39–010 

Calendar No. 348 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–209 

TO EXTEND FEDERAL RECOGNITION TO THE CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN 

TRIBE, THE CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE-EASTERN DIVISION, THE 

UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE, THE RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC., THE MONACAN INDIAN NATION, AND THE NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE 

JULY 14, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. TESTER, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1074] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 1074) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian 

Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper 

Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe, having considered 

the same, reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1074 is to provide federal recognition to six 

tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia—the Chickahominy Indian 

Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper 

Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe—and make applicable to the tribal groups and their members all laws that are generally applicable to American Indians and federally recognized Indian tribes. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Although there is a federal regulatory process by which an Indian group may obtain federal recognition (described below), the 

ability of a tribal group to meet the regulatory requirements is 

highly dependent upon the availability of documentary evidence 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., A Brief History of the Six Indian Tribes Requesting Federal Acknowledgment. 2To Extend Federal Recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, The Chickahominy Indian Tribe— 

Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, The Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Tribe, 

and the Nansemond Tribe Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 107th Congress 2, 74– 

76 and 111–116 (2002) (statement of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., American Indian Resource Center, coordinator). 3Section 5 of 1924 Racial Integrity Act. 

4Moretti-Langholtz,, supra note 4. 

and records. The six Virginia tribal groups proposed for recognition 

in S. 1074 have suggested that the unique history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and its relations with these groups prevents 

them from being able to meet the level of documentary evidence required by the Department of the Interior. 

Many of the courthouses that housed records and documents related to these tribal groups burned during the Civil War.1 Thus, 

records up to the late 1800’s are difficult to find for these groups. 

Additionally, in 1924, the Commonwealth of Virginia passed the 

Racial Integrity Law, thereby requiring all segments of the population to be registered at birth in one of two categories: ‘‘White’’ or 

‘‘colored.’’ The ‘‘colored’’ category was mandated for all non-White 

persons regardless of race or ethnicity. Officials from the State’s 

Bureau of Vital Statistics interpreted the law as allowing them to 

go back and change a person’s birth certificate to the ‘‘colored’’ category if they believed that there was evidence that the person was 

not fully White. 

The primary target of the Racial Integrity Law was the African 

American community.2 However, proponents of the agenda heralded by the Eugenics Movement saw the Virginia Indian community as a threat. This was because the Racial Integrity Law allowed 

persons of White and Virginia Indian ancestry, as long as it was 

not more than 1⁄16 of Indian blood quantum, to be classified as 

‘‘White.’’ 3 Supporters of the law (including Dr. Walter Plecker, the 

Registrar for Virginia’s Bureau of Vital Statistics), saw the exception in the law for Indians as an opportunity for persons of mixed 

heritage of African-American and Native American ancestry to 

move eventually out of the category of ‘‘colored’’ and into the category of ‘‘White.’’ Thus, officials from the State’s Bureau of Vital 

Statistics actively sought to denigrate and deny persons of Virginia 

Indian descent the right to identify themselves as ‘‘Indians’’ or 

‘‘White’’ and forced them to be declared ‘‘colored.’’ 4

The Racial Integrity Law remained in effect until 1967, when the 

United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (388 

U.S. 1) declared it unconstitutional. In 1997, Virginia Governor 

George Allen signed into law a bill allowing Virginia Indians to correct their birth records. However, the six tribes contend that the 

existence of the law for several decades makes it unlikely that adequate documentation exists to meet the Department’s current interpretation of the federal regulations governing acknowledgment of 

Indian groups. 

The Virginia Tribes never waged war on the United States of 

America. The hostilities between the Virginia Tribes and the Europeans who came here in 1607 effectively ended with the Treaty of 

Middle Plantation in 1677. This Treaty was signed between England and the Virginia Tribes. Predating the creation of the United 

States of America by just short of 100 years, this Treaty was never 

recognized by the founding fathers of the United States because it 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

5Governor Timothy M. Kaine also sent the Committee a letter on August 4, 2009 indicating 

that the State tax policy experts concluded that passage of S. 1178 would have a negligible, if 

any, impact on the Commonwealth. 

was not negotiated with them. Had the Treaty been negotiated 

with the United States of America, these Tribes would have historically been recognized from the beginning of the United States as 

federal recognition has historically been conferred by treaty in the 

vast majority of cases (until Congress ended the practice in 1871). 

Although the Treaty of Middle Plantation is still commemorated 

annually in Virginia, and still governs the relationship between the 

Tribes in Virginia and the Commonwealth, the Treaty has never 

been recognized by the United States. 

Granting Federal recognition to the six Virginia groups has had 

strong support from the Commonwealth of Virginia. During the 

111th Congress, the Committee received a letter in support of S. 

1178, an identical bill to S. 1074, signed by then Virginia Governor, 

Timothy M. Kaine, and six of the previous State Governors.5 In 

1999, both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly agreed to H.J. 

754 urging Congress to grant Federal recognition to the Virginia 

tribes. 

In February 2007, both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly 

agreed to S.J. 332, a resolution acknowledging the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native Americans and 

calling for reconciliation among all Virginians. During the 109th 

Congress, former Governor George Allen, then-Senator, introduced 

S. 480, which would have granted federal recognition to the six 

groups in S. 1074. 

BACKGROUND

History of recognizing Indian tribes 

The recognition of a Native American group as a federally recognized Indian tribe is an important action. It is an affirmation by 

the United States of a tribe’s right to self-government and the existence of a formal government-to-government relationship between 

the United States and the tribe. Once a tribe is federally recognized, it and its members have access to federal benefits and programs, and the tribal government incurs a responsibility to its 

members as the primary governing body of the community. 

Before Congress ended the practice of treaty-making with Indian 

tribes in 1871, treaties were the usual manner of establishing a 

government-to-government relationship between the United States 

and an Indian tribe. Since the abolishment of treaty-making, the 

United States has recognized Indian tribes by executive order, legislation, and administrative decisions by the Executive Branch. 

Additionally, federal courts may clarify the status of an Indian 

group, although in many cases the courts defer to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. 

In order to provide a uniform and consistent process by which to 

recognize an Indian group, the Department of the Interior developed an administrative process in 1978 through which Indian 

groups could petition for acknowledgment of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The standards for 

this process are set forth in Title 25 of the Code of Federal RegulaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:45 Jul 18, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR209.XXX SR209

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

tions, Part 83, ‘‘Procedures for Establishing That An American Indian Group Exists As An Indian Tribe.’’ 

The regulations establish seven mandatory criteria, each of 

which must be met before a group can achieve status as a federally 

recognized Indian tribe. The criteria are as follows: 

(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian 

entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900; 

(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises 

a distinct community and has existed as a community from 

historical times until the present; 

(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present; 

(4) The group must provide a copy of its present governing 

documents and membership criteria; 

(5) The petitioner’s membership consists of individuals who 

descend from an historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes, which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity; 

(6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed 

principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe; and 

(7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of 

congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the federal relationship. 

The regulations have remained essentially unchanged since 1978, 

with the exception of revisions clarifying the evidence needed to 

support a recognition petition (1994), updated guidelines on the 

process (1997), and a notice regarding BIA’s internal processing of 

federal acknowledgment petitions (2000 and 2008). The regulations 

are currently under review, and in June 2013, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs released a Discussion Draft with proposed 

changes to the regulations that were developed by the Department 

of Interior Workgroup. The comment period on the Discussion 

Draft closed in August 2013, and the Assistant Secretary of Indian 

Affairs released the proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 

22, 2014. 

There have been numerous complaints about the process since 

1978, but the primary complaints have been about the high cost of 

gathering documentary evidence to meet the seven criteria and the 

length of time it takes the Department to review a petition. Since 

the Federal Acknowledgment Process regulations were established 

in 1978, the Department has issued 49 decisions under the process. 

Of that number, 17 petitioners were acknowledged as Indian tribes, 

and 32 petitioners were denied acknowledgment. 

Due to the problems associated with the Federal acknowledgment process, an increasing number of tribal groups have asked 

Congress to recognize or restore their status as federally-recognized 

Indian tribes. Congress retains the authority to recognize tribal 

groups, as Congress did with the Loyal Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Graton Rancheria of California in 2000 as a part of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

6See Pub. L. 106–568 (2000). 

7http://www.bia.gov/idc/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc013624.pdf. 

8L. Daniel Mouer, ‘‘Powhatan and Monacan Regional Settlement Hierarchies: A Model of Relationship between Social and Environmental Structures,’’ Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 36, no. 1 (1981): 1–21. 9 Jeffrey Hantman, ‘‘Between Powhatan and Quirank’’; Jeffrey Hantman, ‘‘ ‘Ancestral Monacan 

Society’: Cultural and Temporal Boundaries in Indian History in Virginia,’’ paper presented at 

the Society for American Archeology, 63rd annual meeting, March 1998; L. Daniel Mouer, ‘‘A 

Review of the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Monacans,’’ in Piedmont Archeology, Publication no. 10, ed. J. Mark Witkofski and Lyle E. Browning (Richmond: Archaeological Society of 

Virginia, 1983), 21–39. 10 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 11Samuel R. Cook, Monacans and Miners: Native American and Coal Mining Communities 

in Appalachia (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 49–56. 12Samuel R. Cook, ‘‘The Monacan Indian Nation: Asserting Tribal Sovereignty in the Absence 

of Federal Recognition.’’ Wicazo SA Review. Fall, 2002. P 91–116. 13 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. This is apparent in the 1790 national census in which 

Benjamin Evans and Robert Johns (both Monacans) were recorded as ‘‘White’’ with mulatto chilContinued 

the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.6 Since 1982, Congress has 

restored or recognized 9 Indian tribes.7

History of Virginia Indian groups 

When English settlers established the Jamestown Colony in 

1607, there were approximately 40 Indian tribes existing in what 

is now the Commonwealth of Virginia. The last treaty that governed the relations between the tribes in Virginia and the State 

(then the Colony of Virginia), and which still governs that relationship, was the 1677 Middle Plantation Treaty. S. 1074 will recognize 

six tribal groups. A brief history of each tribal group is described 

below. 

The Monacan Indian Nation 

The Monacan Indians are a part of forty Siouan groups in the 

Virginia Piedmont region extending into the Carolinas.8 Recent 

ethnohistorical work has shown that the Monacan Indians reached 

from the James and Rappahanock River fall lines in the east to the 

Shenandoah Valley in the west, and as far south as the Roanoke 

River.9 The Monacans moved westward from 1607–1720s in two 

groups, with one staying in Ft. Christanna before moving on to 

Pennsylvania and later Canada, while the other group stayed in 

Amherst County, Virginia.10

Up until the mid-1700s, the Monacans had fairly sparse contact 

with English settlers. That changed as traders traveled further 

along the James River in the 1750s. The Monacan Indians had purposely lived in the Tobacco Row Mountains in order to avoid contact with Europeans.11 However, encroaching agriculture made this 

nearly impossible. By the end of the Civil War, local farmers had 

begun to plant orchards in the Tobacco Row Mountains, taking 

away the Monacans’ home area. Without land and without jobs, 

many Monacans worked the orchards and tobacco fields as tenant 

farmers in a ‘‘rigid, semi-feudal system [that] exploited Indian 

labor disproportionately’’ due to their lack of status.12

Some Monacans escaped this fate by ‘‘passing’’ as white in order 

to obtain land deeds, such as the case of the Johns Settlement at 

Bear Mountain. Under the Virginia Race Law of 1823, any child of 

an Indian, and any descendants of a Negro, up to the great-grandchild would be counted as mulatto.13 Since free people of color 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

dren instead of ‘‘Indian.’’ The families had been previously recorded through tax records beginning in 1782. 14 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 15 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 16 Cook, Monacans and Miners, 116–118. 17 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 18 ‘‘The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.’’ Nansemond and Powhatan History. 

2009. Nansemond Tribal Association. Nov 13, 2009. http://www.nansemond.org/joomla/ 

index.php?option=comlcontent&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=30. 

(which is how Virginia labeled its Natives until the Racial Integrity 

Act of 1924) could not own land or vote, they had to legally renounce their ethnicity and register as ‘‘white’’ to participate in Virginian society.14

In 1831, William Johns purchased 52 acres on Bear Mountain, 

and another 400 acres in 1833. By 1850, 29 families related to this 

Monacan community 15 according to census records. When the land 

was divided in 1856, the Amherst County clerk’s office recorded 

Monacan surnames of Beverly, Branham, Johns, Pinn and Terry as 

receiving parcels of the Johns Settlement. 

In 1868, one of the Settlement parcels was donated to the community to be used for a meeting place. Two years later in 1870 a 

wooden structure was built which the community used for its 

church services with itinerant ministers, serving about 350 Indians. In 1896 a local newspaper article featured the Monacan community, describing ‘‘the older [members of the tribe] as typical Indians, of a rich copper color, high cheek-bones, long, straight black 

hair, tall and erect in form.’’ Locals commented that it had been 

called ‘‘the Indian community’’ as long as anyone could remember. 

The Episcopal Church established St. Paul’s Mission at the base 

of Bear Mountain in 1908. The mission became a unifying factor 

of the Monacan community, providing a place of worship, social 

gathering place and the only source of education for many Monacan 

Indians from 1908 until its close in 1963 due to integration. 

In 1920, the United States Census listed 304 Indians in Amherst 

County. 

Throughout the 20th century, the Monacans became more active 

as a tribe politically and culturally. Some of these actions are exemplified by the Monacans’ application for and receipt of job training assistance in the 1970s under the Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Act (CETA),16 giving their tribal members a better 

chance at obtaining jobs. In 1979, the Monacan Co-operative Pottery was established at the Amherst Mission, eventually producing 

pieces sold to the Smithsonian Institution. The tribe helped found 

the Mattaponi-Pamunkey-Monacan Consortium in 1981 in order to 

obtain funds from Department of Labor programs for Native Americans. 

The Monacan Indian Nation obtained State recognition in 1989. 

They established a non-profit corporation in 1993 to formalize their 

community and create rules for its governance in lieu of federal 

recognition as a sovereign nation.17

The Nansemond Indian Tribe 

When the English first arrived in Virginia in 1607, the 

Nansemond people numbered around 1,200 people 18 and made up 

part of the Powhatan Confederacy. Their original land was located 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

19Waugaman, Sandra F. and Danielle-Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D. We’re Still Here: Contemporary Virginia Indians Tell Their Stories, Richmond, VA: Palari Publishing, 2006 (revised edition). 20S. 379, Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011, 112th Cong. § 601(2) 

(2011). 21S. Report No. 108–259 (2004). 22See ‘‘The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website,’’ supra 18. 23 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990. 24S. 379, Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2011, 112th Cong. § 601(17). 25Legislative Hearing on S. 724, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 

2007; S. 514, Muskogee Nation of Florida Federal Recognition Act; S. 1058, Grand River Bands 

of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act; H.R. 1294, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of 

Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007 Before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 110th 

Cong. 2, 28–30 (2008) (statement of Helen C. Rountree). 

