49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–694 

TO REQUIRE THE PROMPT REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

OF THE LONGSTANDING PETITIONS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF 

CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. POMBO, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 512] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 512) to require the prompt review by the Secretary of the Interior of the longstanding petitions for Federal recognition of certain Indian tribes, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 512 is to require the prompt review by the 

Secretary of the Interior of the longstanding petitions for Federal 

recognition of certain Indian tribes, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 512 expedites the evaluation of several longstanding petitions for federal acknowledgment and recognition filed by certain 

Indian groups. Because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution delegates to Congress plenary authority over commerce with Indian 

tribes, the federal government’s decision to recognize a group as an 

Indian tribe is a solemn responsibility. 

Historically, Indian tribes have been recognized through treaties, 

Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, rulings by federal courts, and 

administrative decisions. In 1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 

the Department of the Interior established a process for acknowledging Indian tribes known as ‘‘Procedures for Establishing that an 

American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe,’’ found at 25 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 83. In petitioning for recognition 

under these procedures, a group must establish a substantially conVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:59 Oct 05, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR694.XXX HR694

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
2 

tinuous tribal existence and that it has functioned as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present. To meet this 

standard, a petitioner must meet seven mandatory criteria. 

While there is general agreement among experts that the seven 

mandatory criteria are basically sound, the process of managing 

and evaluating acknowledgment petitions is fraught with major 

delays and failure to establish deadlines. When the acknowledgment and recognition regulations were established in 1978, it was 

widely believed that the process of verifying the accuracy of the petition and whether a tribe met standards for federal recognition 

would be thorough but reasonably quick. According to a January 9, 

1977, Department of Interior memorandum prepared for the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs by the Director of the Office of Indian Services, the Department estimated the completion time for 

an average petition at 195 days, with the potential of reducing this 

period to 150 days with changes in the regulations prior to finalization. The memo further estimated that each staff member could 

handle 4 to 6 petitions concurrently, and at maximum effort, the 

Department could process 96 petitions per year. 

Obviously these goals set forth by the Department in 1977 have 

come nowhere near being realized. Many petitioning tribes have 

waited decades to go through the process, literally seeing generations of elders pass away while still receiving no answer to their 

petition. The current list of petitioners has tribes that first applied 

back in the early 1970s, before the process for recognition had even 

been finalized. Many of these petitioners are still awaiting an answer. Even more discouraging to them is the fact that other tribes 

who did not even make their first application until the late 1990s 

have already completed the process and have received decisions on 

their recognition. 

Both the Government Accountability Office and the Department 

acknowledge problems with timeliness in the process and have recommended improvements, such as the establishment of clear time 

frames and time sensitivity in considering petitions. 

No one should have to wait decades for the government to abide 

by its own regulations to render a decision on a petition. H.R. 512 

addresses the lack of clear time frames for several tribes with longstanding, fully documented petitions. Specifically, H.R. 512 enables 

eligible tribes to obtain a final determination from the Secretary of 

the Interior on their petitions within one year, and failing that, to 

obtain a determination from a federal judge. To be eligible, a tribe 

must have filed its initial petition before October 17, 1988, and 

fully documented its petition by July 1, 2004. No eligible tribe is 

required to invoke its right to an expedited decision under this bill; 

opting in to the process is entirely voluntary on the part of the petitioner. 

Significantly, the bill does not change any criteria or standard of 

review for recognition under the 1978 regulations. Thus, the Secretary will not construe a requirement for rendering a speedy decision to influence the final decision on the merits of the petition. 

To ensure the Secretary can marshal the resources necessary to 

perform an expedited review of tribes who opt to invoke an expedited decision, subsection 1(g) of H.R. 512 puts incomplete and inactive petitions on hold until the Secretary acts on petitions of 

tribes eligible for an expedited review. It should be emphasized 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
3 

1The terms ‘‘Active’’ and ‘‘In Post-Final Decision Appeal Process’’ used in subsection 1(g) refer 

to the tribes under the respective headings ‘‘Active Status’’ and ‘‘In Post-Final Decision Appeal 

Process’’ in the ‘‘Status Summary of Acknowledgment Cases’’ maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

that under subsection 1(g), petitions listed as ‘‘Active’’ or ‘‘In PostFinal Decision Appeal Process’’ should be processed promptly and 

fairly by the Department.1

A hearing was held on H.R. 512 on February 10, 2005. Testimony 

was received from the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs of the Department of the Interior, the General Accountability Office, an expert on the recognition process, and a witness 

representing a petitioner seeking recognition. 

One issue that came to light in testimony submitted in this hearing is the fact that new petitions for recognition are still being filed 

by new groups to this day. At present, there are about 250 unresolved petitions on file at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The 

vast majority were filed around the time the 1978 acknowledgment 

regulations were published in the Federal Register. After 1979, the 

number of petitions steeply declined, and then began to increase in 

1998—the year Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act. And more are being filed today. 

According to the Department’s testimony, 134 of these 250 letters 

of petition had no documentation submitted in support of the petitioner’s cause. Seventy-one petitions were incomplete because only 

partial documentation had been submitted. Ten groups were no 

longer in contact with BIA. 

These data indicate that a majority of the petitioners have not 

followed up with the submission of any documentation—even partial documentation—to demonstrate their claimed status of being 

an Indian tribe due all the benefits, privileges, services and responsibilities of federal recognized tribes. While no one expects a petitioner to fully document a petition within a short time frame or 

without a significant amount of resources, some of the petitions 

lacking any documentation were filed as long ago as 1976. 

In light of these facts, the Congress and the Secretary should 

consider how to deal with petitions that are effectively abandoned. 

Recognition reaffirms the continuous existence of a sovereign Indian Nation. World history is rife with examples of peoples impatient to declare themselves sovereign, autonomous nations. A measure of a real Indian Nation would be the persistence and pursuit 

demonstrated by the tribes that meet the criteria for a decision in 

H.R. 512. The credibility of the BIA is weakened by keeping so 

many completely inactive and possibly abandoned petitions alive. 

Petitioners have had 28 years to get acquainted with the BIA process. The aim of H.R. 512 is to expedite decisions on petitions that 

were filed in an era when information about the regulations was 

not well-known, and resources needed to begin the process were not 

readily available. It is reasonable to ask whether a time has arrived to phase out the Secretary’s authority to recognize groups 

who file petitions after enactment of this bill. While it is unreasonable to suggest a petitioner must know how to fully document a petition, it is reasonable to require that a simple letter of intent to 

petition be filed by a time certain date. 

Holding the BIA process open on a permanent basis cheapens the 

process of being recognized. A number of petitioners are actively 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
4 

assembling documents, corresponding with the BIA, and earnestly 

seeking a determination of their status. No one wishes to hinder 

their efforts. In fact, in almost all of these cases, the initial letter 

to petition for recognition was sent in a time (which was not many 

years ago) when information about and knowledge of the process 

was hard to understand or to ascertain. These conditions hardly 

exist in this era, when a person has the capability of communicating around the globe at the speed of light. 

Although some might say that a sunset is fair to tribes who lack 

the resources to assemble a documented petition by a time certain 

date, it is perfectly reasonable to demand that a simple, undocumented letter of petition be sent by a time-certain date. 

In any case, imposing a sunset on the authority of the Secretary 

of the Interior to acknowledge tribes who have not yet filed petitions for recognition has no effect on the ability of anyone to petition Congress. It is appropriate to note here that the regulations 

at 25 C.F.R. 83 are not specifically authorized by an Act of Congress, and that Congress has the final word on whether to continue 

this program. 

For these foregoing reasons, consideration of amending H.R. 512 

on the Floor to include a sunset provision on the Secretary’s authority to recognize tribes filing petitions after enactment of the bill 

is warranted. While an amendment by the Chairman for this purpose was proposed during Committee consideration of the bill, he 

did not offer it in order to continue a discussion with dissenters of 

a sunset provision. In all other respects, the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 512 was introduced on February 2, 2005, by Chairman 

Richard W. Pombo (R–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Resources. On February 10, 2005, the Full Resources Committee 

held a hearing on the bill. On June 21, 2006, the Full Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments were offered 

and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in 

the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United 

States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill preVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:59 Oct 05, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR694.XXX HR694

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
5 

pared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does not 

authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 512—A bill to require the prompt review by the Secretary of 

the Interior of the longstanding petitions for federal recognition 

of certain Indian tribes, and for other purposes 

Summary: H.R. 512 would require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to process and settle certain petitions for official recognition of Indian groups by the federal government. The bill would 

mandate that the department respond to all eligible petitions within one year of its enactment. Based on information from DOI, CBO 

expects that current staff are insufficient to meet that deadline. Assuming that the department hires enough new staff to respond to 

all eligible petitions as rapidly as feasible, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 512 would cost about $5 million over the 2007– 2011 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

H.R. 512 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Enacting H.R. 512 would have no impact on direct spending or revenues. 

Eestimatd cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 512 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 450 (community and 

regional development). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 1 2 2 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 1 2 2 0 0 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2007 and that the 

necessary amounts will be appropriated to allow DOI to comply 

with the deadlines in the bill to the extent possible. 

Indian tribes may be recognized by the federal government 

through an act of the Congress, DOI administrative procedure, or 

a decision by a United States court. The usual route to federal recognition is through DOI’s administrative process. Federal recognition of an Indian group entitles the group to participate in federal 

programs operated for the benefit of Indians. It also creates a govVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:59 Oct 05, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR694.XXX HR694

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
6 

ernment-to-government relationship between the tribe and the federal government. 

Within DOI, the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) reviews and recommends findings on petitions by interested Indian 

groups for federal recognition. Once a petitioning group has submitted their documentation and undergone a technical review, OFA 

lists the group as ready for active consideration. Following the delivery of a proposed finding, regulations governing the federal acknowledgment process require a minimum public comment period 

of at least 180 days. After that, the department has 60 days to 

issue a final determination. 

H.R. 512 would require DOI to begin active consideration of all 

petitions on the ‘‘ready’’ list filed prior to 1988. As of February 

2006, nine petitions were listed as ready for consideration by DOI, 

and seven of those would be covered by the provisions of this bill. 

The bill would require the department to complete all proposed 

findings within six months of the bill’s enactment and complete all 

final determinations within one year for these groups. Because the 

current regulations require at least eight months between delivery 

of a proposed finding and preparation of a final determination, 

CBO expects that DOI might be unable to comply with the deadlines in the bill even with additional resources. In that event, the 

affected tribes could pursue judicial recognition as they may under 

current law. 

To properly evaluate the seven affected petitions as expeditiously 

as possible, in addition to eligible petitions currently under active 

consideration, the department would need additional research personnel. OFA currently employs four three-member research teams 

that each produce roughly one proposed finding and one final determination per year. CBO estimates that OFA would need to hire 

about 15 personnel for roughly a two-year period toprocess all eligible petitions under H.R. 512. CBO estimates that the additional 

staff would cost about $5 million for salaries and training over the 

2007–2009 period, subject to appropriation ofthe necessary 

amounts. 

Expediting the recognition process may also cause some groups 

to be eligible for programs operated for the benefit of Indians earlier than would otherwise have occurred in absence of the proposed 

legislation. CBO does not have enough information on the likelihood of recognition for the eligible petitions to estimate a cost for 

this effect. Any such additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5134 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact on 

the Private Sector: Tyler Kruzich. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
7 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RESOLUTION 1000

This bill and report contains no provisions which require disclosure under this authority. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT