences, personal choices to live away from

the reservation, or for any other reason. The existing sovereign nation to which the

individuals belong should resolve such membership issues internally. Tribal politics

is not a matter for Congress; it is a matter for the members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and their elected leaders.

For the record, the Saginaw Chippewa’s Tribal Council has exercised due diligence in addressing the Swan Creek Group’s needs. Again, the Tribe serves all its

members with health, education, vocational, housing and other programs without

distinguishing which members may descend from the Saginaw, Swan Creek or

Black River Bands. Indeed, because there has been so much intermarriage between

band members over the generations, most members of the Tribe descend from more

than one band. The needs of members who live off the reservation are met through

its At-Large Program which provides numerous services and benefits specifically for

them. None of the Swan Creek Group participants including Mr. Gould have relinquished membership in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and they remain eligible for

all tribal benefits and rights, including gaming per capita payments.

Annually, the Tribe spends approximately $970,000 on At-Large Programs which

include, but are not limited to, health services; medical services—including transportation to medical appointments; living expense needs, (food costs; house payments; rent; land tax payments; utilities) burial grants; educational seminars; and

family services. Further, the Tribe spends roughly $550,000 per year on cultural enrichment programs for the At Large residents and $468,000 on medical coverage.

The programs are freely accessible to all At-Large persons. Over 1290 At-Large

persons live within two-hours of the reservation and take full advantage of these

programs. If the Swan Creek Group is stating that they get disparate treatment for

not living on the reservation—this is absolutely not the case. They are free to take

advantage of all the programs. It is not the Tribe’s fault if persons live far from the

reservation—it can only provide the services and programs to the best of its ability.

The At-Large Programs funded and administered by the Tribe generously provide

for myriad needs of the Tribe’s At-Large membership.

Also, there is a seat guaranteed on the Council for a representative from the At

Large District so that such individuals that comprise this District are fully represented and have a voice in the governing body.4

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council has also met many times with representatives of the Swan Creek Group to better understand and address its concerns. In

most recent meetings held earlier this year, the Swan Creek Group informed tribal

leaders that no political accommodations or additional benefits would appease them.

They simply want their own Tribe.

Again, it is the sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe that must resolve

this issue, not Congress. Congress’ intervention in this manner is an affront to the

Tribe’s sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent for all tribes.

H.R. 2822 Circumvents the Administrative Process

Since Congress has decided to participate in this intra-tribal issue, the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe must voice its opinion that H.R. 2822 is nothing more than an attempt to politically circumvent the appropriate process for becoming a federally recognized Indian tribe—and to do so without first contacting the Congressmen whose

districts would be most affected by such legislation.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs’(BIA) Bureau of Acknowledgment (BAR) exercises

the United States’ authority to determine Federal recognition of Indian tribes. The

BIA’s Federal Acknowledgement Process (FAP), set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, delineates the criteria a group must meet before it can be deemed a tribe. Since acknowledging a group as a tribe carries with it many rights and privileges, the FAP process calls for in-depth historical and cultural analysis and a finding that the group

has existed as a distinct, social and political entity from the time of the last unambiguous Federal recognition. This method requires extensive ethnological scrutiny.

With all due respect, Congress is not equipped with time or expertise to engage in

such detailed study and review. Recognizing a sovereign nation certainly cannot rest

on five minutes of oral testimony from the parties involved.

Nor should it. It is of too great significance. Recognizing a sovereign nation, must

be a deliberative process. It warrants prudence, examination and expertise. This is

exactly why Congress and the courts have deferred to the BIA which is specialized

to handle the issue.
40

5Statement of Deborah Maddox, Acting Director, Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Department of the Interior, Senate Report No. 103-260, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 1994. 6 H.R. Rep. No. 103-631, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1994; 25 U.S.C. §1300k.

Legislative recognition and abandonment of the FAP process is not only heedless

of longstanding procedure, but it is unjust because it allows financially supported

and politically connected groups to ‘‘jump the line’’ ahead of legitimate tribes that

have adhered to the administrative process and are awaiting review of their applications.

True, Congress has legislatively recognized tribes in the past. Yet, since the FAP

process was implemented in 1978, there have only been seven instances of legislative recognition. The Swan Creek Group, in the findings section of H.R. 2822, attempts to liken its situation to that of a few tribes that recently received legislative

recognition. The Swan Creek Group’s situation, however, does not compare to these

tribes. Those tribes had nearly completed the BAR process and were on active consideration at the BIA,5 or otherwise had proved their long histories of being distinct

social and political organizations that maintained relationships with the United

States from treaty times to the present.6 Unlike these tribes the only action the

Swan Creek Group has taken towards the FAP process was the filing of a letter of

intent to petition in 1993. The Swan Creek Group has not yet filed a petition, or

any other documentation to further their pursuit of recognition, even after the BIA

contacted the group and requested additional information from it.

The Swan Creek Group hopes for the same treatment given the aforementioned

tribes regardless of the differing circumstances. It urges legislative recognition on

the basis that the FAP process is too long and burdensome. It is the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s contention that it should be. Because of the significance of becoming

a federally recognized Indian tribe, there should be strict criteria to adhere to and

a specialized team that ensures, without doubt, that the group’s historical background justifies the granting of Federal recognition.

If the FAP process is too long or burdensome for applicants to manage, Congress’

role should be to rectify the process. The answer is not to legislatively recognize

groups on a piecemeal basis—especially, groups such as the Swan Creek Group. According to the BAR’s Summary Status of Acknowledgment Cases, dated June 17,

1998, the Swan Creek Group is listed as #135 on the list. To grant the Swan Creek

Group legislative recognition would allow it to be recognized before 134 other groups

who have adhered to the administrative standard and played by the rules. Some of

these groups have been waiting since 1978 for Federal recognition, long before the

Swan Creek Group filed its letter of intent and long before it found money to hire

powerful people to walk the halls of Congress for them. To allow H.R. 2822 to pass

will only encourage other groups to seek recognition through Congress and the Resources Committee will be deluged with bills.

We request, too, that Congress give deference to the Governor of Michigan who

has stated that he is strongly opposed to H.R. 2822 because it circumvents the administrative process for obtaining recognition as an Indian tribe.

Gaming Interests Fuel H.R. 2822

The motivation behind H.R. 2822 is gaming. The organizers of the Swan Creek

Group have reportedly informed people of their plans to build a casino on an old

racetrack at Hazelpark in Oakland County, Michigan. It is understood, too, that the

group is financially backed by successful businesspersons from the Detroit area.

This is the simple answer to why the Swan Creek Group is working so hard to push

H.R. 2822 through and how they can afford the costly resources for the effort.

In response to the question, ‘‘What is it you want,’’ posed by a Saginaw Chippewa

Tribal Council Member to the Swan Creek Group at a recent meeting between the

two parties, the Swan Creek Group answered, ‘‘We want our own tribe.’’ Now, we

understand that this is because they wish to pursue their plans for Hazelpark as

expeditiously as possible. They found an interested financial backer to buy them as

a tribe and legislative recognition is the quickest way to their goal. Significant,

though, is that the suggested gaming site, if built, would be located in a Congressional district not represented by either of the bill’s sponsors.

Congress should recognize the fundamental problems with the tactics of the Swan

Creek Group. Allowing a group of individuals to be bought and pushed through Congress as a tribe to further gaming interests makes a mockery out of tribal sovereignty. Congress’ only role here should be to direct the Swan Creek Group to comply with the administrative process if they wish to pursue such endeavors.

The Swan Creek Group Does Not Meet the Criteria for Federal Recognition.
41

7 25 C.F.R., §83.7 (a).

8 25 C.F.R. §83.7 (b).

9 25 C.F.R. §83.7 (c).

10 25 C.F.R. §83.7(f). 11 Elmer B. Simonds et al. To Secretary of Interior, received December 5, 1934, CCF 9069-

A-1936 Tomah 068.

It is the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s contention that even if the Swan Creek Group

pursued recognition through the administrative process, it could not meet the necessary criteria to merit tribal status. As mentioned above, the FAP process calls for

an in-depth analysis of history, culture, ethnology, social and political status of an

applicant. It is our understanding that the Swan Creek Group, many years ago,

filed a letter of intent to apply for BIA recognition. Yet, since the group has failed

to submit the required historical documentation to support their claim, the file has

remained dormant. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe believes that the Swan Creek

Group failed to submit additional documentation demonstrating that the group

meets the FAP criteria because such documents do not exist.

Under the FAP process, a group must have been identified as an Indian entity

on a substantially continuous basis from 1900 until the present.7 The Swan Creek

Group, however, cannot meet this criteria. It has not been identified as an autonomous Indian entity. Rather, the Swan Creek and Black River Bands were considered two constituent parts of the Missisauga Chippewa until 1855. After the 1855

Treaty of Detroit, which officially joined them with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,

the United States acknowledged the Swan Creek and Black River Bands only as

part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The 1864 Treaty, the Federal annuity rolls,

and the Indian Claims Commission decisions confirm this assertion. None of these

documents or proceedings differentiate the bands; they all treat the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as one tribe.

Although the 1864 Treaty mentions the three bands in its preamble, the remainder of the treaty makes it clear that the treaty is with one Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

Further, the Federal annuity rolls which provide counts of Michigan Indians during

the mid-1800’s distinguished between the three bands before the 1855 Treaty but

not after it. Also, in the early 1970’s, the Indian Claims Commission, in its efforts

to resolve claims brought by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, conducted a detailed review of the circumstances surrounding the signing of treaties involving the Saginaw,

Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewas. The Commission, on a consistent

basis, identified the Swan Creek and Black River Bands only as part of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe.

Further, the Swan Creek Group does not comprise a distinct community from historical times until the present as called for in the FAP process.8 The Swan Creek

and Black River Bands have long lived with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, so much

so that individual members cannot tell from which band they descend. If there ever

was any meaningful distinction among the bands, it was fully eroded with the signing of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. Also, the Swan Creek Group has not maintained

any political authority over its participants as is required in the FAP process.9

There were no actions taken by an individual constituent band of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe which displays any political authority of a particular band after the

1855 Treaty of Detroit. The authority always was in the governing body of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. It is the Tribal Council that governs the tribe and deals with

the Federal Government. The Swan Creek Group is nothing more than a splinter

group of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and should not be recognized as its own entity.10

The Swan Creek Group’s Arguments

One of the Swan Creek Group’s main arguments for Federal recognition seems

to be based upon the interpretation of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit and the circumstances surrounding the reorganization of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Our

historical analysis, which is attached as a part of this testimony, explains in detail

how a close look at these two events can only conclude that the Federal Government

meant to deal with one tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, consisting of the Swan

Creek, Black River and Saginaw Bands of Chippewa.

The 1855 Treaty of Detroit joined the three bands as the one Saginaw Chippewa

Tribe and the reorganization of the Tribe included members regardless of from what

band they descended. The constitution the Tribe submitted for reorganization reveals the intent to reorganize as one tribe when stating, ‘‘We, the members of the

Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of the Chippewa Indians of the State

of Michigan, in order to reestablish our tribal organization . . .’’11 (emphasis added).
42

12George Blakeslee to J. V. King May 27, 1985. CCF—Great Lakes 9592-1936, 066; Eligible

Voters of Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Band of Chippewas. June 17, 1935. CCF—

Great Lakes 9592-1936, 066. 13 Ibid. 14Letter from William Zimmerman, Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to Chairman,

Constitutional Committee, Saginaw Chippewa Indians, July 31, 1936. RG 75 CCF No. 9609-A

1936 Tomah 068 Indian Organization—Saginaw. 15 Ibid.

The United States supervised the reorganization process, and, at the insistence

of the Tribe, included Tribal members from all of the scattered Saginaw Chippewa

Communities in the vote or the referendum for reorganization.12 The officials did

not intend to limit membership in the tribe only to descendants of the original Saginaw Chippewa band. They spoke of what recognition would offer to the people at

Bay City, Saganig, Osoda, Peconing, Clare and Mt. Pleasant—where persons from

the Swan Creek and Black River Bands who did not move to the Isabella Reservation migrated to in 1856.13

In 1937, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe reorganized under the statute as an organization of Indians living on one reservations.14 Although this constitution did not

automatically include persons living off the reservation, including some of the Swan

Creek and Black River Band descendants, the Tribe’s constitution allowed for the

adoption of the non-residents of the reservation as members of the Tribe.15 At the

recommendations of the BIA, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe enacted an ordinance for

the purpose of adopting these persons who lived off the reservation. The BIA did

not decline to reorganize the Swan Creek and Black River Bands. On the contrary,

they were reorganized as part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Therefore, these

bands should not be allowed now to obtain recognition as a separate entity.

Conclusion

The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe would like to reiterate its opposition to the holding

of this hearing. The Tribe firmly believes that this is a tribal membership issue in

which Congress should play no role.

Further, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe believes that since the Swan Creek Group

cannot meet the established administrative criteria for becoming a tribe, it certainly

should not gain recognition from Congress based upon five minutes of testimony.

Federal recognition of a sovereign nation should be granted only after careful research and deliberative review. It is too significant a measure to be hastily passed

in a bill. The recognition of new tribes must be left to the established administrative

process. To provide legislative recognition to the Swan Creek Group would be wholly

unjust to the other groups who followed the FAP process and have patiently waited

review. H.R. 2822, if passed, will only encourage the introduction of more bills for

legislative recognition. Congress should direct the participants of the Swan Creek

Group to resolve their issues with their tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. In summary, H.R. 2822 is merely an attempt by self interested businessmen to buy a tribe.

It should absolutely not be passed.

For these reasons, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe respectfully requests that this

Committee vote against H.R. 2822. I have attached our historical analysis and the

relevant documentation as part of my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to

speak on this issue.

STATEMENT OF GERRY SON-NON-QUET GOULD, CHIEF OF THE SWAN CREEK BLACK

RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES OF MICHIGAN

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members, and guests. My name is Gerry Son-nonquet Gould and I am the Chief of the Swan Creek Black River Ojibwa Tribe. I would

first like to thank Representatives Knollenberg and Barcia for sponsoring H.R. 2822

and recognizing the issues facing my people. This is an historic moment in our

Tribe’s history. I am honored to address you on behalf of our Tribe, many of whom

have traveled all night by bus in order to witness this historic occasion. We come

to ask that Congress enact promptly H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the trust relationship

promised to our ancestors over one hundred and ninety years ago.

When I was a young boy, my mother shared with me, as her mother shared with

her, and as my great-grandmother shared with my grandmother, the rich traditions

of our people. My great grandmother was born in 1848, and lived in the areas beyond the white settlements. The story my mother told me was of a land of abundance, and a time of health and simple prosperity in Southeast Michigan. My people

were trappers, fishermen, hunters and farmers. They were communities of grandfathers and grandmothers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, elders and in-
43

fants. It was a time before the reservations when our people lived in harmony with

their environment, with nature, and with each other. This was our proud heritage

before the settlers came.

As my mother explained to me, and her mother to her, the non-lndians promised

that if we would sign the Treaty of Detroit of 1807, they would take only a small

portion of our lands leaving us the rest upon which to hunt, fish and make our living. We signed with the belief or hope that our people and the non-natives would

dwell together in peace. As white settlements grew, we were forced to move, sometimes several times.

We have awaited this moment with great anticipation and also with some regret,

for there is much to be said, and, yet, precious few moments that we have to spend

together. This afternoon, I would like to describe how, as a result of Federal Government action which violated the trust relationship, the BIA refuses to acknowledge

our tribe. As a result, our people are disenfranchised by the very governmental

agency which is obligated to act in our trust.

We have signed 15 treaties with the United States, including one where we are

the sole tribal signatory. Despite our extensive treaty relationship with the United

States, Federal actions and policies have resulted in the effective loss of our Federal

recognition. First, the U.S. artificially combined us with other tribes on the same

reservation, solely for its administrative convenience, pursuant to the Treaty of

1855.

Second, in 1936, the BIA compounded this original error by rejecting (1) the Swan

Creek Black River Chief’s request to organize as a separate IRA Tribe; and (2) the

draft constitution whose preamble listed the Swan Creek Black River and the Saginaw Bands as separate tribes. Instead, the BIA organized an IRA tribe on the Isabella reservation, decreeing that only individuals living on the reservation were eligible for membership. At that time, the individuals residing there were Odawa, Potawatomi and Ojibwa—mostly Ojibwa of the Saginaw Chippewa Band. In contrast,

the overwhelming majority of the Swan Creek Black River Tribe lived off the reservation.

To complicate matters, in 1939 the Department of the Interior determined to

withdraw funding gradually and prohibit any future tribal organization under the

IRA. By ignoring the Swan Creek Black River’s separate tribal existence, the U.S.

breached its trust obligations to our tribal members. Notwithstanding the Federal

Government’s unilateral action—which was legally and morally wrong—the Swan

Creek Black River people continued to function as a tribe. Indeed, we remain a

Tribe since only the Congress can terminate a tribe and it has never taken this action.

This chart depicts how the U.S. artificially grouped tribes in Michigan together.

In virtually every case, the U.S. has untangled these artificial groupings, reaffirming the individual sovereignty of each previously combined tribe.

We appeal to you today to remedy this historic injustice. The Swan Creek Black

River Tribe has never surrendered or relinquished our sovereignty. We have undertaken extensive historical, anthropological and genealogical research, all of which

supports our position. This research proves that we have maintained ourselves as

a distinct tribe, with distinct kinship relationships, distinct annuity rolls, distinct

genealogy, distinct culture, and a distinct geographic area. In addition to the substantial documentation we have submitted for the record, we are accompanied by

our experts to answer any questions you might pose.

We do not seek to harm any other tribe; we simply seek to be treated like the

other sovereign Michigan tribes whose Federal recognition, in recent years, has been

reaffirmed by Acts of Congress.

We sincerely hope that you will support our effort toward the restoration of our

trust relationship with you. In the Civil War, tribal members fought for the Union

to emancipate other subjugated peoples. The outcome of that great conflict brought

new meaning to the phrase ‘‘we the people.’’ Thus, the concept ‘‘we the people’’ holds

a special meaning for us. At this time, ‘‘we the Swan Creek Black River people’’ request the Congress to restore those same rights possessed by all other sovereign Indian nations.
44
45

STATEMENT OF L. BROOKS PATTERSON, OAKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE

Dear Chairman Calvert and Distinguished Members of the Committee on Resources:

My name is Brooks Patterson, and I am the elected County Executive from Oakland County, Michigan.

Permit me to set the stage for my brief remarks by telling you a little bit about

the 910 square miles that makes up Oakland. It’s a naturally beautiful county with

rolling hills and 450 lakes. We are the headwaters for five separate rivers that wind

their way through the county, some ending up in neighboring Lake St. Clair, others

pouring eventually into the Detroit River. By our very name you can imagine the

sturdy oak trees that crowd the landscape.

Back in the 17th and 18th centuries Indian tribes, specifically the Swan Creek

Black River tribe, roamed this beautiful territory, fishing its streams and hunting

the thick forests.

Much has changed since those early days in Oakland county. Nearly 1.2 million

residents now enjoy a unique and rich quality of life in Oakland County. We have

40,400 businesses thriving there, and we are headquarters to many Fortune 500

companies, not least among them Chrysler Corporation, Kmart and Meritor.

Oakland was beautiful and rugged in the 17th and 18th centuries and it combines

an urban/rural beauty today. To preserve as much of what the Swan Creek Black

River tribe enjoyed, we have set aside in our County over 87,000 acres of park land.

For purposes of identifying Oakland County: we are also home to Senator Spencer

Abraham (Auburn Hills), Senator Carl Levin (Southfield), Representative Sandy

Levin (Royal Oak), and Representative Joe Knollenberg (Bloomfield).

As Oakland County Executive, among my many responsibilities, I am broadly

charged as the steward of Oakland County’s vast resources. To that extent, I feel

a real connection with those stewards similarly charged 200 years ago. Out of a

deep sense of respect and duty to the ancestors of Chief Gerald Gould, I am here

to acknowledge the past and rectify a two-century old miscarriage.

My testimony today is small repayment for what the Swan Creek Black River Indians lost. What they seek today is recognition of a historical fact; Oakland County

was their aboriginal land, and through the inevitable passage of time and events,

they have been disenfranchised.

Their case for recognition is replete with compelling evidence of the tribe’s existence and territorial claims. Not least among the evidence are signed treaties with

the very Federal Government before which I appear this afternoon. Some experts

familiar with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and this whole recognition process have

stated that the Swan Creek Black River tribe has presented as compelling a documented case as they have ever examined.

I fear some will oppose the rightful restoration of the tribe’s identity and heritage

this afternoon for one simple, albeit, selfish reason: what the tribe might do with

its new found recognition: they will eventually open a casino? Maybe. Will they

build clinics and schools? Probably. Will they bask in the pride that their heritage

has been restored, their historical role recognized, and the long nightmare in search

of their identity and self-esteem is finally over? Absolutely.

What we are engaged in here this afternoon rises far above attempting to influence or manipulate a Congressional committee in hopes of protecting one city or one

tribe’s avaricious gaming monopoly. What we are engaged in here is far more noble:

it truly touches upon dignity, self-esteem, morality and justice.

In conclusion, let me respectfully suggest that the question before this Committee

is not what the tribe may or may not do if they are granted Federal recognition.

The question is have they proven their case by clear and convincing evidence?

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. MCCLURKEN, PH.D., REGARDING H.R. 2822

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. I will take this opportunity to

summarize my larger and more detailed historical analysis entitled Historical Identity of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas: A Critique of House

Bill 2822. This text is supported by numerous historical citations that I have appended to the document.

Historical Identity of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas: A

Critique of House Bill 2822 raises the issues that I think are most critical for understanding the scope of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes’
46

1Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas made one more with the United States in 1859.

The Swan Creek and Book River Chippewas who made this treaty were those who moved from

Michigan to lands west of the Mississipi River in the 1830s.

claims and their implications for the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Most importantly,

H.R. 2822 will legislatively split a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe, into two distinct federally recognized entities. The bill attacks

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s political sovereignty. The bill would also divide the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s treaty-based rights and properties between the tribe and a

second political entity, another infringement on the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribe speakers justify their bid

for Federal acknowledgment and the division of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in

Findings One through Thirteen of H.R. 2822. I have examined these findings in detail. My report shows that all of the findings in H.R. 2822 are historically misleading or inaccurate. The report provides a finding-by-finding analysis and provides

references to historical works or primary documents that are important for correctly

interpreting the findings. The sponsors of H.R. 2822 have given Congress little or

no documentary evidence to support their claims.

Historical Scope of the Claims and the Treaties Cited in H.R. 2822

The scope of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes’ over reaching claims is evident from the first line of Finding One. The Swan Creek Ojibwas

made two large claims regarding their sovereignty and properties. The drafters of

H.R. 2822 claim to be ‘‘the [emphasis added] descendant of, and political successor

to, the [emphasis added] signatories of . . .’’ thirteen treaties with the U.S. These

treaties cover an immense territory in the northern half of the Old Northwest Territory. This language strongly implies that H.R. 2822 will recognize a Swan Creek

Ojibwa claim of sole heirship to the sovereign powers and properties of numerous

ancestors who signed treaties with the United States. Historical facts show that

that claim this is not true.

The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes claim to be the sole successors to two treaties that no Saginaw, Swan Creek or Black River Chippewas attended at all—the 1785 Treaty of Fort McIntosh and the 1833 Treaty of Chicago.

The historic Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas were two of nearly two dozen

Mississauga Chippewa bands who lived in southeastern Michigan. While the historic Swan Creek and Black River bands were parties to all of the treaties the

Mississauga Chippewas made with the United States, they were one small part of

the larger confederacy and cannot claim to be the sole successors to any single treaty except the 1836 Treaty of Washington.1 In this treaty the Swan Creek and Black

River Chippewas sold their last remaining reservations to the United States and

agreed to move to new homes ‘‘west of the Mississippi or northeast of St. Anthony

Falls.’’ While the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes now claim

that few of their people were affected by this treaty and that they remained in their

traditional homeland, historical analysis shows otherwise. Nearly two thirds of their

population left Michigan for western lands or moved to Canada. After the 1836 treaty, the Swan Creek and Black River Band Chippewas who remained in Michigan

were a small remnant population with few resources or means to support themselves.

In 1855, the remnant Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas once again joined

the far more numerous Saginaw Chippewas to make a new treaty with the United

States. The Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas who signed the 1855 Treaty

of Detroit did not intend to function as a distinct band, an autonomous political

unit, after the 1855 treaty. Treaty provisions stipulated that the remaining Swan

Creek and Black River Chippewas would join the Saginaw Chippewa bands on two

reservations. The remnant Swan Creek and Black River Bands voluntarily joined

with the Saginaw Chippewas. They became part of a single political organization

and were indistinguishable from the Saginaw Chippewas after 1860.

The merging of the distinct Chippewa bands into a single political unit is reflected

in Federal annuity payrolls. While annuity payrolls before 1855 listed Saginaw,

Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas as distinct bands those rolls created after

1855 make no such distinction. The failure of United States officials to distinguish

between the bands was not simply a matter of convenience or oversight. The same

officials created similar rolls for the neighboring Ottawa and Chippewa bands and

continued to denote band distinctions and regional confederacies among those people. The Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas had become one people.

The Indian Claims Commission agreed with the historical fact that the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe was the descendant of and political successor to the Saginaw, Swan

Creek, and Black River Chippewas who made treaties with the United States. Dock-
47

et 13-H, Finding One, which deals with claims under the 1855 and 1864 treaties,

reads:

The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, comprising the Saginaw,

Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians . . . maintain this action under provisions of the Indian Claims Commission Act.

The Claims Commission found that the modern-day Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is

the exclusive political successor to the formerly distinct bands of the Saginaw, Swan

Creek, and Black River Chippewas. This finding contradicts the findings of H.R.

2822, which attempts to make the Swan Creek Ojibwas the sole political successors

to this treaty. The three historic bands were all successors to these treaties and the

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is the modern successor.

1855 Treaty of Detroit

Another serious flaw in H.R. 2822 is found in Finding Six. The Swan Creek Black

River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have claimed that the 1855 treaty grouped the

Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas as a matter of administrative

convenience and that the ‘‘dissolution’’ language of that treaty anticipated a time

when the fictitious coupling of these bands would end. Finding Six then compares

the 1855 treaty language to that of the 1855 treaty made with the neighboring Ottawas and Chippewas of Michigan. The language and implementation of the two treaties are not comparable.

The ‘‘dissolution’’ language of the 1855 Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River

treaty was drawn directly from the treaty that the Ottawas and Chippewas negotiated with the United States only days before the Saginaw Chippewas made their

treaty. The history of the Ottawas and Chippewas and the Saginaw, Swan Creek,

and Black River Chippewas is not comparable. Court decisions and subsequent legislation regarding the Ottawas and Chippewas are specific to these tribes and cannot apply to the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas.

The history of the ‘‘dissolution’’ clause in the 1855 Ottawa and Chippewa Treaty

is this, Michigan Indian Agent Henry Schoolcraft in 1836 administratively combined

the Ottawas and Chippewas, two historically distinct tribes. They were not administratively joined in 1855 as H.R. 2822, Finding Six, indicates. Schoolcraft created the

fictitious Ottawa and Chippewa Nation to compel Ottawa leaders to sell their western Michigan lands against their will. The Ottawas resented this tactic that robbed

them of their property and weakened their political status. When the constituent

tribes of the fictitious Ottawa and Chippewa Nation came together to make a new

treaty in 1855, the Ottawas demanded that the U.S. end the fiction of an Ottawa

and Chippewa Nation. The Ottawas wanted each tribe restored to its rightful political autonomy. The U.S. did see some ‘‘administrative convenience’’ in ‘‘dissolving’’

the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation. Doing so would allow the U.S. to call future councils with one or the other tribe without involving all of the widely scattered bands

who comprised these tribes. This would save time and expense and help justify the

dissolution language.

No historical documentation before, during or immediately after the 1855 negotiations with the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas, directly comments

on the negotiators’ reasons for inserting dissolution language in their 1855 treaty.

Indeed, the historical situation that treaty negotiators intended to remedy for the

Ottawas and Chippewas has no parallel in the relations of the Saginaw, Swan

Creek, and the Black River Bands. The Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River

Chippewas had never been linked in a fictitious political unit like that of the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation. The 1855 treaty legislatively joined, not separated,

these joint political successors to the treaties listed in H.R. 2822, Finding One, as

a single political unit for the first time.

The ‘‘dissolution’’ language argument is also discredited by the fact that the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas negotiated their final treaty with the

United States in 1864 as a single tribe. The dissolution clause of the Saginaw Chippewas’ 1855 treaty was not mentioned before, during or after the 1864 negotiation.

The first discussion of the dissolution of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River

Chippewas does not appear in Federal records until 1870. That year, Michigan Indian Agent James Long questioned the meaning of the language for the first time.

How could a ‘‘dissolved’’ tribe make a legally binding treaty with the United States?

Commissioner of Indian Affairs Eli Parker affirmed the validity of the 1864 treaty

and the right of the confederated Saginaw Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas

to make it.

Implementation of the 1855 and 1864 treaties facilitated the physical and demographic commingling of the once distinct Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River

Bands. In 1855 Swan Creek and Black River bands numbered, at most, 150 people,

while more than 1,500 Saginaw Chippewas lived in Michigan. These 150 lived at
48

one mission station, Nippising Mission, in 1855. Methodist Church records show

that when the Nippising Mission closed in 1856, the Swan Creek and Black River

Bands’ members who lived there divided and moved to several new locations. Some

relocated to the Isabella Reserve, others to Saganing, some to Oscoda, and others

to Pinconning, all places where the Methodists operated missions. It is highly unlikely that these widely scattered handfuls of families maintained political relationships distinct from those of the communities where they lived 1855.

The Indian Reorganization Act

The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have claimed that they

attempted to reorganize their separate government under provisions of the WheelerHoward or Indian Reorganization Act in the 1930s. They have described two letters

proving this point without offering citations for these documents. I have examined

hundreds of documents generated by United States officials and by Saginaw Chippewa Tribe members about this issue. I have never seen the letters that the Swan

Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have called attention to. I have not

seen any evidence that they attempted to reorganize an independent tribe or that

the United States ever sanctioned Swan Creek reorganization efforts. To the contrary, documents cited in my larger report and the supporting documentation show

that United States officials intended to reorganize all of the scattered Saginaw

Chippewa communities as the reorganized Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. They did so at

the insistence of the leaders of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who were drawn from

many of these off-reservation communities. The constitution of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe included provisions that extended membership to all of the Saginaw

Chippewa communities

Conclusion

The conclusions and findings in this testimony and in my written report are based

on twenty years of extensive study of Michigan Indian history. I have never discovered any documents that would support the Swan Creek Black River Confederated

Ojibwa Tribes’ claim to have maintained a distinct identity from that of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe after the closing of the Nippising Mission in the mid-1850s. No document that I have ever read clearly and legitimately raises the claim. I strongly

urge this Committee to judge the claims of H.R. 2822 on their historical merit. The

claims are spurious and do not merit legislation by the United States House of Representatives.

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH DAVIS JACKSON, PH.D.

Introduction

This statement is in strong support of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the tribal sovereignty

of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan. I hold a

Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Michigan; I am presently continuing

my anthropological research under a multidisciplinary postdoctoral fellowship at the

University of Michigan. Over the past seven years, I have carried out extensive historical and ethnographic research on the American Indian peoples of the Great

Lakes region, with particular focus on the Ojibwa Tribes of Southeast Michigan.

This work has brought me into collaboration with several Native American groups,

including the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan,

with whom I conducted an oral history project documenting the social, cultural and

political continuity of tribal settlements throughout the twentieth century. This

study, funded by the Kellogg Foundation, resulted in a collection of transcripts and

audio tapes of individual and focus group interviews with three generations of several extended Swan Creek Black River families, as well as a report summarizing

the findings. These materials, in addition to serving as the beginnings of a more

complete oral history for the Tribe, have also been deposited by the Tribe in several

Michigan libraries so that Native community leaders, scholars specializing in American Indians of Michigan, and other interested members of the public might benefit

from this valuable resource.

The picture of community life that emerges from the inter-generational oral history project, in conjunction with my general knowledge of Michigan Indian culture

and history, has convinced me that the Swan Creek Black River people have maintained their tribal identity and cohesion from the time of earliest sustained contact

with non-Natives up until the present. Since they were first described in the official

documents of non-Natives during the early years of the treaty era over 200 years

ago, Swan Creek Black River communities have retained their distinctive identity

in contrast both to nearby non-Native towns and cities (and the dominant society
49

more generally), and to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe with whom they were combined, for administrative convenience, by the Federal Government in the Treaty of

1855. Despite constant challenges to their unique way of life, and even at times to

their very survival, the Swan Creek Black River Tribe has persevered. They seek

now to be reaffirmed as the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes

of Michigan, thereby acknowledging, for the Federal Government’s purposes, the

cultural, social and political cohesion they have maintained for so long, against such

formidable odds. They have entered into treaties with the Federal Government repeatedly, and have been ‘‘acknowledged’’ in the form of their being a separatelynamed component of the combined ‘‘Chippewas of Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black

River’’ (as stated in the title and preamble of their final treaty with the U.S. Government, made on October 18, 1864). In my considered opinion, there is no doubt

that the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan does constitute a tribal political entity, and has since its first sustained contact with nonNatives. I strongly urge favorable action on H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the Tribe’s Federal recognition as a sovereign tribal entity.

Community Life: Early 1800s through Early 1900s

The very early history of the Swan Creek Black River people is beyond the scope

of this statement. Here I will simply say that as Great Lakes area Indian bands

came to be designated by their ancestral territories, the terms ‘‘Swan Creek’’ and

‘‘Black River’’ came into usage to refer to the Ojibwa (another term for ‘‘Chippewa’’)

people of Southeast Michigan. These were one people, with a common hunting and

fishing territory, whose multiple primary villages were originally clustered along

Swan Creek and the Black River. By the early nineteenth century, however, land

cessions (primarily as a result of the Treaty of Detroit in 1807) and settlement by

non-Natives had pushed many Swan Creek Black River people out of their traditional homelands. At first several small reservations were established expressly for

Swan Creek Black River people, but these were later extinguished (in the Treaty

of 1836), leaving Swan Creek Black River people essentially landless. One small

group went to Kansas when land was set aside there specifically for Swan Creek

Black River people (many subsequently returned), some stayed in and around the

original small reservations, others moved into adjacent areas of Canada (e.g.,

Sarnia, Walpole Island), and still others established settlements in various locations

around Southeast Michigan. Later, during the 10 years between 1855 and 1865, a

series of treaties resulted in land being set aside at Mount Pleasant (later named

the ‘‘Isabella’’ reservation) specifically for Swan Creek Black River, as well as the

Saginaw, bands of Ojibwa. A fair number of Swan Creek Black River families relocated there; but of those, many eventually returned to their home settlements to the

southeast.

The nineteenth century as a whole, then, is characterized by disruptions, dislocations, dispersions, and migrations; at the same time, however, a strong social and

political cohesion kept Swan Creek Black River people for the most part in their

own communities. These small communities—settlements scattered throughout

Southeast Michigan—retained a strong sense of their identity as a single, distinct

group of Ojibwa, not only within communities, but among communities, as well. The

nature of these bonds among tribal members, and the way of life they shared, has

been especially well illuminated by the recollections of older Swan Creek Black

River tribal members as recorded for the Tribe’s oral history project. While these

tribal members are recalling the early twentieth century, other sources (archaeological digs; archival records; written accounts by government agents, missionaries

and other non-Natives; and long-deceased tribal members’ correspondence, photographs, and other documents) corroborate that the same general conditions held

throughout the nineteenth century. The social, cultural and political life that sustained Swan Creek Black River people throughout the nineteenth century and into

the first few decades of the twentieth are summarized below.

As the nineteenth century progressed, the Swan Creek Black River Ojibwa people

of Southeast Michigan found their options drastically restricted by the actions of the

Federal Government (confining them to reservations, then extinguishing those reservations, then physically lumping them together with the Saginaw Chippewas on

a reservation far from their homeland), the encroachment of non-Native settlers,

and the destruction of the habitats from which they had traditionally made their

living. Still, these people managed to maintain their traditional life ways and social/

political organization in the face of all the pressures and changes, preserving their

identity as a distinct Ojibwa people while at the same time making the adjustments

necessary to contend with changing circumstances.

Though their settlements remained geographically dispersed throughout Southeast Michigan, Swan Creek Black River people kept in close touch with one another.
50

The distances between settlements were not any greater than those between the villages and campgrounds of aboriginal times, and the marriages that regularly occurred between Swan Creek Black River families of different settlements (documented in census records and genealogies) served to keep the scattered communities

bound together in an intricate network of kinship ties.

While some Swan Creek Black River families in some of the settlements turned

to farming, most, especially during the second half of the nineteenth century, did

not have enough suitable land to do so. Far more common was a traditional subsistence mix of hunting, fishing and trapping, small-scale gardening, the making of

black-ash baskets and other traditional craft items for sale to non-Natives, migrant

farm work (such as traveling to northwest Lower Michigan in the summer for cherry picking), and other forms of wage-work for non-Native farmers, lumbering concerns, and local businesses and homes (where Native women sometimes worked as

‘‘domestics’’). Another form of work, usually provided by women during this period,

was to provide midwifery and other such medical services to non-Natives in nearby

towns, using traditional Ojibwa practices and remedies. (While charging fees to nonNatives, these traditional healers treated their own tribal community members on

the basis of the reciprocity, not fees, that characterized all social interactions among

Swan Creek Black River people.)

These various activities allowed Swan Creek Black River families to ‘‘get by,’’ but

there were many difficult times. People often went without basic necessities, and

some times went hungry during winters when game animals—even such small game

as rabbits and muskrats—were scarce, and wage work was scarcer. Anti-Indian

prejudice on the part of local white authorities resulted in zealous enforcement of

hunting and fishing restrictions (this was long before the time when Native rights

to hunting and fishing in ceded territories was re-established in Michigan) and even

in false accusations of ‘‘poaching,’’ with no regard to the fact that Native families

needed the animals they hunted and trapped simply to stay alive. Similarly, the

only employment opportunities open to Swan Creek Black River people were lowpaying farm work and other labor jobs, and Indians were often paid even less than

non-Natives for equal work. Yet, there was little if any recourse, legal or otherwise,

and families simply pooled their resources and survived as best they could.

Despite these economic hardships, Swan Creek Black River people in the scattered settlements of Southeast Michigan maintained a good quality of life socialed

with one another, helped each other out in times of need, attended church together

(many of the settlements had Methodist churches which became key community institutions, to the point that they were considered ‘‘Indian churches’’ by their members), communally maintained their local ‘‘Indian cemeteries,’’ traveled to other

Swan Creek Black River settlements for weddings, funerals, and other such occasions, and held periodic large scale gatherings patterned after aboriginal ceremonial

meetings held throughout the warmer months of the year. In former times, these

kinds of gatherings had revolved around maple sugar camps in the spring, fishing

villages in the summer, and during the fall, the ‘‘feasts for the dead’’ that were held

by various families, bringing visitors from near and far. Thus, people who had been

separated in smaller hunting camps during the winter had ample opportunity during the warmer months to reconnect, conduct their business, carry out courtships,

get married, and enact ceremonial rituals. As the nineteenth century progressed,

larger-scale gatherings were more likely to revolve around wage work (lumber

camps, cherry-picking camps), tourist areas where baskets and other native crafts

could be sold, and religious (Methodist) ‘‘camp meetings.’’ But the underlying purpose was still the same—for families in far-flung settlements to keep in touch with

one another and keep their social and political ties strong—and the flavor remained

very much ‘‘Indian’’ even as such European institutions as wage labor and Christianity came to influence the structure and timing of the gatherings.

In addition to the social cohesion and cultural continuity that was maintained and

strengthened at these larger gatherings, political leadership was also exercised.

Leadership was, for the most part, loose and informal, as was the case in earlier

times before sustained contact with non-Natives. Throughout the nineteenth century

and into the twentieth century, some degree of political cohesion was achieved within the larger Swan Creek Black River polity by a number of individuals who, on

behalf of their communities: (1) kept people informed of issues affecting their people;

(2) represented their people in interactions with government officials and other outsiders (e.g., those who participated in negotiations with the government, signed

treaties, and sent letters to government officials seeking redress of unacceptable circumstances); and, (3) kept their people informed of decisions. The large social gatherings discussed above provided good opportunities for political discussions to occur.

In addition, there was constant communication among Swan Creek Black River people on a smaller scale, both within and between settlements, as people visiting one
51

another invariably discussed the latest news with regard to government Indian policy, the local political climate, and news from Mt. Pleasant. Furthermore, as literacy

increased among Swan Creek Black River people (mainly due to ‘‘Indian schools,’’

both in the form of local day schools and the residential boarding schools at various

locations), people began supplementing their face-to-face contacts through regular

correspondences, building and strengthening both social and political alliances and

keeping up with news of all kinds on topics of interest to local Swan Creek Black

River communities.

Life remained surprisingly stable in Swan Creek Black River settlements

throughout the first few decades of the twentieth century. Though families continued to struggle economically, communities drew on the strengths of their traditional

cultural and social bonds, and leaders continued to try to improve the conditions of

their people. With regard to this last point, it is of special significance that specific

leaders emerged during the early twentieth century, thus bringing to an end a time

during which political leadership must be inferred. That is, during the first twothirds of the nineteenth century, historical documents such as treaties, the correspondence of Indian agents, and the records of missionaries in the area name certain individuals as ‘‘chiefs’’ of their local communities and as men who had influence

over Swan Creek Black River people more generally. But during the last few decades of the nineteenth century, such documentation is rare. However, we can reasonably assume that such leadership continued, because as archival evidence becomes available again in the early twentieth century, supplemented now by oral historical accounts, it is clear that certain individuals were respected leaders not only

within their local settlements, but among the larger Swan Creek Black River community as well. Such Swan Creek Black River men as George Wheaton, ‘‘Doc’’

Chatfield, Art Henry, and an unnamed individual at Peonegowink (referred to in a

1909 document) are among those mentioned as ‘‘chiefs’’ who were responsible for

keeping their people informed of matters that were of concern to them (both in

terms of Federal Indian policy and developments at Mt. Pleasant), and whose opinions people respected when it came to making decisions to improve their circumstances.

With regard to this last issue, it is of particular significance that during the Reorganization Era of the 1930s, the Swan Creek Black River people sought to have

their status as a separate Tribe, distinct from the Saginaw Chippewas, reaffirmed

through the provisions on the Reorganization Act. Elliot Collins, designated as

‘‘Chief of the Swan Creek Black River’’ in official documents, wrote a letter informing Federal Government officials that his people were ‘‘anxious to organize’’ under

the Act to become recognized as a Tribe. Unfortunately, no correspondence has been

located that indicates what became of Chief Collins’s inquiry; furthermore, correspondence between the Tribe at Mount Pleasant and the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shows that while the Tribe was willing to be designated ‘‘the

members of the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians

of the State of Michigan,’’ the Commissioner’s office insisted on the wording ‘‘Indians

residing on the Isabella Reservation of the State of Michigan.’’ Thus, the constitution that was approved in 1936, while retaining the official name ‘‘Saginaw, Swan

Creek and Black River Bands,’’ in fact excluded off-reservation Swan Creek Black

River tribal members—that is to say, the majority of Swan Creek Black River people and their traditional settlement communities. This simply perpetuated the fiction that the Swan Creek Black River people were truly a part of the Tribe at

Mount Pleasant, while at the same time they were denied significant participation

in the political and economic life of the Tribe.

Mid-Twentieth Century: Urban Migrations

As mid-century approached, changes occurred that led to the dispersal of some of

the long-standing Swan Creek Black River settlements. On the one hand, resources

that the Ojibwa people had relied on for traditional subsistence became even more

scarce, and in some cases, communities that had managed to buy up land in their

settlements began losing it again to tax fraud, loan sharking, and other such

schemes on the part of local non-Natives. At the same time, factories sprang up in

Southeast Michigan cities such as Bay City, Saginaw, Flint and Detroit as the auto

industry gained momentum, and jobs became available to Native Americans and

others with little education and few conventional job skills. Some Swan Creek Black

River people found ways to remain living in their traditional settlements while commuting to factory jobs in nearby towns and cities. Others found it necessary to move

to cities for work. As urban migrations peaked at mid-century, Swan Creek Black

River Ojibwa and other Native Americans joined together to form urban Indian organizations as a means of maintaining their social and cultural life in the city and

facilitating political action.
52

These urban associations—most of which had many Swan Creek Black River people among their membership as well as in key leadership positions—provided much

needed social services to indigent urban Indians. They also reinvigorated the social

and cultural life of the Native community by offering culture and language classes,

sponsoring informal potluck suppers throughout the year, and organizing annual

harvest dinners, Christmas parties, and summer powwows. These programs and

events drew Swan Creek Black River people from outlying rural and small-town

areas, as well as serving the needs of those who had moved to the cities, and thus

provided new settings in which widely-dispersed tribal members could congregate.

At the same time, opportunities began emerging at that state level for American Indian people to organize and receive much-needed services. Swan Creek Black River

leaders utilized these avenues, as well, in their on-going efforts to represent the interests and meet the needs of their people.

Relations with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe: Recent History

Since the Swan Creek Black River people had been unsuccessful in their attempt

to gain Federal recognition during the Reorganization Era of the 1930s, as a practical matter, to help the Swan Creek Black River people, several tribal members

chose to work through thee tribal government at Mt. Pleasant when dealing with

the Federal Government. Some of the Swan Creek Black River families who had

originally relocated to the reservation at Mt. Pleasant during the 1860s had remained there. These families lived for the most part in a particular region of the

reservation and maintained an identity separate from the Saginaw Chippewa Band.

Off-reservation Swan Creek Black River people possessed these social and familial

ties to the reservation community. However, it has always been on-reservation Saginaw Chippewa people who controlled the Saginaw Chippewa tribal government.

Given the scarce resources of those times, the needs of Swan Creek Black River people who lived off the reservation—either in traditional Swan Creek Black River settlements, or in urban areas—usually went unaddressed and unmet.

In the context of these circumstances, a number of Swan Creek Black River leaders arose during the sixties, seventies and eighties who sought to work within the

structure of the tribal government at Mt. Pleasant—the only venue open to the

Swan Creek Black River Tribe at that time—to improve the lot of their people. One

of the most prominent was George Cook, also known as Chief Whitebird, a direct

descendant of one of the nineteenth-century treaty signatories for the Swan Creek

Black River Tribe. Throughout the sixties and seventies, Chief Whitebird worked

tirelessly to encourage his people to register as tribal members (of the combined

Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Tribe—the only recognized tribal entity that

existed at the time) specifically so that they would be eligible for land-claims money

that would soon become available. He established and maintained contacts in each

of the scattered settlements, as well as with Swan Creek Black River people in

urban centers, so as to disseminate information effectively and keep himself up to

date on the wishes of the people. Community leader Juanita Spencer, mother of

Robert Spencer (sub-chief of the Swan Creek Black River Tribe) was a key organizer

for Chief Whitebird in the Caro area and beyond. Other men and women took the

lead in other locales, all keeping Chief Whitebird informed of the sentiments and

opinions in their communities. In turn, they were being apprised by Chief Whitebird

of developments in Mt. Pleasant and in Washington. It was largely due to this leader’s efforts that many Swan Creek Black River people who had become disenchanted

with the tribal government at Mt. Pleasant did end up signing on as members, not

with the intent of changing their tribal affiliation from Swan Creek Black River

Ojibwa to Saginaw Chippewa, but rather as the only means open to them of receiving their rightful share of land-claims money and other benefits.

Another political leader who attempted to help his people through the Saginaw

Chippewa tribal structure at Mt. Pleasant was Gerry Son-Non-Quet Gould, also the

direct descendant of a nineteenth-century Swan Creek Black River signatory chief.

Chief Gould served as At-Large Representative on the tribal council at Mt. Pleasant

throughout the latter half of the 1980s. Though he tried to serve his people as best

he could through this position, the obstacles were great and he eventually concluded

that this was not a realistic means through which he might meet the needs of the

Swan Creek Black River tribal members, including many who never became eligible

to join the Saginaw Tribe. In traveling around to meet with people in various locations throughout the region, Chief Gould learned first hand of the widespread dissatisfaction and frustration felt by Swan Creek Black River people who wanted to

maintain their separate tribal identity and make their own decisions—decisions that

would reflect their own unique background, experience and perspective developed

over their long history of maintaining social, cultural and political institutions separate from both non-Native society and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
53

The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan

It was for these reasons that Chief Son-Non-Quet, together with other Swan

Creek Black River leaders, incorporated the Swan Creek Black River Confederated

Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan in the State of Michigan on December 26, 1991. They

become recognized by the State of Michigan as a tribe in February of 1992. The

Swan Creek Black River Tribe held, and continues to hold, regular monthly meetings and to sponsor events to benefit Swan Creek Black River and other off-reservation Indian people throughout Southeast Michigan. They have carefully researched

and documented their tribal history through both archival and oral historical

means, and have established specific genealogies for tribal members that show lines

of descent all the way back to original treaty-signers in the nineteenth century. The

Tribe provides a venue within which the Swan Creek Black River people of the scattered traditional settlements and urban Indian communities around Southeast

Michigan can maintain their social cohesion, revitalize their cultural traditions, and

address the political issues unique to the Tribe.

The history of Swan Creek Black River people is rife with dislocation, dispossession, forced migration, discrimination, and oppression. Yet, it also reveals strong

communities that united around a common culture and shared institutions, maintained a group identity distinct from the surrounding non-Native society, and

formed larger networks with other Swan Creek Black River communities through

bonds of marriage, ceremonial gatherings, and over-arching political leadership.

Swan Creek Black River people, throughout their long history in Michigan, have

been referred to by name in numerous documents by many different non-Native outsiders (such as government officials, military personnel, missionaries, and local politicians), and have been recognized as Indians by surrounding non-Native communities.

The Federal Government attempted to right its past wrongs against the Swan

Creek Black River people in the mid-1800s by giving them land at Mt. Pleasant,

and again in the 1930s by creating an combined Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black

River Tribe. Ironically, however, these moves excluded most Swan Creek Black

River tribal members, thereby, in fact, perpetuating the injustice to a people who

have simply wanted to remain in their homelands and be recognized as what they

are: a separate and distinct Ojibwa people with a unique identity and history. It

is my strongest recommendation and hope that H.R. 2822 will be enacted promptly

to reaffirm this Tribe’s Federal recognition. By that act, the present-day Federal

Government would reverse the wrongs of the past, and allow the people of the Swan

Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan to take charge of their

own destiny, as a fully sovereign people again.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. Chairman, on November 5, 1997, my friend and colleague, Mr. Knollenberg,

introduced H.R. 2822, a bill that would recognize a group of individuals self-named

the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwe as a distinct recognized Indian

tribe. I have reviewed the bill in detail and have concluded that it reduces to two

concepts: sovereignty and process. It is this bill’s affect on these two concepts that

convinces me that I must oppose this legislation. I encourage my fellow Representatives to oppose it as well.

Congress has been discussing sovereignty in relation to Indian tribes since the

first instance a European settler set foot on this continent. It is time we learned

to respect tribal sovereignty and uphold it to its fullest extent. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan is a sovereign nation. It has exercised and retained

its sovereignty throughout history and throughout its many encounters with the

Federal Government. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s sovereignty is not something

that Congress granted to it. Rather, it is something the Tribe has retained. The

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is a nation unto itself—with the sovereign authority,

power, and right to manage its own affairs and govern its own members. Congress

must respect this and must not become involved in internal tribal political affairs—

which H.R. 2822 asks us to do.

H.R. 2822 proposes to federally recognize a group that calls itself the Swan Creek

Black River Confederated Ojibwe Tribes. This group claims to be the successor in

interest to the Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians. It is my

understanding that although these bands were once considered parts of the larger

Chippewa group in southeastern Michigan before and during the treaty process,

that these bands, by virtue of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, were affirmatively merged

with the Saginaw Band to become the one sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chip-
54

pewa Tribe. For over 140 years the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has functioned as one

tribe without regard to any band distinctions and has been treated as such by the

Federal Government.

Further, I also understand that most of the participants of the Swan Creek Group

pushing the bill, including its organizer, are currently members of the Saginaw

Chippewa Tribe and that most tribal members, because of more than a century of

intermarriage among the three component bands of the Tribe, find it difficult to determine from which band they descend. Of course, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has

and continues to serve all of these members equally regardless of their band affiliation.

In reviewing the history and the circumstances surrounding this bill, I can only

conclude that H.R. 2822 addresses nothing more than a tribal membership issue of

the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and that Congress should not interfere in this matter.

It is an issue for the sovereign Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and its governing body.

Congress must respect this.

If Congress were to do otherwise and pass H.R. 2822, its effect would be to mandate that a splinter group of a well established and long recognized tribe break off

and form its own nation, complete with the rights and privileges of all legitimate

Indian tribes. It would allow the Swan Creek Group to claim the treaty-preserved

rights, jurisdiction and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.

This is an affront to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s sovereignty—and to the sovereignty of all Indian nations. If Congress were to split the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

with H.R. 2822, nothing will stop it from unilaterally splitting other federally recognized tribes when splinter groups come forward. This cannot be the precedent Congress sets—especially when, as in this case, gaming and the establishment of a casino are the motivating factors for recognition. H.R. 2822 would set this dangerous

precedent—and I cannot allow that to happen.

Process. The second argument against H.R. 2822 boils down to process. Since

1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), through its Bureau of Acknowledgement

and Research (BAR), has been the appropriate forum for determining whether

groups merit Federal recognition as Indian tribes. The BAR process calls for extensive research and analysis. The BAR staff has the expertise and the experience to

conduct such study and review. With all due respect to my fellow Representatives,

Congress does not. Congress cannot play the role of the BIA.

Of course, I realize that Congress has granted legislative recognition to tribes in

the past. Yet, the circumstances of those were quite different from what we see before us today with the Swan Creek Group. The Swan Creek Group has not even attempted the administrative process. It is my understanding that they filed a letter

of intent with the BIA in 1993. This merely opens a file in anticipation of a petition

for recognition. As of yet, however, the Group has failed to provide any documentation or to even pursue this process in any way. The Group’s file lays dormant in

line behind over 100 groups awaiting recognition.

It is my contention that the Swan Creek Group, if it is to pursue Federal recognition, should be directed back to the BIA. It would be wholly unfair for Congress to

allow this Group that has provided no documentation whatsoever for recognition to

be recognized ahead of all the other groups who have abided by the process simply

because the Swan Creek Group and its representatives have walked the halls of

Congress pushing legislation.

Congress is not equipped to decipher the Group’s history and genealogy to determine whether it merits recognition. This, along with the simple fact that many of

the Group’s participants remain members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and receive the benefits and privileges as such, convinces me that Congress should not

pass this bill. Congress must not interfere with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s sovereignty. If we are to take any action at all on H.R. 2822, it should be to oppose

it to allow the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, the appropriate governing body for this

issue, to resolve the matter. Beyond that, the Group is welcome to pursue the established administrative process for recognition. In efforts to uphold tribal sovereignty

and established process, I cannot condone any other action by Congress on this

issue.
55

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

August 20, 1998.

The HONORABLE JOSEPH KNOLLENBERG,

11th District,

1511 Longworth House Office Bldg.,

Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Knollenberg:

It has recently come to my attention that yet another group of Native Americans

in Michigan is poised to seek federal recognition via an act of Congress. This is in

addition to the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, which is now

seeking recognition through H.R. 948 and which unsuccessfully sought recognition

in the last Congress through H.R. 377. I am writing to reiterate my strong opposition to the recognition of additional Indian tribes in Michigan via congressional action, which I expressed in a December 6, 1995, letter to Congressman Donald Young

(attached) regarding my opposition to H.R. 377.

I fully stated the reasons for my opposition to congressional acknowledgement of

additional Indian tribes in my letter to Congressman Young. While some of the facts

have changed since I wrote that letter, notably with respect to the legality of casino

gaming in Michigan, the fundamental reasons for my opposition remain the same.

First, recognizing tribes in this manner circumvents and undermines the established process for federal acknowledgment that exists in the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (‘‘BlA’’). This process requires that tribes make a detailed showing of their entitlement to federal recognition that involves extensive examination of the historical record of the tribe in question. This is a function that

congress is simply not equipped to carry out. If, as some claim, the BIA process has

broken down, I would suggest that congress direct in energies toward fixing that

process rather than assuming the BIA’s duties unto itself. It is my understanding

that the tribe that recently surfaced has taken no action to further its application

for acknowledgement since filing its original ‘‘letter of intent’’ with the BIA in 1993.

In this case, the federal acknowledgement process has not even been permitted to

work.

Second, recognition of Indian tribes by act of congress sets a bad precedent that

other tribes are likely to follow fact. In fact, Michigan is a prime example of this

trend. The Michigan tribes that are now seeking federal acknowledgement from congress are merely following the lead of three tribes that gained acknowledgement in

the same manner in 1994. The tribes are lobbying congress rather than marshalling

the historical evidence that the BIA properly demands that tribes seeking federal

acknowledgement produce. This is a trend that should not be allowed to continue.

Third, recognition of an additional Indian tribe in Michigan will serve to undermine state sovereignty and will inevitably lead to increased litigation on a variety

of fronts where state and tribal policies conflict. Finally, acknowledgement of additional tribes could lead to a proliferation of casino gaming in Michigan, which I oppose. The tribes should, therefore, only be recognized following the searching inquiry

that the BIA performs, not as a result of the political process.

Thank you for taking my concern into consideration. I urge you to oppose efforts

to acknowledge additional Indian tribes via congressional action.

Sincerely,

JOHN ENGLER,

Governor.

JE/mg/jp

Enclosure

cc: Michigan Delegation
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100