30 miles from Jamestown, making a large amount of interaction 

with English settlers inevitable. In 1608, a group of Englishmen 

led by John Smith raided a Nansemond town, and threatened more 

destruction unless the Nansemond paid 400 bushels of corn to his 

men.19

The Tribe split into two groups by 1646, with one group remaining on their homeland and adopting the English farming lifestyle. 

These became the Christianized Nansemonds. In 1669, the Virginia 

census records show two distinct Nansemond groups of Indians.20

The non-Christianized, ‘‘traditionalist’’ group attacked the 

English in 1644 and then fled westward to the Nottaway River 

where Virginia had assigned the Nottaway Indians a reservation. 

By 1664, the Nansemond Indians were given a poor tract of land 

as their reservation, which they later sold off.21 The reservation 

was sold in 1792 since this group of Nansemond had abandoned it 

in 1744 to live with the Nottaway Tribe on their reservation. Unfortunately this group eventually dispersed or died out, with the 

last Nansemond living on the Nottoway reservation dying in 

1806.22

Meanwhile, the Christianized Nansemonds had moved near Dismal Swamp to avoid contact with the English and to find more productive lands. During the 1830s when Virginia passed more rigid 

racial laws, the Nansemond lobbied their delegate to pass a law exempting them, which they achieved in 1833. They were able to register as ‘‘of mixed blood, not being Negro or mulatto.’’ 23

The Methodist Church established a mission for the Nansemond 

in 1850, eventually adding a schoolhouse in the 1890s to better 

educate their children.24 The Nansemond had historically promoted 

education within their ranks, even sending one of their boys to 

Bafferton Indian School at the College of William and Mary in 

1711. In 1922, the Nansemond received funding for an Indian 

school from the County, which served their community for a few 

years. Although short-lived, the school was a great victory in a 

time when only two races were recognized in the Commonwealth 

of Virginia and few supported funding a third segregated school 

system.25

According to James Mooney’s 1901 census, the Nansemond Tribe 

had 180 members. The Nansemond first attempted to obtain recognition in the 1920s with the encouragement of anthropologist 

Frank Speck. The Tribe obtained State recognition in 1985. 

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe 

When Jamestown was established, the Chickahominy lived nearby in present-day New Kent County. This proximity allowed for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

26 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

2005. Prince William County Network, Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009. 

<http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php>. 27The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and the Grand 

River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006). 28See S. 379, supra note 20. 29 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

2005. Prince William County Network, Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009. 

<http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php>. 30See Rountree, supra note 25, and S. 379, 112th Cong., supra note 20. 31 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

2005. Prince William County Network, Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009. 

<http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php>. 32S. 379, 112th Cong. § 101(8) (2011). 33S. 379, 112th Cong. § 101(10) (2011). 34S. 379, 111th Cong. § 101(11) (2011). 35 ‘‘William & Mary Arts and Sciences.’’ Virginia Indians: Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College 

of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009. http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php. 36S. 379, 112th Cong. § 101(12) (2011). 37The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and the Grand 

River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006). 

much interaction between the Chickahominy and the English settlers. The Chickahominy were an Algonquian speaking people numbering between 600–900 people.26 Although allies with the Powhatan Confederacy, the Chickahominy were fairly independent and 

had their own form of government. 

Surviving members of the Paspaheg Tribe found refuge with the 

Chickahominy during August 1610 after the family of Chief 

Wowinchopunk was murdered by settlers.27 In the Treaty of 1614 

with Jamestown’s governor Sir Thomas Dale, the Tribe promised 

300 warriors to fight against the Spanish 28 and received the right 

to self-governance in return. In 1623, and again in 1627, the Chickahominy were victims of raids.29 In 1646, the Chickahominy signed 

a treaty granting them a reservation in Pamunkey Neck near the 

present-day Mattaponi Reservation and in present-day King William County. In 1677, Chickahominy representatives signed the 

Treaty of Middle Plantation between several tribes and the King of 

England.30 In 1702, the Tribe was forced from its reservation and 

lost the lands in 1718.31

Around 1750, the Chickahominy began moving back to their land 

in New Kent and Charles City Counties.32 Charles City County 

census records show modern-day Chickahominy surnames in the 

area beginning in 1831.33 New Kent County records began documenting Chickahominy people in an 1840 Census. 

