U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

46–266 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–686 

S. 724, S. 514, S. 1058, AND H.R. 1294 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

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 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ALLISON C. BINNEY, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 25, 2008 ..................................................................... 1 

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

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 12 

Letter from Hon. Mel Martinez ....................................................................... 44 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 12 

WITNESSES

Fleming, R. Lee, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Kaine, Hon. Timothy M., Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia ........................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Moran, Hon. James P., U.S. Representative from Virginia ................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, 

Old Dominion University ..................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 29 

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

Montana ................................................................................................................ 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Tucker, Hon. Ann Denson, Chairwoman, Muscogee Nation of Florida ............... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Virginia ........................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Yob, Hon. Ron, Chairman, Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians ..................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

APPENDIX

Adams, Hon. Kenneth, Chief, Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 71 

Adkins, Hon. Gene, Chief, Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 69 

Adkins, Hon. Stephen R., Chief, Chickahominy Indian Tribe, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 72 

Adkins, Wayne, President, Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 75 

Barton, Rev. Jonathan M., General Minister, Virginia Council of Churches, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 67 

Steele, Jr., James, Chairman, Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, letter to Senator Tester ............................................................................................ 77 

Tucker, Hon. Ann Denson, prepared statement attachments .............................. 78 

Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Virginia, prepared statement with 

attachment ............................................................................................................ 49 

(1) 

S. 724, S. 514, S. 1058, AND H.R. 1294 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. This is a 

hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee. We are going to be considering four pieces of legislation today to provide Federal recognition to certain tribes in Virginia, Montana, Michigan, and Florida. 

I thank my colleagues for being here and we have three elected 

officials who are here to begin the testimony as witnesses today. 

The Committee has held two hearings to examine the Federal acknowledgment process. The four bills that we have before us would 

provide Federal recognition to nine Tribal groups who have partitions currently pending before the Administration. 

I think it is quite clear the process for acknowledgment is broken. These things take an unbelievably long time. We have had a 

lot of testimony about that. The costs are borne by the petitioning 

group, with no assistance from the Federal Government. The acknowledgment process has limited resources, limited staff, and limited funding. 

I will make some other comments about this in a few minutes. 

We have three elected officials here, including Governor Kaine, 

Congressman Moran, and Senator Webb. I would like to take their 

testimony and then we will break and come to the business meeting, which should just take us five minutes, and then we will have 

the other witnesses. That will be, I think, more convenient for the 

three of you. We very much appreciate your attendance and your 

desire to testify on behalf of legislation pending. 

Would that be satisfactory with you? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso is on the phone; he has a portion of this business meeting. I think that is the way we will handle it. 

Governor Kaine, welcome to the Committee. We thank you for 

being here today with your colleagues. 

Governor Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

2 

The CHAIRMAN. The full statement of all three will be made a 

part of the permanent record, and we would recognize you, then 

our colleague Senator Webb, and then Congressman Moran. 

Governor Kaine. Excellent. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, GOVERNOR, 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Governor Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. The testimony has been filed, so I will just summarize 

a couple of points. 

I first want to begin by thanking my Virginia colleagues here, 

Senator Webb and Congressman Moran, for their great advocacy on 

behalf of the Virginia tribes. 

Beginning in 1607, English settlers in Virginia began to interact 

with these great tribes of Virginia, and these stories are known to 

virtually all Americans, the stories of Pocahontas and Chief Powhatan, John Smith, John Rolfe, and others. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Jamestown Settlement that was the first 

English settlement in the New World would not have survived had 

it not been forbearance and actual assistance of these tribes to the 

English who settled in 1607. 

Yet, despite the fact that these stories of the interaction between 

English and these tribes are among the best known in our collective history, none of the Virginia tribes are among the 560-plus 

Federal tribes that have been recognized. I think there are two 

basic reasons for that. It seems like a kind of disharmony. I think 

there are two basic reasons why these tribes have not been recognized. 

First, they made peace and began to integrate into society in 

1677. Before there was the United States of America, their treaties 

were with England. So England has recognized these tribes since 

1677. But because they didn’t enter into treaties with the United 

States Government, that has been a reason that they haven’t been 

recognized. And I don’t think, in retrospect, they should be penalized for having early decided to begin peaceful relations with the 

settlers who are our ancestors. 

The second reason is a more sinister reason. Beginning in the 

1920s—and the Committee is well aware of these facts from earlier 

hearings, I know, and testimony—there was a practitioner, really, 

a promoter of the Eugenics movement in Virginia who became head 

of the State Bureau of Records, a guy by the name of Walter 

Plecker. Plecker ran this bureau under this fiat. The decision was 

made that all Virginians had to be identified either as white or colored. 

So the Indians, who had maintained their identity for these hundreds of years, were required to change their identity on all official 

documents to colored. If they did not, they were subject to criminal 

penalties, and many were actually imprisoned because of this. If 

members of Virginia Indian tribes wanted to marry as Indians, 

they had to leave the State to do so. 

So there was, for a period of 40 years, until this matter was 

struck down by the courts in the 1960s, an official State policy, 

sadly, to the shame of our Commonwealth, that systematically denied members of these Indian tribes their rightful ability to claim 

3 

their heritage, and that has made the documentation for some of 

these tribes very difficult. 

To my way of understanding, and I am not a historian, but those 

are the two reasons why these tribes have never been recognized: 

they laid down arms and made peace in the 1670s and then their 

collective heritage was denied by Commonwealth policy during the 

1900s. 

Beginning the 1980s, Virginia realized we need to clean the air 

and do the right thing, so these tribes have been recognized by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, beginning in 1983. But we are strongly 

of the notion that neither of those two reasons should be an obstacle to these tribes in obtaining recognition today. 

Virginians consider this a matter of fundamental justice and 

really an acknowledgment of the fact that we would not be the 

modern Virginia we were had these tribes not essentially supported, in those early years, the settlement at Jamestown Island. 

Relationships were uneasy, but there were a number of times 

where, had it not been for the support of these tribes, that Jamestown Settlement experiment would have ended, as had earlier experiments in Virginia. 

I will just conclude and tell a story. This has been a matter of 

real passion for me. I mentioned in my inaugural address wanting 

to finally turn the chapter and acknowledge these Indian tribes, 

but about a year after I was inaugurated in Williamsburg, I went 

to England on the commemoration of the sailing of the three ships 

that came to Jamestown Island in December of 1606, 400 years 

later I was in England, and my wife and I and my kids paid a visit 

to St. George Parish in Gravesend, which is where Pocahontas is 

buried. 

Pocahontas married the English tobacco planter, John Rolfe, 

went to England for a time, was presented at court, and then was 

getting ready to come back to Virginia, but when she was on the 

ship going down the Thames, became ill, was taken ashore and 

died in this little tiny community Gravesend, at the mouth of the 

Thames, where it empties into the English Channel. 

The English in that parish have taken care of her memory in exquisite way. There is a beautiful statute of Pocahontas outdoors; 

the chapel is dedicated to her; there are inscriptions of Pocahontas, 

she is buried underneath the chapel; and the English have cared 

for her in amazing ways. But as I was sitting in this chapel, thinking about her journey and this legacy of the American Indians in 

Virginia, I looked on either side of the alter there are two stain 

glass windows, and one is a stained glass window of Rebecca, 

which was Pocahontas’ baptismal name; the other window was 

Ruth. And I looked at that and I was trying to remember from my 

history whether there was a Ruth in the Pocahontas story, and it 

suddenly struck me, no, there wasn’t; it is the Old Testament Ruth 

from the Book of Ruth. 

I am sure you remember those great powerful words from the 

King James Bible. Naomi moved to a strange land and went with 

her husband and her sons, and her sons then married women from 

that strange land, Moab, foreign women. Her husband and sons 

died, so then Naomi is in this strange land with these daughters 

from the land and she decides to move back to Judea. And when 

4 

she decides to move back, her daughters-in-law want to go back 

with her. She says, no, stay here, marry again, have more kids; 

and one of the daughters, Orpha, stays, but Ruth says, no—and 

these are the beautiful words: whither thou goest, I will go. Whither thou lodgest, I will dwell. Your people shall be my people. Your 

God shall be my God; and when you die, so there I will die and 

I will be buried. 

It is a great story, and obviously the Ruth window is in that 

chapel to signify the union not just of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, 

but the union of these Virginia Indians and these English settlers, 

and it strikes me that that is a fitting story about the union of 

these Virginia Indian tribes and Virginia. They have become part 

of us; they have been in our schools, they have worked in our 

fields, worked in our factories, served in all of our wars from the 

Revolution to the current day; they laid down arms and made 

peace with those who came to Virginia beginning in the 1670s. 

And it just strikes me that that is worth something, that that 

has a value, and that there ought to be an acknowledgment of 

these hundreds of years of living peacefully; and this is something 

that Virginians—not just Virginia Indians, but Virginians—very, 

very much want to do. 

Britain has recognized these tribes since 1670 and Virginia finally realized we needed to do it in the 1980s we got onboard and 

recognized these tribes, and it is our earnest, earnest hope that the 

Federal Government will recognize them as well. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Kaine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today in support of Federal Recognition for Virginia’s Native American Tribes. We are proud of Virginia’s Native 

Tribes and the contribution their communities have made to our Commonwealth 

and the Nation. 

I am here today because recognition of these Tribes by the Federal Government 

is long overdue. 

As a part of my Inaugural Address on January 14, 2006 at the Colonial Capital 

in Williamsburg, Virginia, I stated: 

‘‘Our Virginia might not exist today were it not for the generosity extended to 

those first settlers by the native Virginia tribes living in this region. Without 

the hospitality of Chief Powhatan... those in Jamestown would have perished. . . And, we should use this historic time to help those who first helped 

us by working with the Federal Government to see that Virginia’s native Indian 

tribes are finally recognized.’’ 

Almost immediately after first landing at Jamestown in 1607, the early English 

settlers and explorers came into contact with the Virginia Tribes living throughout 

Eastern Virginia. While the relationship between the Native Tribes and the English 

settlers was not always easy, there can be little doubt that had it not been for accommodations on both sides, the settlement would not have survived. Indeed, Virginia’s Native American Tribes played an integral role in helping the settlers survive those first harsh winters. 

One year after the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English Settlement 

at Jamestown, it is especially tragic that these tribes still have not received equal 

status with the 562 other Federally Recognized Tribes in the United States. 

How can we commemorate their history and not recognize their existence? Now 

is the time to reconcile history. Let us, once and for all, honor their heritage. A heritage, I might add, that has been sorely tested by centuries of racial hostility and 

state-sanctioned coercive actions. 

5 

The eight Virginia Tribes—the Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, Mattaponi, 

Monacan Indian Nation, Nansemond, Pamunkey, Rappahannock and the Upper 

Mattaponi—are unique. Unlike most tribes that obtained federal recognition when 

they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, tribes in Virginia signed 

their peace treaties with the British Monarchy. 

• Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between Virginia’s Tribes and 

Charles the II—well before the establishment of the United States. This treaty 

has been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the past 

331 years when the Governor of Virginia accepts tribute from the Tribes in a 

ceremony now celebrated at the State Capitol. 

However, while the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially recognized status from 

the federal government has been considerably more difficult due to systematic mistreatment over the past century. 

Recent History of Tribal Recognition Issue in Virginia 

For 34 years, from 1912 to 1946, Walter Ashby Plecker, at the Virginia Bureau 

of Vital Statistics, led an effort to actively destroy vital records and evidence of Indian existence in the Commonwealth. 

This practice was supported when the eugenics movement was endorsed by Virginia Universities and the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity 

Act in 1924—a race based statue that forced all segments of the population to be 

registered at birth in one of two categories ‘‘white’’ or ‘‘colored’’. From that point on 

no reference was allowed for other ethnic distinctions and no reference was allowed 

for Indian Tribal peoples in Virginia. Members of Virginia’s Tribes were denied their 

identities as Native peoples. 

Essentially, Virginia declared, by law and the systematic altering of key documents, that there were no Indians in the Commonwealth as of 1924. The passage 

of these race based statutes in Virginia made it criminal for Native peoples to claim 

their Indian Heritage. For instance, married couples were denied marriage certificates or even forbidden to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital 

until they changed their ethnicity on the state record to read ‘‘colored.’’ 

• Ironically, 1924 is the same year that the Federal Government guaranteed Native Americans full citizenship and the corollary right to vote. 

The Racial Integrity Act was not struck down by the Federal Courts until 1967. 

From 1983–1989 each Tribe gained official Recognition in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. 

In 1997, then Governor George Allen signed legislation acknowledging the ‘‘paper 

genocide’’ of Indians in Virginia. This legislation provided that state records be corrected that had been deliberately altered to list Virginia Indians on official state 

documents as ‘‘colored.’’ In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia Tribes. 

Each of the tribes have also petitioned the U.S. Department of Interior and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for official recognition under the process set forth 

in 25 CFR Part 83, ‘‘Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group 

Exists as an Indian Tribe.’’ The Virginia Tribes have also submitted letters of intent 

and partial documentation to petition for Federal acknowledgment. 

Unfortunately, these applications have been denied as incomplete. Without proper 

records and complete documentation the Tribes cannot fulfill the requirements of 

the BIA process. 

Helen Rountree, noted anthropologist and expert on Native-Americans in Virginia, has spent her life documenting the Virginia Tribes. Through her thorough 

analysis and research the Commonwealth of Virginia was provided with sufficient 

authentication to officially recognize these tribes. I believe that that research should 

also be sufficient to address the damage of the Racial Integrity Act era and meet 

the BIA’s criteria. 

Need for Congressional Action 

It is clear that political action is needed to remedy what bureaucracies cannot fix. 

Justice begs for a congressional response. 

Six of the Tribes first came to Congress seeking recognition in 1999. They joined 

together to request Congressional action on their application for Federal Acknowledgement through the ‘‘Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act’’ (this year it is H.R. 1294). 

The six Tribes view Federal recognition as a basic issue of equality with the other 

562 tribes. 

6 

Under the United States Constitution Indian Commerce Clause, Congress has the 

authority to recognize a ‘‘distinctly Indian community’’ as an Indian tribe. I believe 

that the Tribes’ situation clearly distinguishes them as excellent candidates for Congressional action. 

Under H.R. 1294, the six Tribes would finally, and at long last, be granted federal 

recognition. At the same time, I feel that the safeguards provided in this legislation 

would address some Virginians’ concerns about Class III style gaming in the Commonwealth. Indeed, this legislation would give both the Governor and the General 

Assembly strict control over any possibility of the development of Indian Gaming. 

I commend the committee for giving its time and attention to the Thomasina E. 

Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. I would like to especially 

thank Chairman Byron Dorgan (D–ND) for his leadership on this important issue. 

I would also like to thank Senator Jim Webb (D–VA) for his important work on 

behalf of the native peoples of Virginia and his testimony today. I am also heartened 

by the bipartisan Virginia Delegation support for H.R. 1294 and thank Representatives Jim Moran (D–VA), Tom Davis (R–VA), and Bobby Scott (D–VA) for their 

original co-sponsorship of the legislation. 

It is time for these Virginia native peoples to be recognized by their own country. 

Recognition of the Tribes of Virginia is long overdue. 

Congress has the power to recognize these Tribes. It has exercised this power in 

the past, and it should exercise this power again with respect to our Virginia Tribes. 

Our recent commemoration of the 400 years of modern Virginia history will be incomplete without successful Federal recognition of these Virginia Tribes. 

It is time to finally right an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important issue and I welcome your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, thank you very much for your eloquent testimony. We appreciate you being at the Committee today. 

Next we will hear from Senator Jim Webb. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, 

Senator Tester. I do appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing so late in the Congress, and I am really pleased to be joined 

here by Governor Kaine. There is not a whole lot on the persuasion 

side that I could add to what he just said. I am also pleased to be 

here with Congressman Jim Moran, who has been a long-time supporter of this proposition. 

This is not a new issue for your Committee. 

First of all, I have a longer piece of testimony that I would ask 

be submitted for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Senator WEBB. And I understand the reluctance from Congress 

to grant this type of recognition, as opposed to the usual BIA administrative process. I just want to assure you that I have not 

taken this issue lightly, that I agree in principle that Congress generally should not be determining whether or not native tribes deserve Federal recognition, but this is a fairly unique situation, as 

Governor Kaine laid out. 

I spent a good bit of time, over several months, asking hard questions about these particular issues and the issue of lineal descent 

and record-keeping and the miscegenation laws in Virginia, and 

many barriers that were placed against these particular tribes that 

you don’t really see in the cases that you have coming before you. 

For those reasons, I became a strong proponent that this sort of 

recognition should be given and should be given by the Congress. 

It is almost impossible—it is not just lengthy, it is almost imposVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7 

sible for this particular situation to be solved through the regular 

BIA process, and that is the reason that I joined my colleagues several months ago in urging this legislation be passed and that is the 

reason that I am here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Webb follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am honored to be 

here today to show my strong support for the ‘‘Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes 

of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007’’ (H.R. 1294). I am pleased to be joined 

by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and Congressman Jim Moran, both of whom have 

been strong advocates for Virginia’s Native American Tribes. I would also like to 

acknowledge and thank the Chief’s of the six Virginia tribes and all the members 

present here today. 

I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing. This is not a new issue for this 

Committee and you have heard support for these six Virginia tribes from many individuals throughout the 15 years since they began seeking federal recognition. These 

six tribes are the Chickahominy, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the 

Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond Indian 

Tribe. 

I am here today to urge the Committee to approve legislation recognizing the six 

Virginia tribes that began the administrative recognition process so long ago. The 

tribes covered by this bill gained state recognition in the Commonwealth of Virginia 

between 1983 and 1989. I believe it is appropriate for them to finally receive the 

federal recognition that has been denied for far too long. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand the reluctance from Congress to grant any Native 

American tribe federal recognition through legislation rather than through the BIA 

administrative process. I have not taken this issue lightly, and agree in principle 

that Congress generally should not have to determine whether or not Native American tribes deserve federal recognition. 

Earlier this year the BIA’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment came out with new 

guidelines on implementing the criteria to determine federal recognition. While I applaud improvements to the process, this still does not change the impact that racially hostile laws formerly in effect in Virginia had on these tribes’ ability to meet 

the BIA’s seven established recognition criteria. 

Virginia’s unique history and its harsh policies of the past have created a barrier 

for Virginia’s Native American Tribes to meet the BIA criteria, even with the new 

guidelines. Many Western tribes experienced government neglect during the 20th 

century, but Virginia’s story was different. 

First, Virginia passed ‘‘race laws’’ in 1705, which regulated the activity of Virginia 

Indians. In 1924, Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Law, and the Virginia Bureau 

of Vital Statistics went so far as to eliminate an individual’s identity as a Native 

American on many birth, death and marriage certificates. The elimination of racial 

identity records had a harmful impact on Virginia’s tribes, when they began seeking 

Federal recognition. 

Second, Virginia tribes signed a treaty with England, predating the practices of 

most tribes that signed a treaty with the Federal Government. 

For these reasons, I strongly believe that recognition for these six Virginia tribes 

is justified based on principles of dignity and fairness. As I mentioned, I have spent 

several months examining this issue in great detail, including the rich history and 

culture of Virginia’s tribes. My staff and I asked a number of tough questions, and 

great care and deliberation were put into arriving at this conclusion. After meeting 

with leaders of Virginia’s Indian tribes and months of thorough investigation of the 

facts, I concluded that legislative action is needed for recognition of Virginia’s tribes. 

Congressional hearings and reports over the last several Congresses demonstrate 

the ancestry and status of these tribes. 

On May 2007, the House overwhelming passed the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 

Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, with bipartisan support. This bill has 

advanced further this year than it has in the past several Congresses with the 

strong support and tireless efforts of Congressman Jim Moran. Virginia Governor 

Tim Kaine and the Virginia legislature support federal recognition for these tribes. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, especially those on the 

Indian Affairs Committee, to push for passage of this important bill. Congress has 

8 

exercised its power to recognize tribes in the past and I ask you to use this power 

to grant federal recognition to these six Virginia tribes. 

Last year, we celebrated the 400th Anniversary of Jamestown—America’s first 

colony. After 400 years since the founding of Jamestown, these six tribes deserve 

to join our nation’s other 562 federally-recognized tribes. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. I respectfully request 

that this Committee pass this bill as soon as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Webb, thank you very much. 

Finally, we will hear from Congressman Moran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Senator. I really appreciate 

my two friends, Governor Kaine and Senator Webb, testifying on 

this. 

I also greatly respect your position, Mr. Chairman, that the legislative process is not the ideal way to determine the legitimacy of 

Native American Tribes, but our point is there really is a uniqueness here with these Virginia tribes. First of all, most Native 

American Tribes gained their recognition when they signed an 

agreement with the United States Government. 

When they signed these peace treaties, that established their legitimacy. These tribes signed their peace treaties with the King of 

England; the principal one was in 1667 with Charles II. It has been 

recognized for 332 years both in Virginia and in England. So there 

is a uniqueness because they date all the way back, as both the 

Governor and Senator have said, to when the English settlers arrived on the shores of Virginia. 

We were hoping we could get this done by the 400th anniversary 

of Jamestown. We missed it, but we can’t give up on it. But the 

second reason goes to a very shameful part of Virginia’s history. 

There was a paper genocide that occurred. The officials in Virginia 

deliberately expunged the records, they destroyed the official 

records and most of the private records. I have a statement that 

gets into the whole thing, but, basically, a lot of Virginia’s ruling 

elite claim to be blood descendants of Pocahontas, and in their view 

that meant that no one else in Virginia could make a claim that 

they were Native American or a descendant of Pocahontas because 

to do so would mean that Virginia’s ruling elite would have to be 

classified as all other non-whites were, which was—and this was 

the law—the inferior Negroid race.’’ This was what it was about. 

And with enormous hypocrisy, Virginia’s ruling elite pushed policies, got them passed, and it culminated with the Racial Integrity 

Act of 1924, and in Orwellian fashion they destroyed the State and 

local courthouse records, and that really has meant that it has 

been almost impossible for these tribes to establish their legitimacy 

because the courthouse records just aren’t there anymore. 

I think any of the tribes would be hard-pressed to show that they 

have endured the same kind of thing that has happened to these 

Native American Tribes. It wasn’t until 1967 that that law was 

taken off the book. Granted, this is Virginia’s problem. I think it 

is pretty clear Virginia has come a long way, and we may even go 

even further in November—— 

[Laughter.] 

9 

Mr. MORAN. —but this is something we have got to rectify. We 

have got to rectify this, Mr. Chairman. It really is unique. These 

tribes are so deserving; they are good people. We have even got 

language in the bill that says that they can’t gamble. I mean, this 

is such tight language, I can’t believe that they have accepted it, 

but that is the reality. This is about their pride and about their 

heritage and what they leave as a legacy to their children and 

grandchildren. 

So that is why we are here and we really hope that we can get 

this bill into law. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

VIRGINIA

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing and to provide me and my colleagues from Virginia with an opportunity to testify. My message is straightforward 

and simple: Congress must grant Virginia’s historic tribes federal recognition. It can 

and it should do so. It has the authority, and there is precedent. Doing so will also 

help right a wrong, a grave injustice, that has been perpetrated for centuries. 

Last year marked the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the New World at Jamestown. The forefathers of the tribal leaders who are 

in this room today were the first to welcome the English, and during the first few 

years of settlement, ensured their survival. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who 

resisted quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up 

through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S. citizens. 

Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their story of survival doesn’t 

span just one century, it spans four centuries of racial hostility and coercive state 

and state-sanctioned actions. 

The Virginia tribes’ history, however, diverges from that of most Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the Federal Government; the second explains why congressional action 

is needed today. 

First, unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, Virginia’s tribes 

signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these 

was the Treaty of 1677 with Charles II. This Thanksgiving, the Virginia tribes will 

fulfill their commitment to that treaty, as they have every year for the past 332 

years, by providing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine with game and produce as tribute 

in a ceremony at the State Capitol. This may be the longest celebrated treaty in 

the United States. 

In the intervening years between 1677 and the birth of this nation, however, 

these six tribes were dispossessed of most of their land. They were never in a position to negotiate with and receive recognition from our nascent federal government. 

Two years ago, the English government reaffirmed its recognition of the Virginia 

tribes hosting them at ceremonies in England. Sadly, as we concluded the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, these same Virginia tribes remain unrecognized by our 

Federal Government. This is a travesty this Committee can correct. 

The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced 

at the hands of the state government during the first half of the 20th Century. It 

has been called a ‘‘paper genocide.’’ At a time when the Federal Government granted 

Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia’s elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white 

society. The fact that some of Virginia’s ruling elite claimed to be blood descendants 

of Pocahontas in their view meant that no one else in Virginia could make a claim 

they were Native American and a descendent of Pocahontas’ people. To do so would 

mean that Virginia’s ruling elite were what they decreed all non-whites to be: part 

of ‘‘the inferior Negroid race.’’ 

With great hypocrisy, Virginia’s ruling elite pushed policies that culminated with 

the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act directed state officials, 

and zealots like Walter Plecker, to destroy state and local courthouse records and 

10 

reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ‘‘colored.’’ It targeted Native Americans with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity. 

To call yourself a ‘‘Native American’’ in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up 

to one year. In defiance of the law, members of Virginia’s tribes traveled out of state 

to obtain marriage licenses or to serve their country in wartime. The law remained 

in effect until it was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period 

between 1924 and 1967, state officials waged a war to destroy all public and many 

private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state compares to Virginia’s efforts to eradicate 

its citizens’ Indian identity. 

All of Virginia’s state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one fraught with complications that officials 

from the bureau have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The 

acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable delays, and 

lacking in dignity. Virginia’s paper genocide only further complicates these tribes’ 

quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and 

official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon them. 

It wasn’t until 1997, when Governor George Allen signed legislation directing 

state agencies to correct state records, that the tribes were given the opportunity 

to correct official state documents that had deliberately been altered to list them 

as ‘‘colored.’’ The law allows living members of the tribes to correct their records, 

but the law cannot correct the damage done to past generations or to recover documents that were purposely destroyed during the ‘‘Plecker era.’’ 

In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. I am pleased to have honored that request, and beginning in 2000 and in subsequent sessions, Virginia’s Senators and I have introduced legislation to recognize the Virginia tribes. 

There is no doubt that the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi tribes exist. 

These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first European settlers stepped foot in America. They are here with us today. Helen Rountree, who 

will testify today, has spent her career verifying their history and their existence. 

Her publications are well known and well regarded. Her expertise on Virginia tribes 

cannot be matched at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

I know there is resistance in Congress to grant any Native American tribe federal 

recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and 

moral dimensions has influenced many Members’ perspectives on tribal recognition 

issues. The six Virginia tribes are not seeking federal legislation so that they engage 

in gaming. They find this assertion offensive to their moral beliefs. They are seeking 

federal recognition because it is an urgent matter of justice and because elder members of their tribes, who were denied a public education and the economic opportunities available to most Americans, are suffering and should be entitled to the federal 

health and housing assistance available to federally recognized tribes. 

To underscore this point, the legislation I introduced, as approved by the House, 

includes restrictive language that would prevent the tribes from engaging in gaming 

on their federal land even if everyone else in Virginia were allowed to engage in 

Class III casino-type gaming. I remain puzzled that objections are still being raised 

that these tribes could somehow engage in gaming given the restrictive language 

that is now a part of this bill. Nevertheless, I remain willing and ready to work with 

you and my fellow Senate colleagues to find the right equation that is respectful 

of tribal sovereignty and rights and meets Members’ concerns about this issue. 

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee, when it was chaired by Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell in 2004, reported out a Virginia tribal recognition bill. At a 

hearing before this committee in 2006, Senator John McCain said that these tribes 

deserve recognition. Mr. Chairman, the Virginia tribes have waited too long, have 

come too far, to see their recognition bill die with the 110th Session of Congress. 

I also note that legislation to grant federal recognition to the North Carolina 

Lumbee tribe has been approved by this Committee. 

In the name of justice, I urge you to move this bill through Committee. And if 

we must adjourn before action on it is complete, I ask that you to make it your first 

priority in the next Congress. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Moran, thank you very much. 

11 

I want to make a very brief comment before we excuse our witnesses. Senator Webb has been aggressively irritating on this subject for a long while,—— 

Senator WEBB. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. —as you know, on behalf of the interests and 

passion he has. He has been pushing and pushing very, very hard. 

I know that some have raised a question why are we holding a 

hearing this close to the end of the legislative session, and I want 

to explain to you why we are doing this. We have spent an enormous amount of time this year to get Indian health care out of the 

United States Senate, the first time in 17 years. We did that. It 

was very hard; it took a lot of the Committee’s time. The Indian 

housing bill went through this Committee and the United States 

Senate. Also, we have spent much of the year working on a new 

groundbreaking piece of legislation on Indian law enforcement. 

So we have not done all we would like to do in other areas, and 

I scheduled this hearing, with the cooperation of Senator Murkowski, even though we are near the end of the session, so that, 

hopefully, in the first quarter when we get back next year, this 

Committee will take action and make decisions. 

It is not a secret that I would prefer that the recognition process 

at Interior be a workable process. I recognize, however, that it is 

a process that is broken, and I believe it is appropriate for this 

Committee to make decisions case-by-case in matters where equity 

would require the Committee to proceed. We have had congressional recognition in the past for some. You make a very persuasive 

and strong case. I know how strongly you feel about this. Senator 

Warner has asked that a statement that he has submitted be included for the record, which we will do by consent. 

But I want to thank you and thank members of your tribes and 

others who will testify today. Our purpose today is to continue and 

hopefully finalize the hearing records, and when we come back in 

a very few short months, begin to make the decisions that I want 

the Committee—and I know Senator Murkowski and Senator 

Tester feel as I do—to make. So let me thank you very much for 

your courtesy to come here today. Thank you. 

I want to call to the dais: Helen Rountree, Ron Yob, Ann Tucker, 

and John Sinclair. If they would come up to the witness table. 

Let me thank all of you for being here. 

Senator Murkowski, I did not give a full opening statement. Let 

me make a comment and just a couple of words, and if you wish 

to make a comment. 

I indicated that the acknowledgment process at the Federal level 

is largely broken. We have hearings on it. I do think that we have 

tribal leaders who come to Washington, D.C. frustrated and exhausted after decades of work, believing that they have made 

progress and, yet, receiving no answer. 

My preference is always to use the process that exists at Interior. 

I recognize that that is not always possible. I recognize the process 

itself is broken. So even as we are working with the Department 

of Interior, we are holding these hearings with several tribes that 

have come to us whose circumstances are different and unusual so 

we can consider action in the first quarter of next year. 

12 

I just wanted to make that point. 

Senator Murkowski? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to follow up, I 

think we do recognize that the process is too slow, it is too cumbersome to recognize that you would have three decades, perhaps 

more, working to seek recognition. It is full-time employment for 

the lawyers, but not really a resolution to those that are seeking 

the redress, and we must find a better way to provide for this. 

We do recognize there has been a push in this direction with the 

Department of Interior publishing the additional guidance and directions, but we continue to hear that even with a recognition process that is more streamlined, perhaps more efficient, in an effort 

to improve the time line experiences, we still continue to hear from 

so many that the current administrative recognition process is insufficient, and we recognize this. We appreciate that it is excessively drawn out; it does have uneven application of the regulatory 

criteria. 

So, as the Chairman has noted, when it is not working within 

the agency, sometimes there must be a redress through the legislative process, and that is why we have those of you assembled before us here today. I know that this has been the second visit for 

some of you. We appreciate that. Again, we do want to do what we 

can from the legislative process to help advance, and having this 

hearing today puts clearly on the record the situation that so many 

of you have been in the midst of for so long. So I appreciate your 

time and your very diligent efforts and your willingness to come before the Committee this afternoon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I 

guess we have been here before, and you folks have been here 

many, many times before. The Department of Interior isn’t doing 

their job on this particular issue, it is quite obvious to me. You 

know, we have been through five Administrations, going on six, 

and, quite honestly, I have said this many times, they need to 

make a decision and tell you yes or no, instead of just demanding 

paperwork. 

I remember the last time you were here, John Sinclair, and you 

talked about the mountains of paperwork and the mountains of paperwork, and how this has become a generational thing now. Your 

father did this, probably your grandfather before him. But the 

truth is that the system is broken badly, and I don’t know if it is 

because people in the agency aren’t committed to make it work or 

if we have to develop something new, but it is not working. I agree 

with the Chairman that an act of Congress is not the way to get 

this job done, although, if we have to, we will. So we will go forward. 

13 

I have a meeting I have to run to, but I really want to thank 

John Sinclair, the Chairman of the Little Shell Tribe in Montana, 

for his efforts and his commitment to this cause and his people, 

and appreciate your being here today and appreciate all you have 

gone through, because, quite frankly, I know it hasn’t been easy for 

you. This bill that we are going to hear about today is sponsored 

by myself and Senator Baucus and Representative Rehberg, so we 

are all on the same sheet in Montana over this. It was in the State 

legislature when they passed resolution after resolution, encouraging the Federal Government to give the Little Shell recognition. 

So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

Let me call on John Sinclair, who is President of the Little Shell 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. President Sinclair, welcome. You may proceed. 

And let me just say for all four of you that your entire statements will be made a part of the permanent record. You may summarize. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT, LITTLE 

SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Dorgan and 

members of the Committee. On behalf of myself and the Little 

Shell Tribe of Montana, I extend a special greeting and heartfelt 

thanks to Senator Tester for his continued friendship and support 

of the Little Shell Tribe. I am accompanied by a tribal attorney in 

the Federal recognition process, Kim Godschalk. To the Committee, 

I express the Tribe’s and my own appreciation for the opportunity 

to tell our story, a story that shows that justice and good policy behind Senator Tester’s bill to recognize Little Shell Tribe, S. 724. 

In 1892, our leader, Chief Little Shell, rejected the terms of a 

Federal agreement that settled many Chippewas on reservations. 

Our people, who had fallen the buffalo herds into Montana, were 

left with no reservation and no means of subsistence, as the buffalo 

herds had largely died out. Because our ancestors had no reservation home and were so poor, they became known as the trash can 

Indiana or the landless Indians of Montana. 

In 1908, Congress first appropriate funds to acquire land for the 

landless Indians of Montana, which included our ancestors. Congress appropriated money for this purpose several more times. 

After the Indian Reorganization Act was passed in 1934, the Department of Interior also promised a reservation home for the Little Shell people. But money was too short and our people never got 

the homeland they so often promised to us. So the tribe never received the service and benefits our people so badly need, service 

and benefits that our brothers, who accepted reservation life according to the terms of the 1892 agreement, have long enjoyed. 

Because we were landless, we were viewed as unrecognized when 

the Department of Interior set up their federally acknowledgment 

process in 1978. We hoped, however, that this process would be the 

answer, but we were wrong. We have been in this process now for 

30 years, and there is no certain end in sight. We have been caught 

in a bureaucratic twilight zone. 

14 

Let me just give you a few dates to give you a flavor of what the 

Little Shell Tribe has been through with this process. 

In 1978, the Tribe first notified the BIA of our intent to petition 

for acknowledgment and spent the next 14 years collecting documents, doing genealogies, participating in technical assistance 

meetings with the BIA, and responding to numerous requests for 

yet more documents. 

In 1995, the BIA finally declared the Tribe’s petition was ready 

for active consideration. 

In 1997, the BIA began active consideration of the Tribe’s petition for recognition. 

In 2000, the BIA issued its proposed finding on the Tribe’s petition for recognition. 

In 2005, the BIA told the Tribe to expect the last stage, the final 

determination on the Tribe’s petition, in February of 2007. This 

was extended to the end of 2008 and recently extended again until 

January 28, 2009. 

So 30 years after the Tribe began this process we are still waiting for the BIA to complete the process, and we have no faith that 

this most recent extension will be the last one. But it gets worse. 

In 2000, the BIA issued a favorable proposed finding on the 

Tribe’s petition. In other words, the BIA concluded in 2000 that the 

Tribe had met all the criteria for recognition under the regulations, 

and yet the Bureau asked for more documents, which we provided, 

and still we wait. In the meantime, we have lost a whole generation of Little Shell people, including recently my own father, who 

fought for recognition as President of the Tribe, just as I do now. 

Mr. Chairman, this is why the Little Shell Tribe needs Congress 

to step in. End the process and enact special legislation to recognize the Little Shell Tribe. Enactment of S. 724 is good, responsible 

Indian policy. After all, the BIA itself has said that the Little Shell 

Tribe meets the criteria for recognition, and it said so nearly eight 

years ago now. Justice to the Little Shell people requires the enactment of S. 724. We have endured all these generations without the 

Federal status, reservation, and service that our Indian brothers in 

Montana have long enjoyed. It is time the Little Shell people received the same Federal status. 

I would like to end on this point. Every government in Montana 

knows the Little Shell people and agrees that justice requires recognition of the Tribe. The State of Montana and all local governments support S. 724, and all recognized tribal governments in the 

State support recognition of the Little Shell Tribe. Congress deals 

every day with difficult issues. This is not one of them. On behalf 

of the Little Shell people, I implore the Committee to move Senator 

Tester’s bill forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sinclair follows:] 

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

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA

Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski, our good friend Senator Jon 

Tester, and honorable members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I thank 

you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 724, a bill that would confirm the 

federal relationship between the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana 

and the United States, and address related issues. 

15 

My name is John Sinclair and I have the honor of serving as President of the Little Shell Tribe. I follow in the footsteps of my father and grandfather in that honor 

and appear before you today in the same work at which they labored—the long effort to confirm federal recognition of the Little Shell Tribe. S. 724, introduced by 

our tireless champion Senator Tester, would accomplish this long sought goal for the 

Tribe. I urge the committee to act favorably on S. 724. The bill is consistent with 

Congress’ and the Department of the Interior’s historical commitments to acknowledge our people and establish a land base for them. This bill is necessary since our 

experience with the acknowledgment process administered by the Office of Federal 

Acknowledgment, Bureau of Indian Affairs, shows that the Department either cannot or will not bring that process to conclusion. And the terms of S. 724 show it 

to be a reasonable approach that would address, and thereby expedite, issues related to confirmation of the Tribe’s federal status. 

The History of the Little Shell Tribe 

The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians is the successor in interest to the 

Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. We were buffalo hunters who 

lived and hunted around the Red River and the Turtle Mountains in North Dakota 

in the early 1800s. The Pembina Band was recognized by the United States in an 

1863 treaty that was ratified by the Senate. See Treaty of October 2, 1863, 13 Stat. 

667. After the treaty, some members of the Pembina Band settled on reservations 

in Minnesota but our ancestors followed the buffalo herds into western North Dakota and Montana, eventually settling in Montana and in the Turtle Mountains of 

North Dakota. 

In 1892, the United States authorized the creation of a commission to negotiate 

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

moved to Montana and joined with other members of the Pembina Band who had 

settled in Montana; our collective Pembina ancestors came to be known as the ‘‘Little Shell Band.’’ When our traditional means of livelihood died with the buffalo 

herds, our ancestors were left to eke out an existence in a number of shantytowns 

across Montana. We became known as ‘‘the trash-can Indian,’’ or ‘‘the landless Indians.’’ Forced to live in communities which did not welcome us, our people faced severe racism and discrimination throughout Montana, some of which continues today. 

For one hundred years now, Congress has known of and attempted to address the 

plight of the Little Shell people. In 1908, Congress first appropriated funds to settle 

our people on a land base. 35 Stat. 84. Congress appropriated funds again in 1914 

and, again, every year thereafter until 1925—all to provide a reservation land base 

on which to settle the ‘‘homeless Indians in the State of Montana.’’ The acquisition 

was never made and the Tribe never recognized. 

In the 1920s, newspaper articles chronicled the plight of our people. Our leaders 

pleaded for help for the destitute Little Shell people. Tribal leader Joseph Dussome 

asked Congress, ‘‘Are we not entitled to a Reservation and allotments of land in our 

own County, just the same as other Indians are? ’’ Two weeks later, the Department 

of the Interior rejected our leader’s plea: 

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

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

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

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

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

Letter of Asst. Secretary Scattergood, dated December 14, 1931. Three years later, 

however, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act [IRA], which provided a 

mechanism for groups of Indians like ours to organize and apply for land. In December 1935, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs took steps to organize our people 

under the IRA. The Commissioner proposed a form to enroll our people, stating: 

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

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

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

BIA Letter, December 23, 1935. This effort resulted in the Roe Cloud Roll, named 

after Dr. Henry Roe Cloud, an Interior official who played a large part in the 

16 

project. Once the roll was complete, the Field Administrator clearly stated that the 

purpose of the roll was to settle our people and bring them under federal jurisdiction: 

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

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

Rocky Boy’s band had endured. 

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

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

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

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

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

is provided for those who cannot provide for themselves. The first step in the 

programs is to recognize those Indians of the group who may rightfully make 

claim of being one-half degree, which is the occasion for presenting the attached 

applications. The fact of these people being Indian and being entitled to the 

benefits intended by Congress has not been questioned. 

Roe Cloud Roll applications, 1937. The Department of the Interior never fulfilled 

this promise. The limited resources available to acquire land were expended for 

tribes already recognized. In 1940, Senator James Murray requested Interior to fulfill its promise of land for the Little Shell Band. Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman responded that his office was ‘‘keenly aware of the pressing need of the landless Chippewa Cree Indians of Montana. The problem thus far has been dealt with 

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

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

in a more adequate manner.’’ Unfortunately, the Federal Government’s efforts to assist the Little Shell Tribe gave way during the termination era of the 1950s to the 

termination policy, and, as a result, the land promised for our people was never 

forthcoming. 

Recent Experience With the Office of Federal Acknowledgment [OFA] 

When the Department of the Interior adopted regulations establishing an administrative process to acknowledge Indian tribes in 1978, once again the Little Shell 

people had hope. We hoped that the Department’s process would finally bring to 

conclusion the Tribe’s long effort to achieve federal recognition. The administrative 

process has turned out to be just another cruel hoax on the Little Shell people. We 

began work on through this new process in 1978 and, thirty years later, it still has 

not been completed. 

For years after its initial submission, the Tribe researched its history and community to establish the seven mandatory criteria under the regulations. We had numerous technical assistance meetings with the staff and responded to requests for 

additional information. Finally, nearly twenty years later in 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs declared that the Tribe’s petition was ready for active consideration. 

However, a ‘‘ready for active consideration’’ designation does not mean that the 

OFA will commence its review; it only means that you get into line. Active consideration begins only when the Bureau of Indian Affairs has time to commence active 

consideration. In our case, that was 1997, two years after the petition was declared 

ready for active. At that point, we hoped that we were at least on the road toward 

completion of the process. Once again, we were wrong. 

On July 24, 2000, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finally issued the proposed finding 

on the Tribe’s petition. The proposed finding found that the Tribe had met all the 

seven mandatory criteria and should be recognized—but this was not the end of the 

process. It merely triggered the next step—which is public comment on the proposed 

finding and review by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of those public comments as part 

of its final determination. 

The Tribe takes very little comfort in the favorable proposed finding. Although the 

Department found that the Tribe met all the mandatory criteria, the Department 

‘‘encouraged’’ the Tribe to submit more documentation. No significant evidence was 

submitted in opposition to the favorable proposed finding. Unlike many other cases, 

neither the State of Montana nor any local government submitted adverse comments on the proposed favorable finding for the Little Shell Tribe. But the Department made clear that it preferred that the Tribe submit additional records for certain time periods before the 1930s. We took the Department’s suggestion to heart, 

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

17 

We are still waiting for the Department’s final determination on the Tribe’s petition. The Director of OFA advised a federal court in June 2005 that OFA expected 

to issue its Final Determination on Little Shell in February 2007. See 8th Declaration of Lee Fleming, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council v. Norton, Case 

No.1:01CV00111 (D.D.C.) This did not happen. Then, OFA advised the Tribe in writing to expect the commencement of active consideration on the final determination 

on August 1, 2007. This did not happen, either. Instead, OFA granted itself extensions, advising the Tribe to expect active consideration on the final determination 

to begin by August 1, 2008, with a final determination to be issued by the end of 

2008. Once more, this did not happen. On July 24, 2008, the Tribe received another 

letter from OFA, granting itself yet one more extension. Now, we are told to expect 

a final determination by January 28, 2009. Of course, nothing prevents the OFA 

from granting itself another extension, so the Tribe has no confidence that this new 

deadline is any more firm than the earlier deadlines. 

Over the past 30 years, the Tribe has been fortunate to have the services of the 

Native American Rights Fund on its petition. Without NARF’s assistance, it would 

have been impossible for the Tribe to participate in this protracted and expensive 

administrative process. NARF has spent over 3,400 attorney hours over the last fifteen years on our petition. Consultants and graduate students put in thousands and 

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

and graduate students, donated substantial amounts of time pro bono or worked at 

substantially reduced rates in compiling large portions of the petition. Even with 

this generosity, the total cost for consultants and associated expenses over the last 

fifteen years exceeds $1 million dollars. 

The lengthy process also imposes an immeasurable human cost, with the recognition battle passing from one generation to the next. The demands of providing for 

my people without the protection of federal recognition, a protection that has been 

promised for one hundred years, has been daunting, to say the least. And it is just 

heartbreaking to think that, after all we’ve been through with this administrative 

process, the Department could at the end of day even decide not to confer federal 

acknowledgment, to reverse its own favorable proposed finding. 

Enough is enough. It’s time for Congress to step in, to accept what the Department itself found in its proposed finding—that the Little Shell Tribe is entitled to 

federal recognition. It is unconscionable that nine years after it found that the Little 

Shell constitutes an Indian tribe, that in the face of no significant opposition to that 

proposed favorable finding, that the Little Shell Tribe is still waiting. One entire 

generation of Little Shell people has passed away, including my own father, as we 

wait for administrative action and we have no confidence that the new deadline will 

be met. 

The Constitution of the United States gives the Congress the privilege and right 

to recognize tribal governments. The Congress has considered the needs of the Little 

Shell people time and time again. Congress should not wait any longer, and should 

not force the Little Shell people to wait any longer, for the completion of a seemingly never ending administrative process. It’s time for Congress itself to issue the 

final determination on the status of the Little Shell Tribe and enact S. 724. 

The Reasonable and Necessary Terms of S. 724 

First and foremost, S. 724 takes the final step that has been interminably delayed 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs—even though it has essentially acknowledged that 

the Little Tribe is real and should be recognized—and that is the confirmation of 

federal recognition for the Tribe. This has been promised to the Tribe, both by Congress and the Department of the Interior. There is no rational reason for further 

delay. Since the Department does not seem capable of bringing its deliberations to 

an end, the Congress should do so by recognizing the Little Shell Tribe through legislation. 

I must underscore that the State of Montana, affected local governments, and all 

recognized tribes in the State of Montana support the bill to recognize the Little 

Shell Tribe. The circumstances here truly are unique. The Department of the Interior has already issued a proposed favorable finding on the Tribe’s petition and 

there is no government opposition to recognition of the Tribe. In this case, the enactment of federal recognition legislation only makes sense. 

In addition, S. 724 does more than simply confirm federal recognition. It addresses many of the issues newly recognized tribes and local communities struggle with 

for decades after formal federal recognition—the establishment of a land base and 

a tribal service area. It is well documented that it takes years and sometimes more 

than a decade for the Department of the Interior to take land into trust for newly 

recognized tribes. For example, it took eight years after the Jena Band of Choctaw 

Tribe was recognized before Interior took that Tribe’s cemetery and governmental 

18 

offices into trust. Further, many tribes suffer from the years it takes for the Department to establish a service area for the newly recognized tribe. For example, after 

completion of administrative challenges to the Department’s final determination acknowledging the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in 2002, the Cowlitz Tribe still does not have 

a BIA service area. Thus, even if the Department of the Interior does issue its final 

determination next year (which is doubtful given the Tribe’s experience with OFA), 

the Tribe could be forced to endure many additional years in legal limbo as it struggles to establish and land base and service area. 

S. 724 addresses these issues. It defines a service area for the Tribe consisting 

of four counties where our people live. It also directs the Secretary to acquire trust 

title to 200 acres located within the service area to be used as a tribal land base. 

With these terms, the Little Shell people are put much closer to the actual delivery 

of federal Indian trust services and benefits. 

Can any reasonable person believe that the Little Shell people haven’t waited long 

enough? The enactment of S. 724 would finally end the uncertainty regarding the 

status of the Little Shell people. The enactment of S. 724 would finally provide for 

the establishment of a land base for the Little Shell people, something the Department of the Interior promised one hundred years ago. And the enactment of S. 724 

would provide certainty for the local governments that support recognition of the 

Little Shell Tribe, by defining the Tribe’s service area and the location of a land 

base. 

Conclusion 

As our history shows, the Little Shell people are persistent and patient. But I 

have difficulty in explaining to my people why we still remain unrecognized, even 

though the Department of the Interior issued a favorable proposed finding on the 

Tribe’s petition in 2000. We have waited on the Department for one hundred years. 

Now it’s time for Congress to act. The Little Shell people implore this Committee 

to act favorably on S. 724 and allow the bill to move forward. 

Additional Testimony 

It was a pleasure to testify before the Committee on S. 724, a bill to reestablish 

the government to government relationship between the United States and the Little Shell Chippewa Tribe of Montana. At that hearing, Mr. Lee Fleming of the Office 

of Federal Acknowledgment made statements regarding the Little Shell Tribe that 

are of concern to the Tribe and which therefore require a response. Towards that 

end, I respectfully request that this supplemental statement of the Little Shell Tribe 

be included in the hearing record. There are three issues I wish to address. 

1. OFA’s Alleged ‘‘Warning’’ in the Favorable Proposed Finding 

Mr. Fleming testified that the Little Shell Tribe had been ‘‘warned’’ in OFA’s favorable proposed finding that there were gaps in the Tribe’s documentation, gaps 

that had to be filled or the Tribe would run the risk that OFA’s favorable finding 

could turn into a negative final determination. As OFA stated in the Notice of Proposed Finding on the Little Shell petition, ‘‘This proposed finding is based on the 

available evidence and does not preclude the submission of other evidence to the 

contrary. Such new evidence may result in a change in the conclusions reached in 

the proposed finding.’’ 65 F. Reg. 45394, 45396 (July 21, 2000). In other words, because no new evidence was submitted that would support a contrary finding, there 

is no basis in the record for turning the favorable proposed finding into a negative 

final determination. 

In fact, Mr. Fleming’s suggestion that Little Shell had been ‘‘warned’’ in the favorable proposed finding is contradicted by the finding itself. On criterion (a), OFA’s 

proposed finding specifically states that contrary new evidence would be required 

to reverse the favorable proposed finding: 

This proposed finding also accepts as a reasonable likelihood that references to 

the petitioner’s individual ancestors as Indians and references to portions of 

their ancestors as residents of Indian settlements before the 1930’s are consistent with the identifications of these and other ancestors of the petitioner as 

Indian groups after 1935. This conclusion departs from prior decisions for meeting criterion (a), which required evidence of a specific identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity during each decade. The Department believes that, 

absent strong proof to the contrary, it is fair to infer a continuity of identification 

from the evidence presented... (emphasis supplied) 

Summary under the Criteria for the Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana (July 14, 2000) at 

page 6 (hereafter ‘‘Summary’’). 

19 

It would be arbitrary and capricious for OFA now to apply a different standard 

to the Little Shell Tribe in order to reverse the favorable proposed finding in the 

absence of new, negative evidence. 

Finally, the Tribe did, in fact, submit substantial additional evidence in response 

to OFA’s request for more documents in the favorable proposed finding. For example, additional work has demonstrated that the percentage of members tracing to 

a historical tribe is higher than thought in the proposed finding, i.e., is 94%, not 

62% We provided this additional information specifically to show that there was no 

‘‘departure’’ from previous practice in the favorable proposed finding, not because we 

believed such a showing was necessary to avoid a reversal of the finding into a negative final determination. As OFA’s proposed finding observed, certain departures 

from previous acknowledgment decisions for Little Shell were warranted, but additional evidence from the Tribe ‘‘may create a different record and a more complete 

factual basis for the final determination, and thus eliminate or reduce the scope of 

these contemplated departures from precedence.’’ 65 F. Reg. at 45395. Since no substantial negative evidence was submitted, and all governmental entities in the state 

support the recognition, our Tribe has expected that—someday when OFA ever finishes its work on our petition—the favorable proposed finding would become a favorable final determination. (But see concern expressed in section 2, infra.) Now, the 

very existence of the voluminous record of 67,000 pages, a record OFA convinced 

the Tribe it needed to generate, is used as an excuse by OFA for having missed its 

deadlines. 

2. OFA’s Failure to Share New Information with the Little Shell Tribe 

Mr. Fleming espoused his view that tribes should be required to go through the 

complete administrative process so that all the evidence relating to tribal existence 

can be ‘‘scrutinized’’ by all concerned. But in fact OFA’s process does not allow this 

‘‘scrutiny’’ of all evidence, even by the petitioner. For example, 25 CFR § 83.10 (l)(1) 

provides that after the period for submitting materials has closed, the ‘‘Assistant 

Secretary may also conduct such additional research as is necessary to evaluate and 

supplement the record.... the additional materials will become part of the petition record.’’ However, OFA makes no allowance in its regulations for a petitioner 

to access and respond to these materials prior to a final determination. In fact, OFA 

conducted weeks of field study in Montana after the closing date for submission of 

materials, conducting dozens of interviews and accumulating other materials as 

well. These materials have not been provided to the Little Shell Tribe despite the 

Tribe’s request that they be shared. 

Indeed, the Tribe was forced to file a Freedom of Information Act request for the 

documents and OFA denied the Tribe’s request for a waiver of the FOIA fees, which 

OFA estimated at approximately $4,500 dollars. The Tribe appealed OFA’s denial 

of the fee waiver request, but then the Tribe ultimately informed OFA that it would 

pay the under protest. OFA then informed us that the twenty working day time 

within which FOIA allows OFA to respond could not be met. When we asked OFA 

how long it would take to produce the new documents, our attorney was informed 

that the OFA attorneys who must review for privacy matters were all busy and that 

review of the responsive documents was not a high priority for them. Who knows 

when, if ever, we will get the material? And even if it is provided, there is no provision in the process for us to comment on them or to supplement the record if necessary before the final determination is made. The OFA process itself violates due 

process. 

3. Extensions of Time 

In his testimony, Mr. Fleming tried to emphasize that the Tribe itself had asked 

for numerous extensions as an excuse for OFA missing its target dates for completing the final determination. Mr. Fleming’s attempt to blame shift is based on 

a mixing of apples and oranges. He tries to compare the Tribe’s ‘‘understandable difficulty in completing research on a very large number of dispossessed Indians on 

the American frontier’’ (Summary, supra, at page 6) with the Department’s duty to 

analyze such information once it has been gathered in one place. The latter is a far 

more manageable task. It should be noted that unfortunately, the Tribe’s chief researcher, Dr. Rob Franklin, passed away during this process. It fell to his wife, Dr. 

Pamela Bunte to pick up the work, juggle her teaching duties, and struggle with 

her own physical ailments in an effort finally to finish the process of submitting materials to OFA. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, there was nothing in Mr. Fleming’s statement or response to questions at the hearing that explains either why OFA has been unable to meet its deadVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
20 

lines to issue a final determination for Little Shell or how that determination can 

be anything other than favorable. 

The CHAIRMAN. President Sinclair, thank you very much. We appreciate your being here and your testimony. 

The Honorable Ann Tucker will testify next, Chairwoman of the 

Muscogee Nation of Florida. 

Chairwoman Tucker, thank you very much for being here. You 

may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER, CHAIRWOMAN, 

MUSCOGEE NATION OF FLORIDA 

Ms. TUCKER. Chairman Dorgan, Honorable Committee Members, 

my name is Ann Denson Tucker. I am Chairwoman of the 

Muscogee Nation of Florida, the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians, and I welcome the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 514 

for the immediate Federal recognition of our tribe. I wish to thank 

Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez for their bipartisan sponsorship of this important legislation, and their staff members who 

have spent hours to ensure that this legislative request is the proper thing to do and the right way to do it. 

Thirty years of BIA process have inflicted financial hardship and 

injury on some of the poorest people in Northwest Florida, the 

Creek Indian people, and there is no end in sight. Because of the 

BIA’s inability to act on this petition, the Muscogee Nation of Florida must rely on Congress. 

Muscogee Nation of Florida’s center of government is in the 

Bruce Indian community of Walton County, Florida. Our ancestors 

signed 11 treaties with the United States Government between 

1790 and 1833. After President Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal 

policies had decimated the Creek confederacy, our ancestors were 

faced with a brutal choice: remove from our homeland or find a 

way to survive. We found a way to survive. 

For the first half of the 19th century, we lived in Dale County, 

Alabama, in an Indian encampment near the Choctawhatchee 

River. By the Civil War, we were moving at night to avoid Indian 

removal and following the river south to Bruce Creek, where we 

still live today. We established our community, continued our traditions, fished, hunted, timbered, and farmed cooperatively. We did 

not have anthropologists traveling into the wilderness that was 

Northwest Florida to seek out Indians in a place where Jim Crow 

laws had made Indians illegal and the KKK reigned supreme to enforce this policy. 

In 1850 Florida, it was illegal to trade with Indians. In 1851 

Florida, it was illegal for Indians to hunt and to fish. In 1852 Florida, it was illegal under penalty of death for Indians to be Indians. 

We have spent 150 years on this homeland, the land of Timpoochee 

Canard, the land of the Euchees. We live separate, apart, with 

known community leaders, and they have addressed the needs of 

our community to the outside world at the local, State, and even 

Federal level. We had our own currency. We had our own teachers 

for our own school. 

Our council house was the geographic center of our town, the 

same building used for community meetings, political venues, community business, and community celebrations. It is still, today, our 

21 

voting precinct. We have our own cemeteries and our own church 

with handwritten records that are 100 years old. We have a constitution, a baseline roll, and tribal codes that have been updated 

through the assistance of the Administration for Native Americans. 

We have our language preserved and we are proud that one of 

our young adult tribal members recently addressed the United Nations on the urgency of protecting the indigenous languages of this 

Country. 

Jim Crow laws did not allow my tribe to have a State reservation. Our State recognition was by concurrent resolutions passed by 

the House and Senate of the State of Florida. It is the best that 

you get in Florida, and we are the only Tribe that has this. In Florida, we have no Indian commission to oversee a State recognition. 

If we are not a Federal tribe, we are considered to be nothing at 

all. 

The legacy of Jim Crow laws is that southeastern tribes historically require intervention from Congress. We are not an exception 

to the rule with this legislation; we are the norm. The May 23rd, 

2008 policy letter from the former deputy director of the BIA removed any doubts as to whether my Tribe should be in this Committee with Senate Bill 514. A unilateral pronouncement in his policy letter enabled another acknowledgment applicant to be bumped 

to the top of the list for review. 

If the criteria for recognition can be arbitrarily and capriciously 

changed and interpreted, then there is no reason to believe that 

Muscogee Nation of Florida will ever receive due process or timely 

disposition. We can be ignored and selectively bypassed by other 

applicants, regardless of filing dates, and tossed out of the process 

and told to find another method without full review of our tribal 

data. 

The BIA process is broken beyond repair for the Muscogee Nation of Florida. My tribal government has determined that congressional recognition is our only option. Our arduous journey from 

Bruce, Florida to these halls of Congress has taken us 150 years. 

We now stand ready, waiting for active consideration for Congress 

to take action on Senate Bill 514. Thank you for allowing us to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER, CHAIRWOMAN, MUSCOGEE

NATION OF FLORIDA

Introduction 

Chairman Dorgan, Honorable Committee Members, my name is Ann Denson 

Tucker. I am Chairwoman of the Muscogee Nation of Florida, the Florida Tribe of 

Eastern Creek Indians. Thank you for inviting me to testify about my tribe’s experience with the federal recognition process. 

My tribe needs and deserves federal recognition, and we need Congress to take 

action. Three decades of paperwork, costs, and delays are sapping my tribe of economic resources that could be going to help our members and delaying our ability 

to access federal programs designed to help tribes in our situation. 

First, I would like to remind you about who my tribe is. 

The Muscogee Nation of Florida, also known as the Florida Tribe of Eastern 

Creek Indians, is a tribe of Creek Indian people whose home is centered in Bruce, 

in Walton County, Florida. Our ancestors signed 11 treaties with the United States 

between 1790 and 1833 that led to their forced removal from their traditional homelands. Eventually, our tribal ancestors left their Indian enclave in Daleville, AlaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
22 

bama and followed the Choctawhatchee River south to Bruce Creek, where we reestablished our community and homes, fished, hunted, farmed cooperatively, raised 

cattle, and practiced our traditional ceremonies. My Tribe has lived on this land as 

a community and as a cultural, social and political unit for 150 years. 

Unfortunately, the tale of my tribe is not complete without understanding 

the effort that was made to erase us from history. 

By the time we migrated from Daleville to Bruce, Jim Crow laws had been enacted in Florida (see attachment 2). By 1850 it was illegal to trade with Indians. 

And in 1852, it became illegal—under penalty of death—for Indians to be ‘‘Indian,’’ 

unless the Indian was a Seminole or was confined to a Reservation. 

Because my tribe neither was Seminole nor had a reservation, the Jim Crow laws 

made it impossible for my tribe to openly embrace its cultural heritage and community. While we survived, until the Jim Crow laws were repealed by federal law, the 

Civil Rights Act, the tribe was forced to hide its government, traditional ceremonies, 

and culture. As a result, satisfying BIA’s tribal recognition requirements became difficult, but we struggled to meet their paperwork demands. However, a series of 

changes of BIA recognition regulations has made the task impossible because the 

agency is demanding written documents that do not exist because Jim Crow laws 

criminalized interactions with our tribe. 

This brings us to why I am here today—the BIA has made it clear that they 

do not intend to act on our tribe’s petition for recognition. 

It has been 60 years since our community leader—my great grandfather–wrote to 

the BIA and explained that our people deserved compensation for lands taken under 

the Treaty of Ft. Jackson (see attachment 3). BIA’s response, which is on file in the 

Federal Archives, was dismissive, declaring curtly, ‘‘You are mistaken. You cannot 

possibly be who you say you are because the members of that Tribe are either dead 

or removed. . .’’ Fast forward to 1957, when the Seminole Tribe of Florida gained 

federal recognition and BIA finally acknowledged that it had not rid the Southeast 

of the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians. Fast forward again, 14 years, to 1971, 

when BIA finally verified our racial identification to the U.S. Government and, in 

turn, to the State of Florida. By then, my great grandfather had been dead for 2 

years, and we had already spent 24 years trying to get BIA to acknowledge our existence as Indians, much less our status as a tribe. Now, 37 years later, I am here 

to tell you that our Indian community and tribal government are still waiting, and 

we need Congress to intervene. 

My tribe has spent many thousands of dollars and an untold amount of time trying to satisfy the BIA. We have retained attorneys, historians, genealogists, archaeologists and other experts to try to satisfy BIA’s requirements. And we have done 

it all over again when BIA’s requirements changed. After each attempt we have 

been met with new demands and no substantive action. 

The BIA made is crystal-clear earlier this year that they do not intend to take 

any reasonable actions to address our circumstances. On May 23rd, BIA published 

new guidance and direction regarding its internal procedures for evaluating petitions by Indian tribes for Federal acknowledgement. The guidance explicitly states 

that all tribes must be able to document continuous tribal existence in a manner 

that demonstrates that the tribe is entitled to a ‘‘government-to-government relationship with the United States.’’ As I just explained, we cannot satisfy this standard-because of Jim Crow laws designed to erase my tribe from history. 

The new guidance makes it clear that now one of two things will happen to the 

Muscogee Nation of Florida: (1) the BIA will address other petitions, even those submitted years after the Muscogee Nation of Florida’s submission, and will ‘‘not expend time on the’’ tribe because it cannot produce certain documents-and the petition will continue to flounder for many more years; or (2) the BIA will notify the 

Muscogee Nation of Florida that it does not meet BIA standards and will inform 

the tribe of ‘‘alternatives, if any, to acknowledgement.’’ 

In the end, the BIA cannot help my tribe because their regulations cannot recognize the unique circumstances my tribe faces. Indian tribes share much in common, 

but each tribe is also unique. We live in different geographic areas, have differing 

cultures and traditions, and have faced different legal barriers in the States where 

we reside. BIA regulations cannot accommodate these differences, and for tribes like 

mine that means we spend decades languishing in a regulatory purgatory. While 

BIA changes their rules and guidance over time, the results do not change. And although Jim Crow laws were eventually repudiated and eliminated, they continue to 

operate in the shadows by preventing our tribe from meeting BIA standards. 

23 

* The information referred to is printed in the Appendix. 

My people need your help. 

We have worked hard over recent years to tell our story and educate lawmakers 

about our plight. We request that this committee support S. 514, The Muscogee Nation of Florida Federal Recognition Act. This legislation is supported by both Senators from Florida, in the House by our local members of the House of Representatives. 

S. 514 is the only path for our tribe out of the continually shifting maze of BIA 

regulations, guidance, and demands. My people have endured delays and mistreatment for too long, and we seek your assistance. As each year passes, the tribe struggles to care for its members needs as it becomes more and more difficult to imagine 

when we will receive the federal recognition to which we are entitled. The tribal 

leaders who began the recognition process in their youth are now tribal elders. Our 

elders, like my mother, deserve to be recognized before they pass, and your assistance is our only hope for making this a reality. 

Thank You. 

Attachments * 

1) Muscogee Nation of Florida–Executive Summary 

2) Florida Jim Crow laws 

3) Court case permitting compensation for lands taken under Treaty of Ft. Jackson 

4) Demographics of tribe 1900–current 

5) Walton County endorsement of S–514 

The CHAIRMAN. Chairwoman Tucker, thank you very much for 

being here and for your testimony today. 

Next, we will hear from the Honorable Ron Yob, the Chairman 

of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians in Michigan. 

Mr. Yob, thank you. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON YOB, CHAIRMAN, GRAND RIVER 

BANDS OF OTTAWA INDIANS 

Mr. YOB. Good afternoon, Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman 

Murkowski, and members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Ron Yob, and I Chairman of the Grand River 

Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan. On behalf of my tribe, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 1058, 

a bill to expedite review of the Grand River Tribe’s petition. With 

me today is one of my tribal council members, Philip Cantu. 

We strongly believe that recognition of our Tribe is long overdue. 

We are the largest treaty tribe in the Midwest that does not have 

a government-to-government relationship with the United States. 

Our forefathers entered into five separate treaties with the United 

States: in 1795, 1807, 1821, 1836, and 1855. In the 1855 one, my 

great-great-great grandfather was one of the signatories of that 

treaty. 

Over 700 members watch as their cousins, who are enrolled in 

other Michigan tribes, enjoy the benefits of Federal recognition. 

Our members wonder why Federal education and health care is not 

available to us. It is very sad to be denied our birthright as this 

Nation’s first Americans. Over 250 of our members are one-half 

blood Grand River Ottawa. Little River has already negotiated our 

treaty land rights through agreements with utility companies without our participation or input. We need recognition so we will be 

at the table. 

24 

Our inland hunting and fishing rights were negotiated by the 

other treaty tribes in the State of Michigan and the United States. 

Grant River was not at the table. We were told not to intervene, 

and we had no money to do so, in any case. We believe that if Congress does not act soon on our recognition, the damage to our culture and traditions could be very severe. 

If we have to wait the 20 or 25 years it will take the BIA to act, 

many of our elders will be gone. They are our language speakers 

who need to pass their knowledge down. Without help from Congress, it would be very hard to maintain the transfer of our culture 

to our children. We are trying very hard to keep our traditions 

alive, but every year that goes by it becomes more and more difficult. 

We are certain that we meet the seven mandatory criteria established by the BIA and the regulations that are found at Part 83.7 

of Section 25 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The documents we provided to the BIA prove this. We have been identified 

as a distinct community since 1900. The Tribe has existed as a 

community from historical times until the present. The Tribe has 

maintained political influence over its member from historical 

times to the present. 

BIA has a copy of our current governing documents, including 

our membership criteria. Our members are individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe. Our members are not members 

of other federally recognized Indian tribes and our Tribe has not 

been terminated by an act of Congress. We have documented these 

criteria thoroughly, but I am quite sure that, as I sit here, the BIA 

has not begun to review the additional material we submitted in 

2006 and will not look at those documents until well into the next 

decade, if then. 

Meanwhile, at great expense and no financial assistance from the 

Government, the Tribe has had to, and will in the future, continuously update all the material and file it with the BIA. Recognized 

tribes receive Government loans and grants to maintain their important tribal government infrastructures. The simple fact is that 

the Federal Government system is broken. There is no way it can 

be fixed unless Congress steps in with a new law of additional 

funds. At this point, that does not seem likely. 

Congress has regularly reviewed the recognition process at least 

since the early 1980s and has agreed that the process is broken. 

In fact, Congress knows the regulations now in place are not based 

on any law passed by Congress. We hope that Congress will pass 

our bill with amendments to bring it up to date. We are happy to 

work with the Committee staff on new language. We have been on 

the current recognition system for 14 years, and hope that we do 

not have to wait another 20 years for a final determination of our 

status. 

As my testimony points out, Grand River applied for reorganization in 1935, but we were denied because the Tribe had no land 

base and the Department had no money for land purposes. Congress has preliminary authority over Indian Affairs. As such, in the 

end, Congress has the responsibility for determining who are Indians and which tribes deserve Federal reaffirmation. No one is closer to the issues than the members of Congress and Senators from 

25 

1 Burt Lake was not a named group in the treaties but its members may descend from treaty 

signatories. It was denied recognition by the BIA and Representative Stupak has introduced legislation to recognize that group. 

the States where the tribes are located. In all of the cases before 

you today, support from members of the House and Senate for the 

tribes involved is evident and should be respected. 

I want to thank you for letting me present that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yob follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON YOB, CHAIRMAN, GRAND RIVER BANDS OF

OTTAWA INDIANS

Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Murkowski and Members of 

the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Ron Yob and I am Chairman 

of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians (‘‘Tribe’’) of Michigan. Thank you very 

much for holding this hearing today on the bill, S. 1058, that would expedite review 

of the Tribe to secure a timely and just determination of whether the Tribe is entitled to recognition as a Federal Indian tribe. We would like to take this opportunity 

to express our deep appreciation to Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow for their 

interest and support of our Tribe and for introducing this legislation on our behalf. 

The two Senators also introduced a bill on behalf of the Tribe in the 109th Congress, S. 437, on which this Committee held a hearing on June 21, 2006. No companion bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, although we are 

working with Congressman Hoekstra on a bill to provide direct congressional recognition of the Tribe in the same manner as Congress, in 1994, recognized our sister 

tribes, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band 

of Ottawa Indians. 

For many valid reasons, the Tribe is very hopeful that the Committee will favorably consider S. 1058 or a similar bill. The story of our Tribe is long and varied, 

as is the story of recognition of all of the Michigan Indian Treaty Tribes of which 

the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians may be the only one that remains unrecognized. 1 The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is the largest unrecognized 

Treaty Tribe in Michigan—and perhaps in the entire United States. Our members 

live primarily in western Michigan, in the same area we have lived since before the 

Europeans first arrived there. Many elders speak our Ottawa language. Our prehistory burial mounds are located along the Grand River near the City of Grand 

Rapids and in many other areas of the River from below Lansing to Grand Haven. 

Tribal History 

Who We Are: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians of Michigan is composed 

of the 19 bands of Ottawa Indian who occupied the territory along the Grand River 

Valley and other river valleys in what is now Southwest Michigan, including the 

cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon. The Tribe has about 700 enrolled members 

and the majority live in and around the counties of Kent, Muskegon and Oceana. 

Treaties: The members of Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians are descendants 

of the signatories of the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, the 1807 Treaty of Detroit, the 

1821 Treaty of Chicago, the 1836 Treaty of Washington (DC), and the 1855 Treaty 

of Detroit. The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is a political successor Tribe 

to the original Tribes represented at the Treaty signings. Other Michigan Treaty 

Tribes include the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Little River 

Band of Ottawa Indians, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Indian 

Community. Their members are also descendants of the signers of the 1836 Treaty 

of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. All of these successor Tribes have 

now been recognized by the United States except for the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians and, perhaps, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa Indians. Below is a description of our Tribe, our continued efforts as a community to seek redress of our 

tribal land claims, and our recognition efforts. 

Continuous Existence: The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians consists of several inter-related extended families which comprise a kinship organization that 

functions today much the same way we did before Treaty times. As a community 

we gather for religious celebrations, social gatherings, and to attend to the graves 

of our ancestors. We also host the annual Homecoming of the Three Fires Pow Wow 

in Grand Rapids as we did again in June 2008. The political leadership of our Tribe 

has, to a great extent, been passed down from Headmen and Chiefs of Treaty times, 

within the same families. Each generation of leaders has represented the Tribe in 

26 

dealings with the United States and other Tribes, and tried to provide health, education and economic assistance to tribal members by whatever means available. 

Tribal Land Claims: In the 1940s, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians organized with other Tribes in Michigan under the name of the Northern Michigan 

Ottawa Association to pursue claims for reservation lands that were taken from us 

without compensation. The Tribe filed claims under the Indian Claims Act of 1946 

(25 USC § 70; Chap.2A) and the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) awarded judgment in favor of the Tribe in several dockets. These awards for Grand River Bands 

of Ottawa Indians and others became the subject of two settlement Acts of Congress 

for the distribution of the funds. 

1976 Tribal Judgment Fund Distribution Settlement Act: In 1976, the Congress 

enacted P.L. 94–540, the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians—Disposition of 

Funds to provide for the distribution of funds awarded to the Tribe in Docket 40– 

K of the ICC. The funds were allocated to persons of Grand River Bands of Ottawa 

Indian blood who were descendants of persons who appeared on the 1908 Durant 

Roll or other census rolls acceptable to the Secretary and who were one-quarter (1⁄4) 

degree Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians blood. 

1997 Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act: In 1997, the Congress passed 

the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act to implement distribution of several land claim awards. By this time, five Michigan successor Tribes to the Ottawa 

and Chippewa Treaties had been recognized by the United States. The first, Bay 

Mills Indian Community (Chippewa), was recognized by the Secretary in 1935–37. 

In the 1970s, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians was recognized by the 

Department of the Interior prior to promulgation of the 1978 regulations governing 

federal acknowledgment procedures. The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians was the first to be recognized under the new regulations. Finally, the 

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa 

Indians were recognized by an Act of Congress in 1994. 

The 1997 Settlement Act provided for the distribution of funds awarded in ICC 

dockets 18–E, 58, and 364 (Ottawa and Chippewa) and docket 18–R (Bay Mills and 

Sault Ste. Marie). The Act reflected the Tribes’ agreement as to distribution and 

shares. The per capita shares for the members of the unrecognized Tribes were included in the 1997 Act along with a set-aside for any Tribes that might be recognized within a specific time frame. Section 106(d)(1) of the Act describes the potential eligible unrecognized treaty tribes as: Grand River, Traverse, Grand Traverse, 

Little Traverse, Maskigo, or L’Arbre Croche, Cheboigan, Sault Ste. Marie, 

Michilmackinac. In the 1997 Act, we believe the Congress used tribal names that 

were contained in the treaties that gave rise to the land claims. 

Of the nine other Michigan groups currently on the BIA list of groups petitioning 

for federal recognition, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is the only one 

that represents—by name—a historic Michigan Treaty Tribe. This is important because the 1997 law set aside funds for treaty descendants who are not members of 

a federally recognized tribe but who are one-quarter blood Ottawa/Chippewa. It also 

set aside funds for the unrecognized Tribes, such as the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, for the operation of tribal programs. 

The Act provided that, to be eligible for the set-aside, an unrecognized Tribe must 

have filed its documented petition by December 15, 2000 (3 years after date of enactment). The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians filed it petition on December 8, 

2000. The Act gave the BIA six years to issue a final determination. Unfortunately, 

despite the fact that the Tribe filed its petition within the timeframe set by Congress, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Federal Acknowledgment has still, to 

this day, failed to act on the Tribe’s petition. The judgment funds were paid to members in June 2007, about eight weeks after our bill, S. 1058, was introduced in the 

110th Congress. Our Tribe will not receive its share of the judgment funds or the 

bonus funds that Congress had set aside in the 1997 Act for newly recognized treaty 

tribes. That money is now gone forever, yet there is no penalty against the BIA for 

its failure to abide by the requirements of the law. 

Tribal Recognition Efforts: In 1934, the Tribe filed to reorganize its government 

under the Indian Reorganization Act enacted that same year. Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier (and author of the IRA) concluded that the Tribe was eligible for reorganization. However, we were put on hold because of federal funding 

issues. After World War II, the Federal Government’s position toward Tribes 

changed and the Termination era took hold in earnest in the 1950s. Thus, reorganization was not an option politically so the Tribe’s efforts were put on hold again. 

(The Tribe remained actively engaged during this period, however, in pursuing our 

Treaty land claims as discussed above.). During the 1970s and 1980s Tribal leaders 

did not pursue Federal Recognition as some of our elders and leaders, believing we 

27 

were already recognized by the United States, feared that this process would actually threaten our status as a sovereign nation. 

However by the early 1990s we recognized that formal federal recognition would 

be necessary for us to pursue treaty, statutory rights and the protection of our people. In 1994, the Tribe filed a letter of intent with the BIA to file a petition for recognition and the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is petitioner #146. 

After making our submission on December 8, 2000 (21 boxes—three sets each of 

seven archival boxes), the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians did not hear from 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs until April 2004 when they granted us a technical assistance meeting at the request of Congressman Pete Hoekstra. It took another nine 

months for us to receive our 29-page technical assistance (TA) letter on January 26, 

2005. The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians spent the next 17 months gathering materials and preparing a 63-page legal response supported by a 265-page 

ethno-historical response to the TA letter, including additional documents and two 

certified copies of all of our membership documents. The Tribe filed this response 

to the TA letter on June 9, 2006. 

Conclusion: We know the Committee is well aware of the time consuming and 

very expensive work that goes into filing a petition for Federal recognition as an 

Indian Tribe. We have no doubt that the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indian 

meets the seven criteria set out in the regulations and is qualified to be recognized 

by the Federal government and to enjoy the benefits of the trust protection and the 

government-to-government relationship that will ensue. If S. 1058 is not passed and 

the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians remains mired in the Federal Acknowledgment Process, we estimate it will take 15 to 25 years for recognition to come. 

In the meantime, our tribal citizens do not share the benefits that their cousins in 

other Michigan Tribes enjoy. And many of our elders will be gone without having 

had the benefit of recognition. Our Indian children will not be considered to be Indian children for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC § 1901 et seq., 

and will not be protected as Congress intended. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians has the support of its community, 

other Michigan Tribes, and our Senators, as evidenced by their introduction of S. 

1058. This bill does not directly recognize the Tribe but instead refers the matter 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a determination, with timelines for deciding the 

Tribe’s status and filing a Report to Congress. 

Now that the BIA has utterly failed to meet its obligations under the 1997 Act, 

we hope that Congress will grant federal status to the Grand River Bands of Ottawa 

Indians in the same manner that it reaffirmed the existence of four other Michigan 

Tribes—Lac Vieux Desert in 1988, and, in 1994, the Little River Band of Ottawa 

Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Pokagon Band 

of Potawatomi Indians. There is ample precedent for direct reaffirmation of our status. We are painfully aware that Congressional Acts to recognize Tribes have fallen 

out of favor and believe S. 1058 will give Congress the needed assurance that the 

Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is deserving of the Federal relationship. 

The September 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine contains a map of 

historic Indian country which shows the ‘‘Grand River Ottawa’’ as the historic Tribe 

of Southwestern Michigan. We know that the opinion of mapping scholars does not 

match the exhaustive work of the OFA in determining whether an existing tribal 

group is indeed the successor to an historic Tribe, but we are confident that the 

Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians is such a Tribe and take pride in realizing 

that many others think so, too. 

The Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians has always been an active leader in 

the Michigan Indian community. We participate, though often unofficially, in Indian 

Child Welfare cases, NAGPRA repatriation matters and other Indian affairs dealings with state, local and private entities. We also spearheaded the return of the 

original 1855 Treaty to Grand Rapids that was exhibited in the Museum named for 

former President Gerald Ford. 

We are attaching the ‘‘Resolution of the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians 

June 18, 2002’’ that authorizes the Tribe to seek legislation in Congress to direct 

the Department of the Interior to act timely on our petition. 

Thank you again for you attention to S. 1058 and we implore the Committee to 

act quickly on this legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yob, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Finally, we will hear from Dr. Helen Rountree, Professor Emeritus at Old Dominion University, Department of Anthropology, in 

Norfolk, Virginia. 

28 

Ms. Rountree, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN C. ROUNTREE, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

EMERITUS, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, OLD 

DOMINION UNIVERSITY 

Ms. ROUNTREE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and guests, it is my 

honor to speak on behalf of these Virginia Indian people, with 

whom I have been working intensively since 1969. I would add I 

haven’t gotten a dime for it. 

I am Dr. Helen C. Rountree, Professor Emerita of Anthropology 

at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. I have produced 

seven books so far on the native people of Virginia. 

At this point, I request that all testimony, written and oral, that 

has been presented in previous hearings on the Virginia tribes be 

entered into the record along with today’s testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Ms. ROUNTREE. Thank you, sir. 

The ancestors of the tribes I speak for were native to Virginia 

when Jamestown was founded. All were signatories in 1677 to a 

treaty between the Virginia tribes and the King of England. However, they became landless as non-Indian settlers poured in and, by 

Virginia custom—not law—such Indian communities were considered to be outside the scope of the treaty. The treaty itself was 

with the King of England and is now considered to be with the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, not the United States. These tribes, 

therefore, remained State Indians in a State that ignored them, a 

situation very different from that of the other three tribes represented in this hearing. 

When much more detailed U.S. census records began to be made 

in 1850, these people do appear as enclaves and, in some U.S. censuses, specifically Indian ones. They are traceable as the ancestors 

of the six Virginia tribes before you today. 

The Office of Federal Acknowledgment has just this year issued 

changes to try to speed up the Federal recognition process, but they 

do very little for the six tribes of whom I speak. Most of the 

changes are for tribes with a treaty and/or IRA relationship with 

the Federal Government, which these six tribes do not have. The 

remaining change, moving up the starting date to 1789, does not 

do much for them either. Aside from the problems with pre–1850 

records, which I have documented elsewhere, there are problems 

with State and local records that make these Indian communities 

hard for a researcher to track. It is as if the ever-growing legend 

of Pocahontas—thank you, Disney—contrasted with the reality of 

19th and 20th century Indian people, made Anglo-Virginians ever 

less tolerant of anything other than the legend. 

Beginning after the Civil War and culminating with Virginia’s 

Racial Integrity Law of 1924, Virginia became a State committed 

to the proposition that there were only two races, ‘‘white’’ and ‘‘colored,’’ leaving no room for Indians. Under the 1924 law, anyone insisting upon an Indian identity on an official document could be 

sent to prison for a year. Several people were, in fact, imprisoned 

for such insistence. I knew one of them, by the way, personally. 

29 

The campaign to eliminate Indians from the State was headed by 

the State’s Vital Statistics Bureau, which went so far as to issue 

a circular with ‘‘suspicious’’ families’ names listed county by county. 

The families were referred to as ‘‘these mongrels.’’ The circular was 

sent to all officials in charge of county records, all school superintendents, and all licensed health personnel, who signed off on 

birth and death certificates, in the State. It is no wonder that these 

Indian communities became much harder for researchers to find. 

Some of their members left the State, keeping up their ties to 

home but returning only during the Civil Rights era when they no 

longer had to be, as one old-timer said to me, ‘‘scared like a rabbit.’’ 

But the communities hung together and hung on, as the attached 

quick-reference chart will show. That is page 4 of my testimony. 

They still exist, and they still say they are Indians. And even now, 

so thorough was the public relations campaign against them for 

decades, they meet skepticism on a daily basis. 

The tribes I speak for today consulted a BIA representative over 

a decade ago and were told that even if they submitted a petition 

forthwith, they would not see a decision ‘‘in your lifetime.’’ And this 

was said to people then in their 40s. The six tribes are not merely 

being impatient in wanting to move faster than that. Their primary 

motive for seeking Federal recognition is getting better access to 

health programs, badly needed by their elders now. 

Little schooling in Virginia was available to those people when 

they were young, if they wanted to remain ‘‘Indians’’ in the State. 

See the quick-reference chart; it will tell you how many schools did 

not go beyond grade school. Therefore, their income level has suffered ever since, and in their old age they are hurting badly. The 

six tribes are not interested in remedying that fact through gaming. In fact, they have waived their rights to gaming, if they are 

recognized. Instead, they hope to provide better conditions for their 

people through Federal Indian programs after recognition by the 

United States Congress. 

These tribes have endured over three centuries of injustice, some 

of the worst of it and by far the most public of it being in the recent past. Without Federal recognition and the aid springing from 

it, the injustice is ongoing. I hope that you will accede to their request for acknowledgment. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rountree follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN C. ROUNTREE, PH.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS, 

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY, OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and guests: It is my honor to speak 

on behalf of these Virginia Indian people, with whom I have been working intensively since 1969. I am Dr. Helen C. Rountree, Professor Emerita of Anthropology 

at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. I have produced seven books, so 

far, on the Native people of Virginia. 

At this point, I request that all testimony, written and oral, that has been presented in previous hearings on the Virginia tribes be entered into the record along 

with today’s testimony. 

The ancestors of the tribes I speak for were native to Virginia when Jamestown 

was founded; all were signatories in 1677 to a treaty between the Virginia tribes 

and the King of England. However, they became landless as non-Indian settlers 

poured in, and by Virginia custom (not law) such Indian communities were considered to be outside the scope of the treaty. The treaty itself was with the King of 

England and is now considered to be with the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the 

United States. These tribes therefore remained ‘‘state’’ Indians in a state that igVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
30 

nored them, a situation very different from that of the other three tribes represented in this hearing. When much more detailed U.S. Census records began to 

be made in 1850, these people appear as enclaves and, in some U.S. Censuses, specifically Indian ones. They are traceable as the ancestors of the six Virginia tribes 

before you today. 

The Office of Federal Acknowledgment has just this year issued changes to try 

to speed up the federal recognition process, but they do very little for the six tribes 

of whom I speak. Most of the changes are for tribes with a treaty and/or I.R.A. relationship with the Federal Government, which these six tribes do not have. The remaining change, moving up the starting date to 1789, does not do much for them, 

either. Aside from the problems with pre–1850 records, which I have documented 

elsewhere, there are problems with state and local records that make these Indian 

communities hard for a researcher to track. It is as if the ever-growing legend of 

Pocahontas, contrasted with the reality of 19th and 20th century Indian people, 

made Anglo-Virginians ever less tolerant of anything other than the legend. 

Beginning after the Civil War and culminating with Virginia’s Racial Integrity 

Law of 1924, Virginia became a state committed to the proposition that there were 

only two races, ‘‘white’’ and ‘‘colored,’’ leaving no room for Indians. Under the 1924 

law, anyone insisting on an Indian identity on an official document could be sent 

to prison for a year. Several people were, in fact, imprisoned for such insistence. The 

campaign to eliminate Indians from the state was headed by the state’s Vital Statistics Bureau, which went so far as to issue a circular with ‘‘suspicious’’ families’ 

names listed county by county. The families were referred to (and I quote) as ‘‘these 

mongrels.’’ The circular was sent to all officials in charge of county records, all 

school superintendents, and all licensed health personnel (who signed off on birth 

and death certificates) in the state. It is no wonder that these Indian communities 

became much harder for researchers to find. Some of their members left the state, 

keeping up their ties to home but returning only during the Civil Rights era when 

they no longer had to be, as one old-timer said to me, ‘‘scared like a rabbit.’’ But 

the communities hung together and hung on, as the attached quick-reference chart 

will show. They still exist, and they still say they’re Indians. And even now, so thorough was the public relations campaign against them for decades, they meet skepticism on a daily basis. 

The tribes I speak for today consulted a BIA representative over a decade ago and 

were told that even if they submitted a petition forthwith, they would not see a decision ‘‘in your lifetime’’ (this was said to people then in their 40s). The six tribes are 

not merely being impatient, in wanting to move faster than that. Their primary motive for seeking federal recognition is getting better access to health programs, 

which are badly needed by their elders now. Little schooling within Virginia was 

available to those people when they were young–if, that is, they wanted to remain 

‘‘Indians’’ in the state (see the quick-reference chart). Therefore their income level 

has suffered ever since, and in their old age they are hurting badly. The six tribes 

are not interested in remedying that fact through gaming–in fact, they have waived 

their rights to gaming, if they are recognized. Instead they hope to provide better 

conditions for their people through federal Indian programs, after recognition by the 

United States Congress. 

These tribes have endured over three centuries of injustice, some of the worst of 

it and by far the most public of it being in the recent past. Without federal recognition and the aid springing from it, the injustice is ongoing. I hope that you will accede to their request for acknowledgment. 

31 


925c1.eps
32 


925c2.eps
33 


925c3.eps
34 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Rountree, thank you very much for you testimony as well. 

I wonder if I might depart from tradition and ask Mr. Fleming, 

who is the Director of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, if you 

would be willing to come up to the table even as the witnesses are 

there. 

Mr. Fleming, would you be willing to come over on the side of 

Dr. Rountree and present your testimony so that we might ask 

questions? And I appreciate your willingness to do that. We will include your full statement in the record. Mr. Fleming is the Director 

of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment in the Department of the 

Interior, and he will discuss the Department’s efforts to improve 

the process. 

Mr. Fleming, welcome. If you would proceed, we will make your 

full statement a part of the record. 


925c4.eps
35 

STATEMENT OF R. LEE FLEMING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. FLEMING. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee. My name is Lee Fleming, and I am the Director 

of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment at the Department of the 

Interior. I must say that my staff is a hard-working and dedicated 

staff, and we appreciate the regulations under which we are obligated. 

I am here today to provide the Administration’s testimony on S. 

514, S. 724, S. 1058, and H.R. 1294. The acknowledgment of the 

continued existence of another sovereign is one of the most solemn 

and important responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the Interior. Federal acknowledgment enables Indian tribes to participate 

in Federal programs and establishes the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Indian tribe, 

and has considerable social and economic impact on the petitioning 

group, its neighbors, and Federal, State, and local governments. 

We recognize that under the United States Constitution, Congress has the authority to recognize a distinctly Indian community 

as an Indian tribe. But along with that authority, it is important 

that all parties have the opportunity to review all the information 

available before recognition is granted. That is why we support a 

recognition process that requires groups to go through the Federal 

acknowledgment process because it provides a deliberative uniform 

mechanism to review and consider groups seeking Indian tribal 

status. 

Legislation such as these four bills would allow these groups to 

bypass this process, allowing them to avoid the scrutiny to which 

other groups have been subjected. While legislation in Congress 

can be a tool to accomplish recognition, a legislative solution should 

be used sparingly in cases where there is an overriding reason to 

bypass the process. The Administration supports all groups going 

through the Federal acknowledgment process under 25 C.F.R. Part 

83. 

The Department, in 1978, recognized the need to adopt uniform 

regulations for Federal acknowledgment. Since 1978, 103 decisions 

have been issued: 50 proposed findings, 46 final determinations, 

and 7 reconsidered final determinations. Ron Yob outlined the 

seven mandatory criteria and my written testimony will have that 

information. 

I want to say that over the past year the Department has taken 

several actions to expedite and clarify the Federal acknowledgment 

process. Some of these actions required changes to internal workload processes to eliminate backlogs in delays and others will require amendments to the regulations. Our goal is to improve the 

process so that all groups seeking acknowledgment can be processed and completed within a set time frame. 

I won’t go over the 12 decisions or events that have taken place 

over the past year, but they are listed here in the testimony. One 

of the most significant, though, was the publication of the guidance 

and direction in the Federal Register regarding internal procedures 

for the Office of Federal Acknowledgment. 

36 

I would like to turn now to the status of the petitions that are 

affected by the four bills. S. 514 provides Federal recognition as an 

Indian tribe to a Florida group known as the Muscogee Nation of 

Florida, which is currently a petitioner in the Department’s Federal acknowledgment process. This group submitted to the Department its letter of intent in 1978 and completed documenting its petition in 2002, 24 years of researching. Currently, the group is fifth 

in line on the Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration list, thus, 

ready for the Department to review and evaluate its evidence 

under the seven mandatory criteria. 

S. 724 provides Federal recognition as an Indian tribe to a Montana group known as the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of 

Montana, currently a petitioner under our process. This group submitted to the Department its letter of intent in 1978 and completed 

documenting its petition in 1995. They took 17 years to research 

and provide documentation. Currently, this group is on Active Consideration and a final determination is expected early 2009. 

S. 1058 provides an expedited review for Federal recognition as 

an Indian tribe to a Michigan group known as the Grand River 

Bands of Ottawa Indians, also currently a petitioner under our 

process. The group submitted to the Department its letter of intent 

in 1994 and completed documenting its petition in 2007. The group 

had taken time to provide the evidence necessary. This group is 

ninth on the Ready list. 

H.R. 1294 is the bill that provides Federal recognition as Indian 

tribes to six Virginia groups. These groups are currently petitioners 

in the Department’s Federal acknowledgment process and, under 

the regulations, these six groups have submitted letters of intent 

and partial documentation to petition for Federal acknowledgment 

as an Indian tribe. 

The Federal acknowledgment regulations provide a uniform 

mechanism and standards to review and consider groups seeking 

Indian tribal status. These four bills, however, allow these groups 

to bypass our process, thus avoiding the scrutiny to which other 

groups have been subjected. We look forward to working with these 

groups and assisting them further as they continue under the Federal acknowledgment process. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any 

questions the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fleming follows:] 

37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. LEE FLEMING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


925d1.eps
38 


925d2.eps
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fleming, thank you very much for your testimony. I have a few questions, and then I will turn to Senator Murkowski. 

We have this afternoon Defense Secretary Gates appearing before the Congress in a classified session, so we will truncate this 

just a bit. He is here to talk about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Mr. Fleming, Mr. Sinclair, in his testimony, talked about the 

frustration they have had with the dates that have been offered. 

The Director of OFA advised a Federal court in June of 2005 that 

they expected to issue a final determination in February 2007. 

Then OFA advised the Tribe in writing to expect the commencement of active consideration of the final determination in August 


925d3.eps
40 

2007. That didn’t happen. Then they granted extensions and said 

it will be August 2008, with a final determination by the end of 

2008. That didn’t happen in August. Then on July 24th the Tribe 

received another letter from OFA granting itself one more extension, now maybe 2009. 

What is the reason for this? And can you put yourself in the position of a petitioner and say what on earth is going on? Wouldn’t 

that be enormous frustration on the part of a petitioner who has 

been waiting a long, long, long time, only to find that your office 

keeps saying, well, it will be now, then it will be later, then later 

again? Tell me what is going on. 

Mr. FLEMING. We have currently three full-time teams. A team 

is composed of an anthropologist, genealogist, and historian. We 

are pleased to announce that we have a fourth team that has been 

selected and we are able to apply these resources to the various 

groups that are on our plate. We have currently seven groups that 

are under what is known as Active Consideration. Little Shell is 

one that is right before us, where we are working to produce a final 

determination, which is the final decision for the Department on a 

case that has been before us. 

I might state that the group itself had requested 10 extensions 

in the process. When the proposed finding was issued—and it was 

a positive proposed finding—the decision-maker at the time warned 

the group that although this is a positive decision, you have 70- 

year evidentiary gaps that need to be filled, and if you do not fill 

those gaps, then a positive proposed finding could turn into a negative final determination. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that wasn’t my question. I understand your 

testimony on that. My question was why does your office tell the 

court August 2007, August 2008, February 2007, January 2008? 

Mr. FLEMING. We are asked to provide projections that we are 

able to give the court or to the petitioners an idea of how we are 

focusing on our production. 

The CHAIRMAN. So if you told the court, in June of 2005, that you 

figured you would issue a final determination in February 2007, a 

year and a half ago, what caused that judgment to be so bad in 

2005? 

Mr. FLEMING. There are administrative occurrences that take 

place. We have litigation that we have to attend to that has deadlines, so we have to rearrange our resources at particular times. 

We have the issue of making sure, though, that the petitioners are 

notified of these particular extensions and why those extensions 

are needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you are notifying them, and that is 

what causes me to ask why are you notifying them if, in 2005, you 

said you would finish in 2007, a year and a half ago. You have not 

come to us saying, look, we can’t meet deadlines we are promising 

tribes, give us some resources. I don’t understand it. It looks to me 

like you say, well, it is administrative. You know, my colleague and 

I, Senator Murkowski, have watched these Federal agencies act 

like they are wading through wet cement for years and years and 

years. 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, let me give you an example. When the proposed finding came out for the Little Shell, through our Federal acVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
41 

knowledgment information resource database, we were able to scan 

the response, and that created, then, an overall administrative 

record of 20,116 documents, with a total page count of 67,000 pages 

of documentation. That is quite a bit of material to review for a 

final determination overall. We have been able to develop an image 

system to allow for faster review, but you multiply that by this 

group and other groups, and the limitation of our teams, we are 

only able to do what we can. 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, I don’t want you to make decisions 

hastily; I want you to make good decisions. But I don’t have any 

idea how we measure your performance. You take whatever time 

you decide to take and miss deadlines and tell me, well, it is administrative. 

Let me ask further, if I might. I am just asking about the Montana one because they set out what specifically you had told the 

Federal court and what you had represented in writing you would 

do and you have not done. I am only saying that if I were a petitioner, I would be enormously frustrated because it is not as if they 

have waited for six months or six years; in some cases it is 20 

years. 

Ms. Tucker, in her testimony, made the point that the BIA will 

address other petitions even though they were submitted years 

after Muscogee and will not expend time on the Tribe because it 

cannot produce certain documents. 

If that is the case—and I don’t know if it is, but if that is what 

Ms. Tucker says, and they cannot produce the documents because 

the documents don’t exist. If that is the case, is there an alternative to coming to the Congress? Is the alternative to stay with 

you and wait until five or ten or fifteen years until you have told 

her you can’t produce the documents, so your Tribe cannot possibly 

exercise the Federal recognition process at Interior? The only alternative would be to go to Congress. What is the alternative for Ms. 

Tucker? 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, the group was provided a technical assistance review letter, and in that letter it revealed that the Department had concerns over the Indian entity identifications, we had 

concerns over their continuous, distinct community, their continuous leadership. They had descent difficulties and, with regard to 

their membership, they had to address individuals who could not 

demonstrate Indian descent, and some of the members may have 

an association with another federally recognized Indian tribe. 

Now, in order to respond to our technical assistance review letters, we advise that there are many types of documents that are 

out there to assist in this process: birth certificates, marriage/divorce/adoption/probate records, death certificates, and other primary documentation like Federal and State censuses. Even tax, 

land, and church records are available to help verify this process. 

And we stand ready to advise groups such as Muscogee Nation of 

Florida on how to address these. 

This group is fifth on the waiting list and we do have a projected 

schedule of our current active cases and our cases that are waiting 

for active consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have been one of the strongest supporters here 

in Congress saying I believe tribes should go through the process 

42 

we have established for the tribes, but that only works for so long 

if this process does not move along. And I am not suggesting moving it along in six months or sixteen months, but we have got people waiting year after year after year, in some cases decades. Somehow, you are going to wear out your welcome with the Congress 

and we are going to have people in Congress pushing, with sufficient strength, that the recognition process doesn’t work because 

we have no method by which to evaluate your work; you make 

promises and don’t keep them, and you say, well, we are busy, it 

is just administrative. 

So I have been a strong supporter, as you know, but the only way 

that we can continue to support this process is if the process actually works. You need more people? Ask us for more people. Set 

deadlines, keep the deadlines. But this is not fair, in my judgment. 

I want to ask Dr. Rountree a question. You are here on behalf 

of six Virginia tribes is that correct? But my understanding is there 

are other Virginia tribes that are unrecognized, is that correct? 

Ms. ROUNTREE. There are two other State recognized tribes, both 

with reservations. 

The CHAIRMAN. And both have reservations. 

Ms. ROUNTREE. Yes, they both have reservations. 

The CHAIRMAN. They are not seeking Federal recognition? 

Ms. ROUNTREE. One is going to be seeking it eventually through 

the BIA; the other seems to be on hold, from what I can learn. 

The CHAIRMAN. And why is that the case? I mean, why—— 

Ms. ROUNTREE. Why are they on hold? I don’t know, they don’t 

tell me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the reason I am asking the question is the 

Governor and the Senator and the Congressman made the point 

about what has happened in Virginia that appears in the rearview 

mirror as almost criminal, probably is criminal by today’s cultural 

standards, what was done to American Indians there. It seems to 

me that the application would logically have been on behalf of all 

tribes similarly situated for Federal recognition. 

Ms. ROUNTREE. It seems that way to me, but they did not consult 

me. 

The CHAIRMAN. And who are they? 

Ms. ROUNTREE. The two reservation groups. They did not tell me, 

they didn’t ask should they be included. I don’t know what their 

negotiations were with the six tribes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you see if you can determine what that 

is and submit it for the Committee? I will make further inquiries 

as well, because if we are going to deal with the issue of Virginia, 

I am just curious why, if there are more tribes who are similarly 

situated, would not have been part of the petitioning. 

Ms. ROUNTREE. I can only make an educated guess at this point 

because, as I said, I have not talked to people. My educated guess 

is that they are not particularly hopeful even of their own getting 

through the BIA, and they are also leery of going through Congress. They have been put through even worse things by Dr. 

Plecker than the six non-reservation tribes, much worse. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fleming, did you have observations about 

that? 

43 

Mr. FLEMING. You had inquired what the two tribes were, the 

Pomonkey and the Mattaponi. The Department has 12 formal petitioning groups from Virginia, and the bill only pertains to six of 

those groups. Of the 12 petitioning groups, we have two Rappahannock groups, two Chickahominy groups, and two Mattaponi groups. 

We also have two Monacan groups; one is located in Virginia and 

the other one is located in West Virginia. So it is an issue that we 

would hope that if these groups continue through the acknowledgment process, if there is any overlapping or if only partial groups 

are presented, our ultimate hope is that whatever tribe is recognized, be it through the Department or through Congress, that you 

are recognizing a whole tribe and not a partial or part of a tribe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am going to ask the staff, Senator Murkowski’s staff and my staff, to inquire in Virginia to try to understand what this means. My understanding was that there were up 

to 12 in Virginia, and there are six that are brought together in 

this legislation. I am not quite sure I understand why that is the 

case. I do understand the powerful testimony given today by the 

Governor and our two colleagues in Congress, but I want to try to 

understand what the universe of actions might be by the Federal 

recognition process or the Congress. 

Dr. Rountree, did you have something else to add? 

Ms. ROUNTREE. Only one other thing. I was answering for the 

State recognized tribes who do not overlap with one another. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Murkowski, I took more time than I perhaps should 

have. Thank you for being patient. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also want 

to include—Senator Martinez has a letter that he apparently would 

like placed in the record for the Muscogee Tribe of Florida. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

44 

Senator MURKOWSKI. If you could just, very quickly, with the Little Shell Tribe, Chairman Sinclair, you have been in this process 

now for 30 years, is that correct? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And, Chairman Tucker, Muscogee has been 

in process for about 30 years, is that correct? 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes. Our first petition was written by an assistant 

professor at Pensacola Junior College and was filed in late 1977 

and was returned in 1978 with a number. We had a roll and a petition, and the new regulations were returned to us. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chairman Yob, how long for the Ottawa, 

then? 

Mr. YOB. In our current efforts, we put our letter of intent in in 

1994. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And, Dr. Rountree, with the Virginia tribes, 

how long has this been underway with the BIA? 


925e1.eps
45 

Ms. ROUNTREE. With the BIA? Most of them sent in petitions 

to—sorry, letters of intent to petition in 1978. There have been 

some other groups that I don’t work with who have appeared since 

then and sent in letters later. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, the reason I ask is because Mr. Fleming has indicated that the preference, of course, is to go through 

the process; and I would agree with Chairman Dorgan, that is the 

process that we have put in place. There is good reason for it and 

it is important to follow that, and only do you seek the legislative 

solution if there is an overriding reason—and those are your words, 

Mr. Fleming—to bypass the administrative process. 

But you have indicated that we don’t want to go to the legislative 

process because it avoids scrutiny, and I guess my question to you 

is when you have 30 years here with the Little Shell and 30 years 

with the Muscogee and 30 years with—excuse me, not quite 30 

years, 17 and close to 30, how is this avoiding scrutiny? 

Mr. FLEMING. Senator Murkowski, a good part of the time is 

work that is done on both sides. You have a petitioning group that 

is trying to research evidence to apply under the seven mandatory 

criteria, so, as a group submits a letter of intent, that is not the 

fully documented petition at the very beginning, and in some cases 

these groups have taken over 20 years to do the research. 

One of our cases of a group in New England petitioned and put 

a letter of intent in 1978 but did not submit documented petition 

material until 1998. Yet, we get blamed for that 20-year research 

project that is done by volunteers, it is done by limited resources 

by the groups. The groups may go through some leadership problems and such. This is why, in our directive, we wanted to address 

how the Department can deal with groups that do go through splintering problems. The moment you have a dispute between two leaders, sometimes their records are moved and taken away, and then 

we get a barrage of Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And I can clearly appreciate that you can 

have a build-up of time and it is not necessarily on the agency’s 

ends, that there are other issues at play then. So it is not as if we 

want to say, okay, nothing should extend beyond 10 years or set 

an arbitrary number, but when you made the comment that somehow or other seeking a legislative solution could be viewed as an 

attempt to avoid scrutiny, I would suggest that, at least with these 

groups that we have before us today, the scrutiny has clearly been 

there, based on what I have seen. 

I want to try to understand what, in your opinion, would qualify, 

then, as an overriding reason to bypass this administrative process. 

And let’s just use two examples, whether it is Muscogee or whether 

it is the Little Shell, where you have 30 years between the time 

the letter of intent has been filed and where you are in the process 

now. So you clearly have I think what most people would consider 

to be adequate time to review and to exchange and to get to the 

documentation. 

The other situation that, in my mind, might be a compelling reason is the story that we have heard today about the Virginia tribes, 

and the fact that you may be requesting documentation or information that does not exist. 

46 

And I think, Chairman Tucker, you have mentioned this as an 

issue as well. 

So if these two situations don’t qualify as an overriding reason 

to bypass, what would? What has, in your opinion, constituted an 

overriding reason? 

Mr. FLEMING. I would look to the recent directive. In the directive is a provision that allows for an Indian tribe that has had long 

historic State reservation status. In the directive, if the group is 

able to demonstrate that, then they can go to the head of the waiting list, because, with that long-standing reservation status, there 

is considerable State documentation because of that State relationship. I would say, in those cases, there you have an overriding factor. 

The groups that are before us right now have had, and some still 

do, a lot of questions with regard to their Indian ancestry, to some 

that have questions regarding the continuous, distinct community; 

some have questions over political influence and leadership. Some 

may even be associated, as I mentioned earlier, with another federally recognized Indian tribe. 

You want all of that to be clear and all of that cleared and understood before they are either recognized under our process, and I 

would think you would want it clear before you recognize them 

through a Federal statute. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand what you have said. I don’t 

know that any who are represented here today would suggest that 

that is making this process any more defined for them and their 

quest. 

One last quick question. Then, if I have additional, I will go 

ahead and submit them to the record. 

I think it was you, Chairman Tucker, that mentioned that one 

of the reasons that you are seeking the Federal recognition through 

Congress is the financial hardship issue, and the matter of limited 

funding. 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We have all had to deal with lawyers at 

one point in time and pay lawyer’s fees, and they are not cheap. 

Do you have any idea of what you have had to pay as you have 

sought this recognition over the course of these decades? What are 

we talking about in terms of dollars? 

Ms. TUCKER. Millions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Millions? 

Ms. TUCKER. Yes. Easily. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Chairman Sinclair? Similar situation? 

Mr. SINCLAIR. I think the lawyers alone, in our case, I think our 

last estimate was they put $1 million, but most of it has been pro 

bono because we don’t have any money. But their patience, I think, 

is growing thin. You know, we are kind of at the end. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It speaks to a process that, again, as Chairman Dorgan has noted, we want to make sure that when you utilize the process that we have set up through the agency to provide 

for this recognition, that it not be a—I think Senator Tester used 

the word—generational quest and a quest that can literally put you 

in a bankrupt situation or a financial stress that you look at and 

you say we simply can’t even avail ourselves of this option because 

47 

we don’t have the time and we don’t have the money. We have to 

have better systems in place. I would like to think that, with these 

guidelines that are out there, that is helping somewhat, but it 

sounds like there is more that remains to be done. 

Mr. Fleming? 

Mr. FLEMING. Well, I wanted to point out that, in particular for 

the Virginia groups, for example, under the directive, there is a 

provision that allows for a group to only be burdened with documenting from 1789, which was when the United States was created 

through its governing document. So rather than 1607 to the 

present, they only need to document from 1789 to the present. By 

having that provision in there, they are relieved of 182-year evidentiary burden, and that is very helpful in their case. We have requested documentation from Dr. Rountree, and I believe even Senator McCain had asked for Dr. Rountree to provide the office with 

whatever documentation. We have not received anything yet, but 

we look forward to receiving documentation from all of these 

groups and hope that the documentation meets the seven mandatory criteria. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I am sure that that is appreciated, 

but I will tell you, when the new passport requirements were being 

discussed and Alaska Natives in my State knew that they were 

going to be required to have a passport to go over into Canada, I 

can tell you that there was great concern by many elders in our 

villages because they simply have no documentation, and these are 

people that are living here today. So to say that, well, we have kind 

of forgiven them for the first 150 years and they just need to find 

it from 17–whatever—I forget the date that you gave me. 

Mr. FLEMING. 1789. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 1789, thank you. We recognize that it is 

easier said than done. 

Mr. FLEMING. Right. When I was registrar for the Cherokee Nation, we worked with many families that were born outside of a 

hospital, and many of them did not have the standard birth certificates. So the staff had to work with the families to establish what 

are known as delayed birth certificates, which is—as we know, the 

birth certificate is one of the key cornerstones of all of what is required by many agencies. So it is helpful when you have a trained 

staff that can work with individuals and with groups to help them 

meet the requirements. 

And we are very excited by the fact that we now are on the internet. As you know, our agency has been off of the internet for over 

six and a half years. Our office was one of the first to get their material up, and it was actually put online today so that groups, interested parties, the general public can take a look at our decisions, 

our regulations, and many of the items that are necessary. Before 

we were cut off the internet, we only had 20 documents that were 

on our website. We have over 500 now, just at the flick of a switch 

today. So we are trying to be transparent and helpful. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, again, let me thank all of you who have 

traveled to Washington to provide testimony today. As I indicated, 

the Committee is holding this hearing because we want to gather 

48 

additional information for the purpose of making some decisions as 

we go forward when the new Congress begins. 

This Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and colleagues on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I thank you for holding this hearing today regarding recognition of six Virginia Indian tribes. For years now I have worked closely on this matter with these 

tribes and with my colleagues in the Virginia Congressional delegation. 

My message today is a simple one: While I strongly support federal recognition 

for these Virginia tribes, I do have a serious concern that H.R. 1294, the bill before 

the Committee, could produce the unintended consequence of allowing Virginia Indian Tribes greater rights to conduct gambling activities beyond the limitations currently established under Virginia’s laws. 

I shared these same concerns about gaming with the Committee at its June 2006 

hearing on a similar bill. At that time, I noted that I strongly believe that Virginia’s 

Indian tribes deserve federal recognition. But, I also noted then that I share the 

concern of some people that federal recognition could—without appropriate courttested safeguards—unintentionally result in gaming in Virginia that is contrary to 

the letter and spirit of Virginia’s laws. At that hearing, I committed to working with 

the Virginia tribes and others to ensure that a federal recognition bill would not result in such an unintended consequence. 

Despite my best efforts, the best efforts of the tribes, and the best efforts of others 

in the Virginia Congressional delegation, a consensus has not been reached on this 

matter. I remain concerned that the House passed bill could produce the unintended 

consequence of allowing Virginia Indian tribes greater rights to conduct gambling 

activities beyond the limitations currently established under Virginia’s laws. 

Last year, I specifically asked the Congressional Research Service to review the 

House passed language on gambling. I respectfully submit for the record the CRS 

memorandum reviewing this legislation. In the memorandum, CRS states that the 

gaming language in H.R. 1294 has never been tested in court and that it is not possible ‘‘to predict or assert with any degree of certainty that H.R. 1294 provides ‘iron 

clad’ protection against gaming.’’ 

It is important to recognize that Congress has previously passed legislation that 

has been upheld in court with respect to federal tribal recognition and gaming limitations. It is my hope that the Committee would work with the Virginia tribes and 

the Virginia Congressional delegation to examine these statutes and court cases and 

determine if such language could serve as a model to help move this very important 

recognition bill forward in an amended fashion. 

Mr. Chairman, I hold the view that a consensus can be reached to move this legislation forward. The Virginia tribes deserve recognition, and I believe federal recognition can be achieved while respecting Virginia’s laws on gaming. Congress has 

passed similar laws for others tribes in other states, and courts have upheld those 

laws. Those efforts should serve as our path forward. 

The case for federal recognition of these Virginia tribes is clear. To date, the Federal Government has acknowledged more than 500 Native American tribes, yet the 

Federal Government has not done so for six of the tribes that first greeted Captain 

John Smith upon the shores of Jamestown more than 400 years ago. While I recognize that there is an administrative process that is also available to obtain recognition, the case is well established that, because Virginia, many decades ago, destroyed vital documents, that this process is not appropriate for these tribes. 

In sum, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that a federal recognition bill can pass the 

Congress and be signed into law with court-tested safeguards in place to protect our 

state laws on gaming. 

Given the fact that legislative activity in the 110th Congress could come to a close 

in the coming days, I recognize that a consensus on this matter may not be achieved 

this year. If that is indeed the case, it is my hope that you and others on this Committee will help move federal recognition legislation with court-tested gaming safeguards in the next Congress. 

50 

Attachment 


925g1.eps
51 


925g2.eps
52 


925g3.eps
53 


925g4.eps
54 


925g5.eps
55 


925g6.eps
56 


925g7.eps
57 


925g8.eps
58 


925g9.eps
59 


925g10.eps
60 


925g11.eps
61 


925g12.eps
62 


925g13.eps
63 


925g14.eps
64 


925g15.eps
65 


925g16.eps
66 


925g17.eps
67 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REV. JONATHAN M. BARTON, GENERAL MINISTER, VIRGINIA

COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Chairman Dorgan, members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee Governor 

Kaine, Senator Webb, Congressmen Moran, Congressman Scott, tribal leaders from 

the Virginia Tribes, thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to provide 

testimony today. My name is Jonathan Barton and I serve as the General Minister 

for the Virginia Council of Churches. I ask your permission to include my previous 

testimony. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the members of Virginia’s 

six tribes present here today for inviting the Council to stand with them in their 

request for Federal Acknowledgment. The Virginia Council of Churches stands with 

the Virginia tribes today in solid support of the ‘‘Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes 

of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007.’’ 

The Virginia Council of Churches, established in 1944, is the combined witness 

of 37 governing bodies of 18 different Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. A list of our member denominations is appended to my written comments. During our 64-year history, we have an 

established record for fairness, justice, and the dignity of all peoples. We stand 

today grounded in our faith and in our history and values. Faith means living not 

by our feelings but by our commitments. The assurance of things hoped for is often 

less about when a hoped-for dream becomes a reality than why that dream must 

become reality. The conviction of things not seen isn’t always about when or even 

how it will come to pass but rather why it deserves our energies in the first place. 

We hold fast to our faith that our Virginia Tribes will be recognized by this Congress because we have assurance in the rightness of it and have the conviction necessary to see it through. 

Four hundred and one years ago when Captain Christopher Newport sailed into 

the Chesapeake Bay, a relationship between the church and Virginia’s Indigenous 

Peoples began. There is little doubt in the historical record that one of the purposes 

of Jamestown was to establish the Church of England. In 1999 both chambers of 

the Virginia General Assembly agreed to House Joint Resolution 754 urging Congress to grant Federal Recognition to the Virginia Tribes. Our legislature asked the 

state’s delegation in Congress ‘‘to take all necessary steps forthwith to advance it.’’ 

Six years ago when I testified before this Committee and the House Committee on 

Natural Resources, Senator Ben ‘‘Nighthorse’’ Campbell made the comment: ‘‘You 

know Rev. Barton, the Indians and the church have not always gotten along very 

well.’’ The church has much to repent in our early missionary efforts. My presence 

here today represents a desire to repent for past sins. These early immigrants who 

came to these shores in the early 1600s failed to find the Image of God in the native 

people they encountered. These early settlers were guided by the ‘‘Doctrine of Discovery.’’ Under this principle, European powers lay claim to lands within the New 

World and the continent of Africa. This Doctrine evolved from various papal bulls, 

dating back to 1493 provided a sense of Divine Calling, outlining how Europeans 

could claim and acquire land from the Indian Nations. They believed that in order 

to be a Christian, they needed to look, live, and speak with an English accent. Even 

though the missionaries were excessively zealous, the scriptures they brought with 

them eventually provided a source of strength for our Virginia Tribes to endure four 

centuries of oppression and discrimination. As settlements increased in Virginia, 

missionaries continued to reach out to the tribes. While this relationship was often 

tense the message took root and began to flourish within the tribes. By the middle 

of the 19th Century and up through the middle of the 20th century tribal churches 

were established and became a focal point of the community. Even during the period 

of the Racial Integrity Act when the Commonwealth was asserting there are no Indians here Baptist, Methodist and Episcopal Indian Churches continued to serve our 

tribes. These relationships continue today. 

During that same hearing, Senator Allen asked me about concerns the Council 

may have regarding gaming. At that time, I stated the Council’s opposition to all 

forms of gaming and our conviction that if gaming comes to Virginia it will not be 

the Virginia Tribes who are the ones to introduce it. This is still our strong conviction today. 

The cultural landscape is similar with each of the Virginia tribes. As you enter 

their land, you find the church, the school and the Tribal Circle. As you approach 

the Circle you can hear the sounds of the Tribal Drum, you can feel the heartbeat 

of life move through your body, declaring you are on sacred ground. It is here where 

the tribal community is grounded. You must listen to the sound of the drum of the 

past, so that you can sing in the present and dance into the future. Here is where 

the faith and traditions of the Elders are passed to new generations. 

68 

It has been a blessing for me to know and work with each of the chiefs of our 

Virginia tribes. I know them to be persons of great integrity and moral courage. 

Each brings strong leadership to their tribes. Each brings unique and special gifts, 

and they all share a common respect for their past and vision for the future. 

In 2007, Virginia hosted America’s 400th Anniversary Commemorations with special events drawing international guests and visitors. We welcomed the Queen of 

England, several visits from the President and Vice President, as well as several 

special signature events. In addition, the churches in Virginia held several of their 

own events recognizing significant events in the life of the church. The Virginia 

Tribes played a significant role in each of these events. The events and excitement 

of 2007 are for many a memory now and Virginia’s Indigenous People, who have 

lived on this land for a thousand generations, and who greeted the English as they 

landed in 1607, are still not recognized. It seems that our tribes are not only frozen 

in history; they seem frozen in the indifferent ice of Dante’s Inferno. We are called 

to review our complete history, reflect upon it, and act as a people of faith mindful 

of the significance of 1607. We are also called to remember that our Tribes are still 

here. The people of ancient Israel wandered in the desert wilderness for forty years. 

Our tribes have wandered the desert of their native land for ten times forty years. 

Now they stand on the edge over looking the promise and wonder if like Moses they 

will not be able to enter. If the dream of federal recognition has been deferred to 

the next generation or will they, at last, be able to cross over the Jordan River. 

The people in our churches and communities now look at the significance of these 

events differently. What represented newness of hope and opportunity for some was 

the occasion for oppression, degradation, and genocide for others. For the church 

this is not just a time for celebration but a time for a committed plan of action insuring that this ‘‘kairos’’ moment in history not continue to cosmetically coat the 

painful aspects of the American history of racism. This nation is a great nation with 

high ideals and hopes for all people. While we strive to reach these lofty goals we 

have also fallen short of the mark. What continues to make us great is that we acknowledge our flaws and redress the wrongs, always seeking a more perfect union. 

These six Virginia Tribes; the Chickahominy, the Chickahominy—Eastern Division, 

the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond, stand 

before you today after a four hundred year journey asking only that you honor their 

being, honor their contributions to our shared history, and honor their ancestors by 

acknowledging they exist. This simple request is vital to the healing of the broken 

circle, broken four centuries ago when cultures collided and forever changed the history of the world. It is about the present and the recognition that despite the journey these tribes have survived and are still here. It is about taking their proper 

place among the other 563 tribes currently recognized by the United States. It is 

about the future that future generations may experience the fullness of life intended 

by their forbearers and their Creator. Let us mend the Circle so that we may move 

forward into the future. Let me close with the words from one of the songs created 

and recorded for the Jamestown observance in 2007 by ‘‘Anniversary Voices.’’ 

Remember the Many. 

We are all part of the sacred earth, every deer, every stream, every tree. 

We have learned to respect all living things, and to live in harmony. 

We are riders on the sands, the sands of time, the Creator’s in the wave in the shore. 

We are riders on the sands, the sands of time, the Creator’s in the wave in the 

shore. 

We have been here for more than ten thousand years. 

We will be here for ten thousand more! 

Stand where I’m standing; take a look at my view. 

How should I feel? I was here before you. 

The time has arrived recognition is due. 

Remember the many who’ve become the few! 

The member Communions of the Virginia Council of Churches, strongly encourage 

you to remember the few, recognize our tribes pass the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 

Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. 

69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE ADKINS, CHIEF, CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBEEASTERN DIVISION


925f1.eps
70 


925f2.eps
71 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH ADAMS, CHIEF, UPPER MATTAPONI INDIAN

TRIBE

I am Kenneth Adams, Chief of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe of King William County, Virginia. I am submitting this statement on behalf of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe 

seeking Federal acknowledgement through H.R. 1294, The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. 

There is overwhelming evidence of the continuing existence of the Upper 

Mattaponi Indian Tribe. We have lived close to the upper reaches of the Mattaponi 

river, as documented by John Smith of the Jamestown colony in the early 1600s. 

Today, the town of Aylett on the Mattaponi River incorporates ancestral land of the 

Upper Mattaponi Indians. Other written accounts and maps tell of a concentration 

of Indians in the vicinity of Aylett from the colonial era onward. 

Records of the 20th century include the establishment of Sharon Indian School in 

1919 to educate the children of the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. Today Sharon Indian 

School is listed on the National Register of Historic Buildings as the only public Indian School still existing in the Commonwealth of Virginia. After the school was 

built, the Upper Mattaponi used the school for church worship services until 1942, 

when Indian View Baptist Church was built, the name reflecting the membership 

of the tribal people of the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. 

From the late 1940s into the late 1950s, Upper Mattaponi children attended high 

school and college at Bacone College in Muskogee, Oklahoma, a school established 

in 1880 for the education of American Indians. In 1892 from the King William 

County Superintendent of Education and again in the 1940s from the Tribal Chief, 

educational assistance was requested from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the 

Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. 

Draft cards of the First and Second World Wars document many of the Upper 

Mattaponi warriors as Indians, and marriage records from 1853 forward document 

the Upper Mattaponi as Indians. 

These are but a few of many reasons we should be officially acknowledged by the 

Federal Government as an Indian Tribe. We have spilt our blood and given our lives 

for this nation in the Revolutionary War and the wars of the 20th century. We are 

only asking this government for one thing and that is proper recognition of the 

Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe. 


925f3.eps
72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN R. ADKINS, CHIEF, CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN

TRIBE

Thank you Chairman Dorgan and other distinguished members of this committee 

for allowing me to submit testimony in support of the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 

Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007—H.R. 1294. This bill and the history of the six Virginia tribes seeking federal acknowledgement was researched diligently and studiously by Senator Jim Webb before he agreed to support the bill. I 

thank Senator Webb for giving this bill due diligence and his subsequent unflagging 

support of the merits of this bill. A hearing on our Federal Recognition was held 

by this committee in 2006. I am honored to submit my testimony to this Senate 

Committee today on behalf of the six Tribes named in H.R. 1294 the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, 

and my Tribe the Chickahominy. I feel deeply privileged that His Excellency, Timothy M. Kaine, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who in his inaugural 

address pledged his strong support for Federal Recognition of the Virginia Tribes 

is here today giving oral testimony in support of H.R. 1294. I wish to thank Dr. 

Helen Rountree, a renowned anthropologist specializing in the heritage of the Virginia Tribes, who worked on the petitions we filed with the BIA, for providing expert testimony before you today and who is prepared to assist with any questions 

you may have about our history. And finally I thank Rev. Jon Barton from the Virginia Council of Churches who has worked tirelessly in our effort to gain Federal 

Recognition and who is supplying written testimony today. 

Chairman Dorgan et. al., I am sure you are well aware of the events that occurred 

in Virginia and the United Kingdom commemorating the 400th anniversary of the 

first permanent English Settlement in America in May 1607. The settlement became 

known as Jamestown and is located on the James River in Tidewater Virginia. On 

Anniversary Weekend at Jamestown, May 11–13, 2007, visitors from all over the 

world including leaders representing the United States government, Great Britain, 

Native Americans and African Americans et. al., gathered acknowledging the birth 

of this Great Republic, the United States of America, which blossomed at Jamestown. In July 2006, a delegation of 54 tribal members representative of the gender 

and age demographics of the Tribes recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia 

had the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom as part of its 2007 Commemoration 

activities. For many of us it was a first time visit to St. George’s Church at Gravesend, the final resting place of Pocahontas, the daughter of Paramount Chief Powhatan and the wife of John Rolfe. History tells us that Pocahontas died when she 

returned with John Rolfe to England in 1616. 

The impact of our experience in Gravesend is something I want to share with you 

because it was beyond what any of us could have possibly imagined. The congregation of St. George’s Church brought home to us, the very real connection the British 

people feel with our heritage. And for us, who have experienced and know so well 

what has happened to our people since the days of Pocahontas, the connection we 

felt to both the congregation and Pocahontas was palpable and real. The British 

have paid honor and tribute to her in a manner that no member of her family or 

her descendants has ever received in this country. This feeling of respect and honor 

in the church through its living congregation suffused the entire Virginia Indian delegation. But to my utter amazement, this attitude of honor and respect transcended 

the spiritual and emotional service within the church and was extended to us in 

every venue we attended from Kent University, to Kent County Council, to the 

House of Commons and the House of Lords. If you would indulge me, I would like 

to share with you the words from a plaque which hangs on a wall of St. George’s 

Church, I believe from these words you can sense the very sincere regard British 

people feel for Pocahontas. ‘‘This stone commemorates Princess Pocahontas or 

Metoak daughter of the mighty American Indian Chief Powhatan. Gentle and humane, she was the friend of the earliest struggling English colonists whom she nobly 

rescued, protected, and helped. On her Conversion to Christianity in 1613, she received in Baptism the name Rebecca, and shortly afterwards became the wife of John 

Rolfe, a settler in Virginia. She visited England with her husband in 1616, was graciously received by Queen Anne wife of James I. In the twenty second year of her 

age she died at Gravesend preparing to revisit her native country and was buried 

near this spot on March 21st 1617. 

I believe for our people to go back to Great Britain and be embraced by this 

church congregation was a significant reconciliation and healing. As descendants, 

we have not felt the honor here at home that those in Great Britain both feel for 

Pocahontas and bestowed upon us. Through this visit to Gravesend, we saw Pocahontas as more than the legend we live behind, we saw her as the first to brave 

the new world that opened up with first contact by the English. We saw Pocahontas 

73 

as one with whom we can identify, as a soul who today can still touch us, and remind us of whom we are and remind us that we have a proud heritage. She is not 

a myth, for, she is still inside all of us, and her death and burial in England, remind 

us of how far and challenging our path has been since she braved that voyage to 

England. She was brave and she was alone. It was a tremendous experience to step 

into that church and feel the love of that British congregation. Appropriately, the 

St. George’s Church Guide, contains this prayer: 

May your Church, Lord, be a light to the nations, the sign and source of your 

power to unite all men. May she lead mankind to the mystery of your love? 

Amen. 

I could tell you the much publicized story of the 17th century Virginia Indians, 

but you, like most Americans, know our first contact history. I wish there was time 

today to tell the full story of what has happened to the Virginia Tribes since Pocahontas went to England to the Court of Queen Anne. The story of Chief Powhatan 

and his daughter Pocahontas is well known across this land, her picture being in 

this very capitol building with her English husband John Rolfe. But, what about our 

story, for years the Commonwealth of Virginia did not care about our story? Our 

public school textbooks had scant mention of who we are. So, what do you know or 

what does mainstream America know about what happened in those years between 

the 17th century and today. The fact that we were so prominent in early history 

and then so callously denied our Indian heritage is the story that most don’t want 

to remember or recognize. In 2006 & 2007, the Virginia Indian Tribes, were a part 

of the commemoration of Jamestown. In 2007, when Jamestown was visited by the 

Queen of Great Britain and the President of the United States, the Virginia Tribes 

gained a much deeper understanding of who we are, fueled in part by our learning 

gained from our trip to Great Britain and in our involvement in researching the 

truth about the underpinnings of the first permanent English Settlement at Jamestown and, finally, what our contributions meant to its success. Our connection to 

Pocahontas and, by extension, to Great Britain must come full circle and extend to 

the Congress of the United States of America. We must feel the same honor and 

love from leaders of the United States of America as we do from the people from 

Great Britain with whom our last treaty was signed in 1677. 

I and the Chiefs from Virginia, stand on the shoulders of many others besides Pocahontas and Powhatan. One story that has always made me sad, and which brings 

in a different picture than the love we experienced in Great Britain, is that of the 

Paspahegh led by Chief, Wowinchopunk whose wife was captured and taken to 

Jamestown Fort and ‘‘run through’’ with a sword, whose children were tossed overboard and then their brains were ‘‘shot out’’ as they floundered in the water, and 

whose few remaining tribal members sought refuge with a nearby tribe, possibly the 

Chickahominy. With this horrific action in August 1610, a whole Nation was annihilated. A Nation who befriended strangers, and, ultimately died at the hands of those 

same strangers. As we commemorated Jamestown 2007 and the birth of our Nation, 

those of Indian heritage in Virginia were also reminded of this history. 

We are seeking recognition through an act of congress rather than the BIA because actions taken by the Commonwealth of Virginia during the twentieth century 

erased our history by altering key documents as part of a systematic plan to deny 

our existence. This state action separates us from the other tribes in this country 

that were protected from this blatant denial of Indian heritage and identity. The 

documentary genocide the Virginia Indians suffered at the hands of Walter Ashby 

Plecker, a rabid white separatist, who ruled over the Bureau of Vital Statistics in 

Virginia for 34 years, from 1912 to 1946 was well documented in an article written 

by Peter Hardin of the Richmond Times Dispatch in 2000. Although socially unacceptable to kill Indians outright, Virginia Indians became fair game to Plecker as 

he led efforts to eradicate all references to Indians on vital records. A practice that 

was supported by the state’s establishment when the eugenics movement was endorsed by leading state universities and was further supported when the general assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act in 1924. A law that stayed in effect until 

1967 and caused my parents to have to travel to Washington D.C. on February 20, 

1935 in order to be married as Indians. This vile law forced all segments of the population to be registered at birth in one of two categories, white or colored. Our anthropologist says there is no other state that attacked Indian identity as directly as 

the laws passed during that period of time in Virginia. No other ethnic community’s 

heritage was denied in this way. Our state, by law, declared there were no Indians 

in Virginia in 1924, and if you dared to say differently, you went to jail or worse. 

That law stayed in effect half of my life. 

74 

I have been asked why I do not have a traditional Indian name. Quite simply my 

parents, as did many other native parents, weighed the risks and decided it was 

not worth the risk of going to jail by giving me a traditional Indian name. 

Former Senator George Allen, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

sponsored legislation in 1997 acknowledging the injustice of the Racial Integrity Act. 

Unfortunately, while this legislation allows those of the living generations to correct birth records, the legislation or law has not and cannot undo the damage done 

by Plecker and his associates to my ancestors who endured pain and humiliation 

in venues disparate as trying to obtain marriage licenses to being inducted into the 

Armed Forces as Indian, all because of these distorted, altered, incorrect records. 

We are seeking recognition through Congress because this history of racism, in 

very recent times, intimidated the tribal people in Virginia and prevented us from 

believing that we could fit into a petitioning process that would understand or reconcile this state action with our heritage. We feared the process would not be able 

to see beyond the corrupted documentation that was designed to deny our Indian 

heritage. Many of the elders in our community also feared, and for good reason, racial backlash if they tried. 

My father and his peers lived in the heart of the Plecker years and carried those 

scars to their graves. When I approached my father and his peers regarding our 

need for state or federal recognition they pushed back very strongly. In unison they 

said. ‘‘Let sleeping dogs lie and do not rock the boat’’. Their fears of reprisal against 

those folks who had risked marrying in Virginia and whose birth records accurately 

reflected their identity outweighed their desire to openly pursue any form of recognition. Those fears were not unfounded because the threat of fines or jail time was 

very real to modern Virginia Indians. 

Chairman Dorgan, the aforementioned story is very painful and I do not like to 

tell that story. Many of my people will not discuss what I have shared with you but 

I felt you needed to understand recent history opposite the romanticized, inaccurate 

accounts of 17th-century history. 

Let me tell you how we got here today. The six tribes on this bill gained State 

Recognition in the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983 and 1989. The legislation of 1997 placed the burden of cost to correct the inaccurate vital records on the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, but it couldn’t fix the problem—the damage to our documented history had been done. Although there were meager attempts to gain federal 

acknowledgement by some of the tribes in the mid 20th century, our current sovereignty movement began directly after the enactment of the aforementioned legislation acknowledging the attack on our heritage. In 1999 we came to Congress when 

we were advised by the BAR (Bureau of Acknowledgement and Research) now OFA 

(Office of Federal Acknowledgement) that many of us would not live long enough 

to see our petition go through the administrative process. A prophecy that has come 

true. We have buried three of our chiefs since that prophetic declaration was made. 

Given the realities of the OFA and the historical slights suffered by the Virginia 

Indian Tribes for the last 400 years, the six tribes referenced in H.R. 1294 feel that 

our situation clearly distinguishes us as candidates for Congressional Federal recognition. 

As Chiefs of our tribes, we have persevered in this process for one reason. We do 

not want our families or our tribes to let the legacy of Walter Plecker stand. We 

want the assistance of Congress to give the Indian communities in Virginia, their 

freedom from a history that denied their Indian identity. Without acknowledgment 

of our identity, the harm of racism is the dominant history. We want our children 

and the next generation, to have their Indian Heritage honored and to move past 

what we experienced and our parents experienced. We, the leaders of the six Virginia Tribes, are asking Congress to help us make history for the Indian people of 

Virginia, a history that honors our ancestors who were there at the beginning of 

this great country. We want to experience the honor and love that we felt was still 

alive in the congregation at St. George’s. After our visit to Great Britain I truly believed that Federal Recognition of the Virginia Indian Tribes would occur in that 

anniversary year. The reception we received in Great Britain and across the Commonwealth of Virginia convinced me the time was right to end 400 years of disenfranchisement. When recognition did not occur, there was much sadness among 

my people. But our hope does not waver. We believe in the language of the Constitution of the United States of America. We believe that ultimately America will do 

right by us. We believe the blood we shed in every military conflict the United 

States has engaged in will not be in vain. We believe you will reconcile history in 

this country between two cultures in a way that honors our history of learning to 

live together in peace and in love. That is what we want for our people, and for 

our nation. The acceptance of the invitation to visit Great Britain to share our culture and history to describe our contemporary lifestyles as both contributors to the 

75 

American way of life and aspirants to the American dream and our decision to 

honor Pocahontas at her grave has strengthened our resolve to obtain federal acknowledgement. It has made us understand that we deserve to be on a level playing 

field with the other 562 odd tribes who are federally acknowledged. It has made us 

unwilling to accept being discriminated against because of both a historical oversight and the concerted efforts of our Commonwealth to deny to us our rightful heritage. The aforementioned invitation to visit Great Britain was not easy for us to 

accept. We did not know what to expect, and we were apprehensive. In a powerful 

way this visit was destined to be for it brought us into the history we commemorated at Jamestown in a very positive palpable way. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has taken definitive actions to right the wrongs 

inflicted upon its indigenous peoples and stood with us as we commemorated the 

anniversary of the founding of the first permanent English Settlement which occurred 400 years ago on the banks of the James River at Jamestown, Virginia. We 

believe it is time for the United States Congress to stand alongside us and grant 

us the Recognition we deserve as Sovereign Nations who provided safe haven to the 

17th-century colonists and helped give birth to the greatest Nation in the world. 

Again, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of the six tribes 

in H.R. 1294. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE ADKINS, PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA INDIAN TRIBAL

ALLIANCE FOR LIFE

I am Wayne Adkins, an assistant chief of the Chickahominy Tribe, and I am submitting this statement on behalf of The Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance for Life 

(VITAL), an organization of the tribes seeking Federal acknowledgement through 

H.R. 1294, The Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition 

Act of 2007. 

In 1999, after the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution memorializing 

Congress to grant them Federal Recognition, the Virginia Tribes united to seek recognition through Congress collectively. VITAL was founded at that time to, among 

other things, work with Virginia’s Congressional delegation to obtain federal recognition. 

The Tribes of Virginia have been seeking federal recognition for nearly a century, 

but largely through individual tribal efforts. John Collier, head of the BIA in 1943, 

stated that it is largely ‘‘an historical accident’’ that the tribes of Virginia were not 

recognized, because our treaties were with England, rather than with the United 

States. For well over a century, ethnologists from various institutions have affirmed 

the identity of the Indian tribes in Virginia through independent, scholarly studies. 

Part of VITAL’s mission is to build grassroots support within the larger Virginia 

population. Throughout this effort, we have been pleased with the overwhelming 

support we have received. Starting in 2006, and throughout 2007, the Virginia 

Tribes participated in events commemorating the establishment of the colony at 

Jamestown that lead to the birth of the United States. At these events, we shared 

our history and culture in dance programs, panel discussions and historical presentations that honored the memory and contributions of our ancestors. And again, we 

received affirmation of support for federal recognition from all demographics and all 

regions of Virginia. The universal reaction we experience is surprise, even shock, 

that no tribes in Virginia are recognized by the United States, followed by the statement that recognition is appropriate and long overdue. 

A significant event during this commemoration was the trip to Kent, England by 

a delegation of Virginia Indian people. The people of Kent insisted that the Virginia 

Indians be a part of their commemorative events. This participation became a lifealtering experience for us. 

Tribal leaders were treated as heads of state, acknowledging the tribal sovereignty that is still recognized by the English people. We were treated with much 

respect wherever we went. Even more important to many of us, we visited St. 

Georges, the church where Pocahontas, daughter of the paramount Virginia chief 

Wahunsenacawh (Powhatan), is buried. We were able to have a private worship 

service there and to worship there with the people of Gravesend. While at that site, 

I felt that we had fully reconnected with our ancestors and we had come full-circle. 

This event, coupled with the many expressions of support by the people of England for our federal recognition effort, confirmed for me that federal recognition of 

the Virginia Tribes is warranted and strengthened my resolve to pursue it even 

more vigorously when we returned to the United States. 

Through the efforts of VITAL, tribal leaders and our Congressional sponsors, we 

have enjoyed successful hearings in each session of Congress since 2002. We conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:00 Apr 06, 2009 Jkt 046266 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\46266.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
76 

tinue to receive exceptionally strong support from the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

including recent Governors. 

The Virginia tribes are seeking federal recognition now for the same reasons as 

our ancestors who initiated efforts to obtain recognition in the early part of the 20th 

century. 

It would allow our students to participate in educational programs open only to 

federally-recognized tribes. It will also help us provide health care for the elders of 

our tribes who cannot afford health care on their limited incomes. 

Recognition will allow the tribes to repatriate the remains of their ancestors in 

a respectful and dignified manner. Museums and universities, for example, have a 

large number of Virginia Indian remains but are not required to repatriate them 

to non-Federally-recognized tribes. 

Federal Recognition would place the Virginia tribes on equal footing with other 

tribes in the United States and afford us the same rights and opportunities they 

enjoy. Our tribal governments will be able to more fully exercise their sovereignty, 

helping to ensure the continuity and future of our tribal communities. 

Finally, Federal Recognition will officially affirm our Indian identity and heritage 

in a way that our ancestors were prohibited from doing by the state of Virginia. It 

will allow us to fulfill our ancestors’ dream for recognition and further honor them 

and their efforts to achieve it. 

I strongly urge the Committee to mark up H.R. 1294 and position it for approval 

by the full Senate this year. 

77 


925h1.eps
78 

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANN DENSON TUCKER


925a1.eps
79 


925a2.eps
80 


925a3.eps
81 


925a4.eps
82 


925a5.eps
83 


925a6.eps
84 


925a7.eps
85 


925a8.eps
86 


925a9.eps
87 


925a10.eps
88 


925a11.eps
89 


925a12.eps
90 


925a13.eps
91 


925a14.eps
92 


925a15.eps
93 


925a16.eps
94 


925a17.eps
95 


925a18.eps
96 


925a19.eps
97 


925a20.eps
98 


925a21.eps
99 


925a23.eps
100 


925a24.eps
101 


925a25.eps
102 


925a26.eps
103 


925a27.eps
104 


925a28.eps
105 


925a29.eps
106 


925a30.eps
107 


925a31.eps
108 


925a37.eps
109 


925a38.eps
110 


925a39.eps
111 


925a40.eps
112 


925a41.eps
113 


925a42.eps
114 


925a43.eps
115 


925a44.eps
116 


925a45.eps
117 


925a46.eps
118 


925a47.eps
119 


925a48.eps
120 


925a49.eps
121 


925a50.eps
122 


925a51.eps
123 


925a52.eps
124 


925a53.eps
125 


925a54.eps
126 


925a55.eps
127 


925a56.eps
128 


925b1.eps
129 


925b2.eps
130 


925b3.eps
131 

Æ 


925b4.eps