In 1901, the Tribe established the Samaria Baptist Church and 

bought nearby land for tribal use.34 In the early 1900s they also 

established the Samaria School for their children’s education up 

until 8th grade, paying teacher salaries out of donated funds.35 The 

Tribe also created a tax on Chickahominy men from 1901 until 

1935 to fund the building of the school, buy supplies and pay the 

teacher’s salary. The Tribe’s school was integrated in 1968 as a primary school for the county.36

In order to be married as Chickahominy Indians instead of as 

‘‘colored’’ under Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, some tribal 

members travelled out of State. The parents of tribal member Stephen Adkins, for example, were fortunate in being able to do this, 

and were married on February 20, 1935 in Washington, D.C., 

thereby avoiding the loss of their Native identity.37

In the 1920s, the governors of Virginia wrote letters of introduction for the Chickahominy chiefs, who had official business in 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

38See S. 379, 112th Cong. §§ 101(15)–(20) (2011) and Rountree statement, supra note 25. 39S. 379, 112th Cong. § 101(25) (2011). 40S. 379, 112th Cong. § 101(28) (2011). 41 ‘‘William & Mary Arts and Sciences.’’ Virginia Indians: Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College 

of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009. http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php. 42S. 379, 112th Cong. § 201(11) (2011). 43 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990. P. 218. 

Washington, D.C. In 1934, Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins wrote 

to Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier, requesting funding 

for construction of a school, medical facilities, a library and agricultural tools. Collier responded that Congress had passed the Indian 

Reorganization Act on June 18th of that year, but hadn’t appropriated the funding. Chief O.O. Adkins again sought Collier’s help 

in 1942 when Chickahominy men demanded proper racial designations before entering the Selective Service. Although Collier’s office 

could not officially intervene ‘‘as a matter largely of historical accident,’’ Collier did ask Richmond News-Leader editor Douglas S. 

Freeman to help the Virginia Indians obtain proper racial designations on their birth records.38

The interactions between the Chickahominy Indians and the 

Federal government continued through later years. In 1961, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional 

Rights of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, requested 

information from Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins about Indians’ 

constitutional rights ‘‘in [his] area’’ in Virginia.39

The Chickahominy Indians built a tribal center in 1974 funded 

by tribal members through monthly pledges.40 Their assertion of 

tribal government came to a head in 1983 when they received State 

recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently there 

are about 750 Chickahominy living within 5 miles of the tribal center and hundreds more in other parts of the country.41

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division 

The early history of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division is the same as that of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, as the 

two tribes acted as one until the early 1900s. 

Two fires consumed all New Kent County records prior to 1870, 

but an enclave of Indians in New Kent County are shown in the 

Virginia Census of 1870. These are the ancestors of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division.42

In 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe established the Samaria 

Indian Baptist Church. However, two factions formed within the 

Tribe soon, splitting over whether to press the State for a reservation and whether to establish a new church. The Tsena Comocko 

Indian Baptist Church was built in 1922 in spite of the dissenting 

members.43 Unable to resolve their differences, the group forming 

the new church organized themselves as the Chickahominy Eastern 

Division Indians. The Eastern Division began forming its government in 1920, eventually incorporating under State law in 1925. 

Once the Tribe was split, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division started a one-room schoolhouse in New Kent County 

called the Boulevard Indian School. In 1950, the tribal school was 

closed and the children started attending the Samaria Indian 

School again, but that school was closed in 1967 when Virginia integrated its public school system. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

44 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

2005. Prince William County Network, Virginia Department of Education. Nov 13, 2009. 

http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php. 45 H.R. Rep. No. 110–124, at 6 (2007). 46S. 379, 112th Cong. § 301 (10)–(12) (2011). 47S. 379, 112th Cong. § 301(13) (2011). 48S. 379, 112th Cong. §§ 301(14)–(16) (2011). 

Although they had split from the Chickahominy Tribe, the Chickahominy Eastern Division stayed linked to the Chickahominy. Both 

groups used the same school facilities, with Eastern Division children attending Samaria Indian School after the 1-room Indian 

school in New Kent County closed in 1950. They also had to find 

new schools when the Samaria Indian School was desegregated in 

1967. 

In the late 1970’s, the Tribe was awarded a grant from the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to buy 2 mobile 

homes to be used as office and classroom space. Another grant from 

the Administration of Native Americans was used for the purchase 

and improvement of office equipment and supplies. The Tribe received State recognition in 1983. Today the tribe numbers 130 people in New Kent County. 

The Upper Mattaponi Tribe 

Captain John Smith first visited the Passaunkack village in 

1608, which is in the location of the modern-day Upper Mattaponi. 

On one of John Smith’s maps from 1612, he locates the village in 

the Tribe’s present-day location.44 August Hermann mapped the 

area in 1676, labeling several ‘‘Indian houses’’ in the same location. 

The Upper Mattaponi Tribe shares its earlier history with the 

Chickahominy Indian Tribe as they were forced together through 

treaties with the English. The Upper Mattaponi sought refuge with 

the Chickahominy after being attacked by Seneca Indians in 1683, 

beginning many years of shared history. The Virginia Colony assigned both tribes to a reservation in 1695, which they later traded 

for ‘‘the cliffs’’ (an area currently encompassed by the Mattaponi Indian Reservation).45

In 1726 the Virginia Colony stopped funding interpreters in their 

dealings with the Upper Mattaponi—apparently enough Indians 

knew English so the interpreters were no longer necessary. However, not all the interpreters left. James Adams stayed with the 

Upper Mattaponi, giving his surname to many of today’s tribal 

members.46

Thomas Jefferson mentioned the Upper Mattaponi on their King 

William County reservation in 1787, and referred to the Chickahominy as ‘‘blended’’ with the Upper Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indians.47

A federal census in 1850 showed 10 Upper Mattaponi families 

living in King William County, Virginia. King William County 

records also indicate Upper Mattaponis residing in the county. An 

1863 Civil War map designated the area ‘‘Indian land.’’ King William County court records list ‘‘Indians’’ marrying and residing on 

the King William County reservation, undoubtedly referring to the 

Upper Mattaponi.48

Refusing to enlist in the Confederate Army during the Civil War, 

the Upper Mattaponis stayed neutral. Although not directly involved in the war, gunboats typically sailed past the reservation, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

49 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990. p 198. 50S. 379, 112th Cong. §§ 301(17)–(18) (2011). 51S. 379, 111th Cong. §§ 301(19)–(21) (2011). 52 ‘‘Virginia Indian Council: Virginia Indian Tribes.’’ Rappahannock Tribe. 12/10/2007. VCI. 

Nov 5, 2009. http://indians.vipnet.org/. 53Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. p25. 54Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. p28. 55Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. p36. 

and a slave ship was sunk nearby as well according to Mattaponi 

oral tradition.49

Anthropologist James Mooney mentions the Upper Mattaponi in 

1901 after hearing about them during a visit to the Pamunkey 

Tribe, but did not visit them himself. In 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank Speck published a book on modern 

Virginia Indians with a section on the Upper Mattaponi.50

The Upper Mattaponi fought alongside other Virginia tribes for 

an Indian designation instead of a ‘‘colored’’ designation in the 

1930 United States Census. The Upper Mattaponi achieved a compromise in which their ancestry was recorded. However, the census 

also contained an asterisk indicating that Indians did not exist in 

Virginia. These arguments over race continued into the 1940s, 

when the Armed Forces attempted to induct Upper Mattaponis into 

the services as ‘‘colored.’’ In 1945, the Tribe also fought for its 

youth to be allowed to study at federally funded Indian schools 

since the Tribe could not provide for their high school education.51

The Upper Mattaponi won State recognition in 1983, confirming 

their Indian ancestry and identity in the eyes of Virginian government. 

The Rappahanock Tribe 

The Rappahannock people were probably the unfortunate Tribe 

that met the Englishman Captain Samuel Mace as he sailed up 

what is now the Rappahannock River in 1603. The captain killed 

a Rappahannock chief and brought a group of men back to England. These men gave demonstrations of dugout canoes on the 

Thames River in England in December of 1603.52

The Rappahannock was a late addition to Powhatan’s Confederacy, differing culturally from the Mattaponi and Pamunkey 

mainstays of the confederacy. They were first recorded in Western 

society in 1605.53 Captain John Smith encountered several Rappahannock villages during his 1607 capture in Chickahominy territory.54 On Smith’s map, he represents the Rappahannock people 

with 34 wigwams just north of the river as opposed to 1 wigwam 

(representing 5 villages and 2 chief towns) in their traditional 

homeland on the southern shore. However, this placement makes 

practical sense in terms of defense against the Powhatan.55

Capt. William Claiborne attempted to establish treaty relations 

with the Rappahannock in 1645 since the Tribe didn’t participate 

in the 1644 uprising led by the Pamunkey. In their peaceful manner, the Tribe continued to encounter English settlers and even 

doing business with them. In 1651, the Rappahannock sold land to 

English settler Colonel Morre Fauntleroy and signed a treaty with 

Lancaster County in September of 1653. The Tribe signed another 

treaty in 1656 with the Rappahannock County (present-day Richmond and Essex counties), setting out rewards for returning fugiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:45 Jul 18, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR209.XXX SR209

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

56S. 379, 112th Cong. §§ 401(8)–(14) (2011). 57Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. 58S. Rep. No. 108–259 at 2 (2004). 59S. 379, 112th §§ Cong. 401(30)–(36) (2011). 60S. 379, 112th § Cong. 401(38) (2011). 61S. 379, 112th Cong. §§ 401(46)–(48) (2011). 62S. 379, 112th Cong. § 401(66) (2011). 63 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990 at 241. 64S. 379, 112th Cong. 401(68) (2011). 

tives and encouraging the Rappahannock to make their children 

servants in English houses.56

A 1669 Virginia census records 30 Rappahannock and 50 

Nantaughtacund (which both Speck and Mooney believe is reference to the Rappahannock).57 The town referred to in this census 

was actually a hunting village used by the Rappahannock in the 

1670s. The Rappahannock were removed from their homeland in 

1684 to a reservation established for them in 1682 in modern-day 

Caroline and King & Queen Counties. After Iroquois raids in 1683, 

the Virginia Colonial Council moved the Rappahannock to the 

Nanzatico Indian Town about 30 miles away from King George 

County. From 1687 to 1699, the Rappahannock migrated away 

from Nanzatico to Portobacco Indian Town on the southern side of 

the Rappahannock River. In 1705, the Tribe was moved a few miles 

off their original reservation.58 They were moved once again in 

1706 along with the Portobaccos and Nanzaticos by Essex County 

back to King and Queen County where they resettled on one of 

their ancient hunting village sites (the 1682 reservation). 

Upper Essex Baptist Church had a solid Rappahannock presence 

in their congregation from 1819 until the 1880s. This was a tribute 

to their presence in the region as well as their Christianization and 

the beginning of their assimilation into American culture. In 1870 

Joseph Mastin established another church, St. Stephens Baptist, to 

serve the Rappahannock in Caroline County, taking members away 

from Upper Essex.59 This remained the case until Rappahannock 

Indian Baptist Church was established in 1964.60

Although unable to attend White public schools, the Rappahannock created other educational opportunities for their members. 

Rappahannock children were taught by a tribal member in Caroline County until the Tribe built their own formal school in 1922 

in the town of Lloyds in Essex County. Chief George Nelson testified in Congress asking for $50,000 to establish an Indian school 

in Virginia.61 During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Tribe set 

up a school at Indian Neck, with the state paying a tribal member 

to teach 10 students in King and Queen County to Sharon Indian 

School.62 The Rappahannock created a private school in 1962 in a 

donated building in Essex County. Unfortunately it was closed in 

1964, and the children were then bused to Sharon School until that 

school closed 3 years later.63 At this point in 1965, the Rappahannock students were moved to the white Marriott High School by 

order of the Governor of Virginia.64

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1074 was introduced on May 23, 2013, by Senators Tim Kaine 

(D–VA) and Mark Warner (D–VA). A companion bill, H.R. 2190, 

has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Similar legislation was introduced in the 107th, 108th, 109th, 110th, 111th, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

112th Congresses. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a 

hearing on S. 1074 on October 30, 2013, at which Senator Kaine 

testified in strong support of the bill. On April 3, 2014, the Committee met to consider S. 1074. No amendments were offered, and 

the bill was ordered reported favorably by voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 

Recognition Act of 2013.’’ 

TITLE I—CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE

Section 101. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. 

Section 102. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 

Section 103—Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. This section also includes applicable laws, an 

explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a 

service area. 

Section 104. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 105. Governing body 

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

Section 106. Reservation of the Tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are located within the counties of New Kent, 

Charles City, James City, or Henrico that the Tribe seeks to transfer to the Secretary. This section also includes a prohibition on 

gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 108. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 

TITLE II—CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE—EASTERN DIVISION

Section 201. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division. 

Section 202. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 

Section 203. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division. This section also includes 

applicable laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a service area. 

Section 204. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 205. Governing body 

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

Section 206. Reservation of the Tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are within the counties of New Kent, Charles 

City, James City, or Henrico that the Tribe seeks to transfer to the 

Secretary. This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 208. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

TITLE III—UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE

Section 301. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. 

Section 302. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 

Section 303. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Upper 

Mattaponi Indian Tribe. This section also includes applicable laws, 

an explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a 

service area. 

Section 304. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 305. Governing body 

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

Section 306. Reservation of the Tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are located within the counties of King William, Caroline, Hanover, King & Queen, and New Kent. This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 308. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 

TITLE IV—RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC. 

Section 401. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Section 402. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 

Section 403. Federal recognition 

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

Section 404. Membership; governing documents 

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

Section 405. Governing body 

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

Section 406. Reservation of the Tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are located within the counties of King and 

Queen, Richmond, Lancaster, King George, Essex, Caroline, New 

Kent, King William, and James City. This section also includes a 

prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 408. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 

TITLE V—MONACAN INDIAN NATION

Section 501. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Monacan Indian Nation. 

Section 502. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Section 503. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Monacan 

Indian Nation. This section also includes applicable laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a service 

area. 

Section 504. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 505. Governing body 

This section establishes requirements for the Tribe’s governing 

body and any future governing bodies of the Tribe. 

Section 506. Reservation of the Tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are located within the counties of Albemarle, 

Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Campbell, Nelson, and Rockbridge. 

This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 508. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 

TITLE VI—NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE

Section 601. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Nansemond Indian Tribe. 

Section 602. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

remainder of the Title. The terms defined in this section are ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘tribal member,’’ and ‘‘tribe.’’ 

Section 603. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Nansemond 

Indian Tribe. This section also includes applicable laws, an explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a service 

area. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Section 604. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 605. Governing body 

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

Section 606. Reservation of the tribe 

This section directs the Secretary to take into trust any land held 

in fee by the Tribe that was acquired on or before January 1, 2007. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to take into trust lands owned by 

the Tribe in fee that are located within the boundaries of the city 

of Suffolk, the City of Chesapeake, or Isle of Wight County, Virginia. This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1074 does not expand, 

reduce or affect hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and water 

rights of the Tribe or its members. 

Section 608. Jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia 

This Section states that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall 

have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands 

owned by the Tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary 

is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after consultation with the Attorney General and certification 

by the Tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not 

affect the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

of 1978. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

Summary: S. 1074 would provide federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia—the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper 

Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. Federal recognition 

would make the tribes eligible to receive benefits from various federal programs. 

CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost $79 

million over the 2015–2019 period, assuming appropriation of the 

necessary funds. Enacting S. 1074 would not affect direct spending 

or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1074 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 1074 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 450 (community and 

regional development 0 and 550 (health). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—— 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015– 

2019 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 5 6 6 6 6 29 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 4 6 6 6 6 28 

Indian Health Service: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 10 10 10 11 11 52 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 9 10 10 11 11 51 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 15 16 16 17 17 81 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 13 16 16 17 17 79 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1074 

will be enacted near the end of 2014, that the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated each year, and that outlays will follow historical patterns for similar assistance to other tribes. 

S. 1074 would provide federal recognition to six Indian tribes in 

Virginia. Such recognition would allow about 4,700 tribal members 

and other eligible people to receive benefits from various programs 

administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS). Based on the average per capita expenditures 

by those agencies for other Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1074 would cost $61 million over the 2015–2019 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIA provides funding to federally recognized tribes for various 

purposes, including child welfare services, adult care, community 

development, and general assistance. In total, CBO estimates that 

providing BIA services to the six tribes would cost $28 million over 

the 2015–2019 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation. This estimate is 

based on current per capita expenditures of around $1,200 for other 

federally recognized tribes located in the eastern states. 

Indian Health Service 

S. 1074 also would make members of the tribes eligible to receive 

health benefits from the IHS. Based on information from the IHS, 

CBO estimates that about 55 percent of tribal members—or about 

2,600 people—would receive benefits each year. CBO assumes that 

the cost to serve those individuals would be similar to costs for current IHS beneficiaries—about $3,050 per individual in 2013. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that IHS benefits for the tribes 

would cost $51 million over the 2015–2019 period. 

Other Federal Agencies 

In addition to BIA and IHS funding, certain Indian tribes also 

receive support from other federal programs within the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and 

Agriculture. Based on their status as tribes recognized by Virginia, 

the tribes specified in the bill are already eligible to receive support 

from those departments. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing 

S. 1074 would not increase spending from those agencies’ programs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1074 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten—Bureau of Indian Affairs; Robert Stewart—Indian Health Service; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the private sector: Marin Burnett. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying 

out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1074 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

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


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(21) 

65 Hearing on S.514, S.724, S.1058, and H.R.1294 Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 

110th Congress, 1, 35 (2008) (statement of R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, U.S. Department of the Interior). 66 Id. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM VICE CHAIRMAN BARRASSO 

I understand how important Federal recognition is for tribal 

groups and how difficult and challenging the administrative recognition process is for them. Nevertheless, it is my view that legislative recognition—legislation that deems a group or tribe to be 

federally recognized—is not the right way to decide which groups 

should be recognized and which groups should not be recognized. 

That is a function best performed by the Executive Branch of the 

Government following regulations that have been adopted for that 

purpose. Federal recognition of a group as an Indian tribe may 

have profound consequences for the group, its members, other Indian tribes, the general public, and the Federal Government. 

In terms of impact on the Federal Treasury, the Congressional 

Budget Office estimates that implementing S. 1074 will cost $61 

million over a 5-year period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. Most of that cost would be in the form of programs 

and services available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service for which the tribe and its members will become eligible. Even if that additional money is never appropriated, 

recognition of the tribe will in and of itself place significant additional stress on the limited resources of these agencies, since tribal 

members will not be turned away from programs and services for 

which they are eligible. Tribal recognition is indeed a weighty decision, with real consequences. 

Testifying about several recognition bills at a hearing before this 

Committee during the 110th Congress, the Director of the Office of 

Federal Acknowledgement at the Department of the Interior stated— 

Legislation such as S. 514, S. 724, S. 1058, and H.R. 

1294 would allow these groups to bypass this [the Federal 

acknowledgement] process—allowing them to avoid the 

scrutiny to which other groups have been subjected. The 

Administration supports all groups going through the Federal acknowledgment process under 25 CFR Part 83.65

The Department’s witness went on to point out that, in light of 

the importance and implications of recognition decisions, the Department adopted its Federal acknowledgment regulations at 25 

CFR Part 83 in 1978 in recognition of ‘‘the need to end ad hoc decision making and adopt uniform regulations for Federal acknowledgment.’’ 66

This bill represents a step away from a process that applies uniform, established acknowledgment criteria to the history of the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

group and in the direction of ‘‘ad hoc’’ recognition decisions. I do 

not think that Congress is in the best position to undertake the detailed historical, cultural, political and ethnographic analysis that 

should go into a recognition decision. 

If a particular group has some unique historical or other barriers 

so that it cannot fairly access the administrative process, then perhaps it would be appropriate for Congress to consider whether 

those barriers should be removed or modified so that the group can 

have fair access to that process. I do not feel it is appropriate for 

Congress to simply deem a group to be a recognized Indian tribe. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(23) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In accordance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the enactment of S. 

1074 will not make any changes in existing law. 

Æ 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING