89–010 

Calendar No. 251 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–113 

EXTENDING FEDERAL RECOGNITION TO THE CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN 

TRIBE, THE CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE-EASTERN DIVISION, THE 

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

DECEMBER 23, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1178] 

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

(S. 1178) to extend federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian 

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

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

the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1178 is to provide federal recognition to six 

tribes in the State of Virginia—the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the 

Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi 

Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, 

and the Nansemond Indian Tribe, and make applicable to the tribal groups and their members all laws that are generally applicable 

to American Indians and federally-recognized Indian tribes. 

There are currently no federally recognized Indian tribes in Virginia. 

Need for legislation 

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

ability of a tribal group to meet the regulatory requirements is 

highly dependent upon the availability of documentary evidence 

and records. The six Virginia tribal groups proposed for recognition 

in S. 1178 have suggested that the unique history of the State of 

Virginia and its relations with these groups prevents them from 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Rountree, Helen C., Ph.D., A Brief History of the Six Indian Tribes Requesting Federal Acknowledgment. 2Testimony of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., American Indian Resource Center, Coordinator, before the United States Committee on Indian Affairs, October 9, 2002. 3Section 5 of 1924 Racial Integrity Act. 

4Testimony of Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D., American Indian Resource Center, Coordinator, before the United States Committee on Indian Affairs, October 9, 2002. 

being able to meet the level of documentary evidence required by 

the Department of the Interior. 

The Department of the Interior’s recent decision against the federal acknowledgment of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

of Montana suggests that the Department may view a gap in evidentiary documentation of more than ten years for a group’s continuous existence since 1900 as being insufficient to meet the mandatory criteria set forth in the regulations. This interpretation by 

the Department makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the six 

Virginia tribal groups to obtain documentary evidence sufficient to 

meet the Department’s requirements. 

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

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

Additionally, in 1924, the State of Virginia passed the Racial Integrity Law, thereby requiring all segments of the population to be 

registered at birth in one of two categories: ‘‘white’’ or ‘‘colored.’’ 

The ‘‘colored’’ category was mandated for all non-white persons regardless of race or ethnicity. Officials from the State’s Bureau of 

Vital Statistics interpreted the law as allowing them to go back 

and change a person’s birth certificate if they believed that there 

was evidence that the person was not fully white. 

The primary target of the Racial Integrity Law was the African 

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

persons of white and Virginia Indian ancestry, as long as it was not 

more than 1⁄16 of Indian blood quantum, to be classified as 

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

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

heritage of African American and Native American ancestry to 

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

Statistics actively sought to denigrate and deny persons of Virginia 

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

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

The Racial Integrity Law remained in effect until it was declared 

unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 in 

the Loving v. Virginia case (388 U.S. 1). In 1997, Virginia Governor 

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

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

Indian groups. 

Granting Federal recognition to the six Virginia groups has 

strong support from the State of Virginia. On August 4, 2009, the 

Committee received a letter in support of S. 1178 signed by the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

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

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

any, impact on the Commonwealth. 

current Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, and six of the previous State 

Governors.5 In 1999, both chambers of Virginia’s General Assembly 

agreed to H.J. 754 urging Congress to grant Federal recognition to 

the Virginia tribes. In February 2007, both chambers of Virginia’s 

General Assembly agreed to S.J. 332, a resolution acknowledging 

the involuntary servitude of Africans and the exploitation of Native 

Americans and calling for reconciliation among all Virginians. During the 109th Congress, former Governor George Allen, who was a 

Senator, introduced S. 480, which would have granted federal recognition to the six groups in S. 1178. 

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

History of recognizing Indian tribes 

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

States of a tribe’s right to self-government and the existence of a 

formal government-to-government relationship between the United 

States and the tribe. Once a tribe is federally recognized, it and its 

members have access to federal benefits and programs, and the 

tribal government incurs a responsibility to its members as the primary governing body of the community. 

Before Congress ended the practice of treaty-making with Indian 

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

government-to-government relationship between the United States 

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

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

Additionally, federal courts may clarify the status of an Indian 

group, though in many cases the courts defer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. 

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

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

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

this process are set forth in Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 83, ‘‘Procedures for Establishing That An American Indian Group Exists As An Indian Tribe.’’ 

The regulations establish seven mandatory criteria; each of 

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

recognized Indian tribe. The criteria are as follows: 

(1) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900; 

(2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a 

distinct community and has existed as a community from historical 

times until the present; 

(3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority 

over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times 

until the present; 

(4) The group must provide a copy of its present governing documents and membership criteria; 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

6See Pub. L. 106–568 (2000). 

7L. Daniel Mouer, ‘‘Powhatan and Monacan Regional Settlement Hierarchies: A Model of Relationship between Social and Environmental Structures,’’ Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 36, no. 1 (1981): 1–21. 

(5) The petitioner’s membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes, 

which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political 

entity; 

(6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North 

American Indian tribe; and 

(7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden 

the federal relationship. 

The regulations have remained essentially unchanged since 1978, 

with the exception of revisions clarifying the evidence needed to 

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

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

federal acknowledgment petitions (2000 and 2008). 

There have been numerous complaints about the process since 

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

gathering documentary evidence to meet the seven criteria and the 

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

of hundreds of petitioners that have filed petitions under the process, as of November 4, 2009, the Department has 45 petitions. Of 

that number, 16 petitioners were acknowledged as Indian tribes, 

and 29 petitioners were denied acknowledgment. 

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

Congress to recognize or restore their status as federally-recognized 

Indian tribes. Congress retains the authority to recognize tribal 

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

the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act.6 According to a report 

issued by the Congressional Research Service in September 2003, 

Congress has recognized, restored or otherwise changed the status 

of 28 tribal groups since the Federal Acknowledgment Process was 

created in 1978. Extending back to 1960, a total of 47 groups have 

had their tribal status clarified by congressional action. 

History of Virginia Indian groups 

When English settlers established the Jamestown Colony in 

1607, there were approximately 40 Indian tribes existing in what 

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

(then the Colony of Virginia) was the 1677 Middle Plantation Treaty. S. 1178 will recognize six tribal groups. A brief history of each 

tribal group is described below. 

THE MONACAN INDIAN NATION

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

Virginia piedmont region extending into the Carolinas.7 Recent 

ethnohistorical work has shown that the Monacan Indians reached 

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

the Shenandoah Valley in the west, and as far south as the RoaVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:16 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR113.XXX SR113

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

8 Jeffrey Hantman, ‘‘Between Powhatan and Quirank’’; Jeffrey Hantman, ‘‘ ‘Ancestral Monacan 

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

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

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

Virginia, 1983), 21–39. 9 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation,’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov. 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 10Samuel R. Cook, Monacans and Miners: Native American and Coal Mining Communities 

in Appalachia (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 49–56. 11Samuel R. Cook, ‘‘The Monacan Indian Nation: Asserting Tribal Sovereignty in the Absence 

of Federal Recognition.’’ Wicazo SA Review. Fall, 2002. P 91–116. 12 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov. 11, 2009. http:// 

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

Benjamin Evans and Robert Johns (both Monacans) were recorded as ‘‘white’’ with mulatto children instead of ‘‘Indian.’’ The families had been previously recorded through tax records beginning in 1782. 13 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov. 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 14 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov. 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 

noke River.8 The Monacans moved westward from 1607–1720s in 

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

to Pennsylvania and later Canada, while the other group stayed in 

Amherst County, Virginia.9

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

with English settlers. That changed as traders traveled further 

along the James River in the 1750s. The Monacan Indians had purposely lived in the Tobacco Row Mountains in order to avoid contact with Europeans.10 However, encroaching agriculture made this 

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

begun to plant orchards in the Tobacco Row Mountains, taking 

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

many Monacans worked the orchards and tobacco fields as tenant 

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

labor disproportionately’’ due to their lack of status.11

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

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

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

an Indian, and any descendants of a Negro, up to the great-grandchild would be counted as mulatto.12 Since free people of color 

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

Act of 1924) could not own land or vote, they had to legally renounce their ethnicity and register as ‘‘white’’ to participate in Virginian society.13

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

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

Monacan community 14 according to census records. When the land 

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

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

receiving parcels of the Johns Settlement. 

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

wooden structure was built which the community used for its 

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

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

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

15 Cook, Monacans and Miners, 116–118. 16 ‘‘Monacan Indian Nation.’’ 2006. Monacan Indian Nation, Inc. Nov. 11, 2009. http:// 

www.monacannation.com/aboutus.shtml. 17 ‘‘The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.’’ Nansemond and Powhatan History. 2009. Nansemond Tribal Association. Nov 13, 2009. http://www.nansemond.org/joomla/ 

index.php?option=comlcontent&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=30. 18Waugaman, Sandra F. and Danielle-Moretti-Langholtz, Ph.D. We’re Still Here: Contemporary Virginia Indians Tell Their Stories, Richmond, VA: Palari Publishing, 2006 (revised edition). 19S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 601(2) (2009). 20S. Report No. 108–259 (2004). 21 ‘‘The Official Nansemond Tribal Association Website.’’ 

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

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

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

gathering place and the only source of education for many Monacan 

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

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

County. 

Throughout the 20th century, the Monacans became more active 

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

and Training Act (CETA),15 giving their tribal members a better 

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

pieces sold to the Smithsonian Institution. The tribe helped found 

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

obtain funds from Department of Labor programs for Native Americans. 

The Monacan Indian Nation obtained State recognition in 1989. 

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

community and create rules for its governance in lieu of federal 

recognition as a sovereign nation.16

The Nansemond Indian Tribe 

When the English first arrived in Virginia in 1607, the 

Nansemond people numbered around 1,200 people 17 and made up 

part of the Powhatan Confederacy. Their original land was located 

30 miles from Jamestown, making a large amount of interaction 

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

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

destruction unless the Nansemond paid 400 bushels of corn to his 

men.18

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

These became the Christianized Nansemonds. In 1669, the Virginia 

census records show two distinct Nansemond groups of Indians.19

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

English in 1644 and then fled westward to the Nottaway River 

where Virginia had assigned the Nottaway Indians a reservation. 

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

as their reservation, which they later sold off.20 The reservation 

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

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

Nansemond living on the Nottoway reservation dying in 1806.21


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

22 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990. 23S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 601(17). 24 Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008. 25 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

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

http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php. 26The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and the Grand 

River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act, 109 Cong. 576 (2006). 27S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(2) (2009). 28 Virginia Department of Education. ‘‘Virginia’s First People: Past and Present.’’ History. 

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

http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php. 29 Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008. 

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

racial laws, the Nansemond lobbied their delegate to pass a law exempting them, which they achieved in 1833. They were able to register as ‘‘of mixed blood, not being negro or mulatto.’’ 22

The Methodist Church established a mission for the Nansemond 

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

educate their children.23 The Nansemond had historically promoted 

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

Bafferton Indian School at the College of William and Mary in 

1711. In 1922 the Nansemond received funding for an Indian 

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

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

time when only two races were recognized in the State of Virginia 

and few supported funding a third segregated school system.24

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

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

Frank Speck. The tribe obtained State recognition in 1985. 

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe 

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

much interaction between the two groups. The Chickahominy were 

an Algonquian speaking people numbering between 600–900 people.25 Although allies with the Powhatan Confederacy, the Chickahominy were fairly independent and had their own form of government. 

Surviving members of the Paspaheg tribe found refuge with the 

Chickahominy during August 1610 after the family of Chief 

Wowinchopunk was murdered by settlers.26 In the Treaty of 1614 

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

300 warriors to fight against the Spanish.27 The Chickahominy received the right to self-governance in return. In 1623, and again in 

1627, the Chickahominy were victims of raids.28 In 1646 the Chickahominy signed a treaty granting them a reservation in Pamunkey 

Neck near the present-day Mattaponi Reservation and in presentday King William County. 

In 1677, representatives of the Tribe signed the Treaty of Middle 

Plantation between several tribes and the King of England.29


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

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

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

http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php. 31S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(8) (2009). 32S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(10) (2009). 33S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(11) (2009). 34 ‘‘William & Mary Arts and Sciences.’’ Virginia Indians: Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College 

of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009. http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php. 35S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(12) (2009). 36The Thomasina Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and the Grand 

River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan Referral Act, 109 Cong. § 576 (2006). 37S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 101(15)–(20) (2009) and Rountree, Helen C., Testimony before the 

United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, September 25, 2008. 38S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(25) (2009). 39S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 101(28) (2009). 

In 1702, the tribe was forced from its reservation and lost the 

lands in 1718.30

Around 1750 the Chickahominy began moving back to their land 

in New Kent and Charles City Counties.31 Charles City County 

census records show modern-day Chickahominy surnames in the 

area beginning in 1831.32 New Kent County records began documenting Chickahominy people in an 1840 Census. 

In 1901, the tribe established the Samaria Baptist Church and 

bought nearby land for tribal use.33 In the early 1900s they also 

established the Samaria School for their children’s education up 

until 8th grade, paying teacher salaries out of donated funds.34 The 

tribe also created a tax on Chickahominy men from 1901 until 1935 

to fund the building of the school, buy supplies and pay the teacher’s salary. The tribe’s school was integrated in 1968 as a primary 

school for the county.35

In order to be married as Chickahominy Indians instead of as 

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

members were able to travel out of State. The parents of tribal 

member Stephen Adkins, for example, were fortunate in being able 

to do this, and were married on February 20, 1935 in Washington, 

D.C., thereby avoiding the loss of their Native identity.36

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

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

to Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier, requesting funding 

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

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

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

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

Freeman to help the Virginia Indians obtain proper racial designations on their birth records.37

The interactions between the Chickahominy Indians and the 

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

Rights of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, requested information from Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins about Indians’ constitutional rights ‘‘in [his] area’’ in Virginia.38

The Chickahominy Indians built a tribal center in 1974 funded 

by tribal members through monthly pledges.39 Their assertion of 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

40 ‘‘William & Mary Arts and Sciences.’’ Virginia Indians: Chickahominy Tribe. 2009. College 

of William & Mary. Nov. 12, 2009. http://web.wm.edu/airc/vaindians/chickahominy.php. 41S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 201(11) (2009). 42 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990. p. 218. 

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

recognition by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Currently there are about 750 Chickahominy living within 5 

miles of the tribal center and hundreds more in other parts of the 

country.40

The Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division 

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

two tribes acted as one until the early 1900s. 

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

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

Virginia Census of 1870. These are the ancestors of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division.41

In 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe established the Samaria 

Indian Baptist Church. However, two factions formed within the 

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

Indian Baptist Church in 1922 was built in 1922 in spite of the dissenting members.42 Unable to resolve their differences, the group 

forming the new church organized themselves as the Chickahominy 

Eastern Division Indians. The Eastern Division began forming its 

government in 1920, eventually incorporating under State law in 

1925. 

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

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

closed and the children started attending the Samaria Indian 

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

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

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

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

new schools when the Samaria Indian School was desegregated in 

1967. 

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

Department of Housing and Urban Development to buy 2 mobile 

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

the Administration of Native Americans was used for the purchase 

and improvement of office equipment and supplies. 

The tribe received State recognition in 1983. 

Today the tribe numbers 130 people in New Kent County. 

The Upper Mattaponi Tribe 

Captain John Smith first visited the Passaunkack village in 

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

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

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

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

(http://virginiaindians.pwnet.org/history/index.php). 44 H.R. Rep. No. 110–124, at 6 (2007). 45S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 301(10)–(12) (2009). 46S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 301(13) (2009). 47S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 301(14)–(16) (2009). 48 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990, p. 198. 49S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 301(17)–(18) (2009). 50S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 301(19)–(21) (2009). 

the tribe’s present-day location.43 August Hermann mapped the 

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

The Upper Mattaponi Tribe shares its earlier history with the 

Chickahominy Indian Tribe as they were forced together through 

treaties with the English. The Upper Mattaponi sought refuge with 

the Chickahominy after being attacked by Seneca Indians in 1683, 

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

for ‘‘the cliffs’’ (an area currently encompassed by the Mattaponi Indian Reservation).44

In 1726 the Virginia Colony stopped funding interpreters in their 

dealings with the Upper Mattaponi—apparently enough Indians 

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

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

members.45

Thomas Jefferson mentioned the Upper Mattaponi on their King 

William County reservation in 1787, and referred to the Chickahominy as ‘‘blended’’ with the Upper Mattaponi and Pamunkey Indians.46

A federal census in 1850 showed 10 Upper Mattaponi families 

living in King William County, Virginia. King William County 

records also indicate Upper Mattaponis residing in the county. An 

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

the King William County reservation, undoubtedly referring to the 

Upper Mattaponi.47

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

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

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

oral tradition.48

Anthropologist James Mooney mentions the Upper Mattaponi in 

1901 after hearing about them during a visit to the Pamunkey 

Tribe but didn’t visit them himself. In 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank Speck published a book on modern Virginia Indians with a section on the Upper Mattaponis.49

The Upper Mattaponi fought alongside other Virginia tribes for 

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

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

also contained an asterisk indicating that Indians did not exist in 

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

when the Armed Forces attempted to induct Upper Mattaponis into 

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

to be allowed to study at Federally-funded Indian schools since the 

tribe could not provide for their high school education.50


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

51 ‘‘Virginia Indian Council: Virginia Indian Tribes.’’ Rappahannock Tribe. 12/10/2007. VCI. 

Nov. 5, 2009. http://indians.vipnet.org. 52Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p. 25. 53Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p. 28. 54Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925, p. 36. 55S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 401(8)–(14) (2009). 56Speck, Frank G. The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. 1925. 57S. Rep. No. 108–259 at 2 (2004). 

The Upper Mattaponi won state recognition in 1983, confirming 

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

The Rappahannock Tribe 

The Rappahannock people were probably the unfortunate tribe 

that met the Englishman Captain Samuel Mace as he sailed up 

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

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

Thames River back in England in December of 1603.51

The Rappahannocks were a late acquisition into Powhatan’s Confederacy, differing culturally from the Mattaponi and Pamunkey 

mainstay of the confederacy. They were first recorded in Western 

society in 1605.52 Captain John Smith encountered several 

Rappahanncok villages during his 1607 capture in Chickahominy 

territory.53 On Smith’s map, he represents the Rappahannock people with 34 wigwams just north of the river as opposed to 1 wigwam (representing 5 villages and 2 chief towns) in their traditional 

homeland on the southern shore. However, this placement makes 

practical sense in terms of defense against the Powhatan.54

Capt. William Clairborne attempted to establish treaty relations 

with the Rappahannocks in 1645 since the tribe didn’t participate 

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

doing business with them. In 1651, the Rappahannocks sold land 

to English settler Colonel Morre Fauntleroy and signed a treaty 

with Lancaster County in September of 1653. The tribe signed another treaty in 1656 with the Rappahannock county (present-day 

Richmond and Essex counties), setting out rewards for returning 

fugitives and encouraging the Rappahannocks to make their children servants in English houses.55

A 1669 Virginia census records 30 Rappahannock and 50 

Nantaughtacund (which both Speck and Mooney believe is reference to the Rappahannock).56 The town referred to in this census 

was actually a hunting village used by the Rappahannock had lived 

in the 1670s. The Rappahannocks were removed from their homeland in 1684 to a reservation established for them in 1682 in modern day Caroline and King & Queen counties. After Iroquois raids 

in 1683, the Virginia Colonial Council moved the Rappahannock to 

the Nanzatico Indian Town about 30 miles away from King George 

County. From 1687 to 1699 the Rappahannock migrated away from 

Nanzatico to Portobacco Indian Town on the southern side of the 

Rappahannock River. In 1705 the tribe was moved a few miles off 

their original reservation.57 They were moved once again in 1706 

along with the Portobaccos and Nanzaticos by Essex County back 

to King and Queen County where they resettled on one of their ancient hunting village sites (the 1682 reservation). 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

58S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 401(30)–(36) (2009). 59S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 401(38) (2009). 60S. 1178, 111th Cong. §§ 401(46)–(48) (2009). 61S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 401(66) (2009). 62 Rountree, Helen C. Pocahantas’s People. OK: Oklahoma University Press, 1990, p. 241. 63S. 1178, 111th Cong. § 401(68) (2009). 

Upper Essex Baptist Church had a solid Rappahannock presence 

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

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

the beginning of their assimilation into American culture. In 1870 

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

serve the Rappahannock in Caroline County, taking members away 

from Upper Essex.58 This remained the case until Rappahannock 

Indian Baptist Church was established in 1964.59

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

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

at Lloyds in Essex County. Chief George Nelson testified in Congress asking for $50,000 to establish an Indian school in Virginia.60

During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the tribe set up a school 

at Indian Neck, with the state paying a tribal member to teach 10 

students in King and Queen County to Sharon Indian School.61

The Rappahannock created a private school in 1962 in a donated 

building in Essex County. Unfortunately it was closed in 1964, and 

the children were then bused to Sharon School until that school 

closed 3 years later.62 At this point in 1965, the Rappahannock students were moved to the white Marriott High School by order of 

the Governor of Virginia.63

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Webb introduced S. 1178 on June 3, 2009 with Senator 

Warner cosponsoring the bill. The Committee on Indian Affairs ordered the bill to be reported favorably, with an amendment, on October 22, 2009. 

The Committee did not hold a hearing on S. 1178 in the 111th 

Congress, but the Committee has held hearings on similar legislation in previous Congresses. In the 110th Congress, the Committee 

held a hearing on H.R. 1294 on September 25, 2008. This legislation was similar to S. 1178. H.R. 1294 passed the House of Representatives on May 8, 2007. In the 109th Congress, the Committee 

held a hearing on S. 480 on June 21, 2006. S. 480 was similar to 

S. 1178. 

A similar bill, H.R. 1385, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative James Moran on March 9, 2009. 

That bill passed the House of Representatives by voice vote on 

June 3, 2009. The Committee on Natural Resources in the House 

of Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 1385 on March 18, 2009. 

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT

During a business meeting of the Committee on October 22, 

2009, Chairman Dorgan offered an amendment to S. 1178 on behalf 

of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Webb. The amendment was approved 

by the Committee by voice vote. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

The amendment ensures that although the State of Virginia will 

have civil and criminal jurisdiction over the lands of the six groups 

recognized in S. 1178, the groups will retain jurisdiction over Indian child proceedings under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF S. 1178 (AS AMENDED)

Section 1. Short title 

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

Recognition Act of 2009.’’ 

TITLE I—CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE

Section 101. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe. 

Section 102. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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

Section 103. Federal recognition 

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

explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a 

service area. 

Section 104. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 105. Governing body 

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

Section 106. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

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

gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 108. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
14 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 

TITLE II—CHICKAHOMINY INDIAN TRIBE—EASTERN DIVISION

Section 201. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division. 

Section 202. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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

Section 203. Federal recognition 

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

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

Section 204. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 205. Governing body 

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

Section 206. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary. This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 208. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
15 

TITLE III—UPPER MATTAPONI TRIBE

Section 301. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Upper Mattaponi Tribe. 

Section 302. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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

Section 303. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Upper 

Mattaponi Indian Tribe. This section also includes applicable laws, 

an explanation of services and benefits and the establishment of a 

service area. 

Section 304. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 305. Governing body 

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

Section 306. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 308. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 

TITLE IV—RAPPAHANNOCK TRIBE, INC. 

Section 401. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
16 

Section 402. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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

Section 403. Federal recognition 

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

Section 404. Membership; governing documents 

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

Section 405. Governing body 

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

Section 406. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

Queen, Spotsylvania, Richmond, Lancaster, King George, Essex, 

Caroline, New Kent, King William, James City, and Surry. This 

section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 408. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 

TITLE V—MONACAN INDIAN NATION

Section 501. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Monacan Indian Nation. 

Section 502. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
17 

Section 503. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Monacan 

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

area. 

Section 504. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 505. Governing body 

This section establishes requirements for the tribe’s governing 

body and any future governing bodies of the tribe. 

Section 506. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

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

This section also includes a prohibition on gaming. 

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 508. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 

TITLE VI—NANSEMOND INDIAN TRIBE

Section 601. Findings 

This section provides Congressional Findings on the history of 

the Nansemond Indian Tribe. 

Section 602. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used throughout the 

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

Section 603. Federal recognition 

This section extends Federal acknowledgment to the Nansemond 

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

area. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
18 

Section 604. Membership; governing documents 

This section states that the Tribe must provide the most recent 

membership roll and governing documents to the Secretary before 

the date of enactment of this legislation. 

Section 605. Governing body 

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

Section 606. Reservation of the tribe 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section states that enactment of S. 1178 does not expand, 

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

rights of the tribe or its members. 

Section 608. Jurisdiction of the State of Virginia 

This Section states that the State of Virginia shall have jurisdiction over all criminal and civil actions arising on lands owned by 

the tribe or held in trust by the Secretary. The Secretary is authorized to accept all or any portion of the jurisdiction of Virginia after 

consultation with the Attorney General and certification by the 

tribe. The section expressly states that this section shall not affect 

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

1978. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

On October 22, 2009, the Committee on Indian Affairs convened 

a business meeting to consider S. 1178 and other measures. During 

the business meeting, the Committee voted, by a voice vote, to report S. 1178, with an amendment, favorably to the full Senate with 

a recommendation that it do pass. Vice Chairman John Barrasso 

and Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo requested to be recorded as opposing the legislation. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The cost estimate for S. 1178 as calculated by the Congressional 

Budget Office is set forth below: 

S. 1178—Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009 

Summary: S. 1178 would provide federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia—the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper 

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

would make the tribes eligible to receive benefits from various federal programs. CBO estimates that implementing this legislation 

would cost $52 million over the 2010–2014 period, assuming approVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:16 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR113.XXX SR113

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

priation of the necessary funds. Enacting S. 1178 would not affect 

direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1178 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

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

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1178 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 450 (community and 

regional development) and 550 (health). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars 2010— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010– 

2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 1 2 2 2 2 9 

Indian Health Service: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 8 8 9 9 10 44 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 7 8 9 9 10 43 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 10 10 11 11 12 54 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 8 10 11 11 12 52 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1178 

will be enacted early in fiscal year 2010. S. 1178 would provide federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia. Such recognition 

would allow the tribes, with membership totaling about 3,400 people, to receive benefits from various programs administered by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service 

(IHS). Based on the average per capita expenditures by those agencies for other Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing S. 

1178 would cost $52 million over the 2010–2014 period, assuming 

appropriation of the necessary funds. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BIA provides funding to federally recognized tribes for various 

purposes, including child welfare services, adult care, community 

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

providing BIA services would cost $9 million over the 2010–2014 

period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds. This estimate is based on per capita expenditures for other federally recognized tribes located in the eastern United States. 

Indian Health Service 

S. 1178 also would make members of the tribes eligible to receive 

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

CBO estimates that about 56 percent of tribal members—or about 

1,900 people—would receive benefits each year. CBO assumes that 

the cost to serve those individuals would be similar to funding for 

current IHS beneficiaries—about $4,000 per individual in 2009. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that IHS benefits for the tribes 

would cost $43 million over the 2010–2014 period. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

Other Federal agencies 

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

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

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

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

from those departments. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing 

S. 1178 would not add to the cost of those programs. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1178 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

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

Previous CBO estimate: On April 29, 2009, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 

Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on April 22, 

2009. At that time, CBO estimated that implementing H.R. 1385 

would cost $65 million over the 2010–2014 period. 

The two bills are very similar. Based on new information from 

the tribes, CBO now estimates that membership of the tribes that 

would be affected by H.R. 1385 or S. 1178 totals about 3,400 (about 

800 less than estimated for H.R. 1385). As a result, CBO expects 

that fewer tribal members would be eligible to receive benefits from 

certain federal programs under both bills. Thus, CBO currently estimates that implementing either bill would cost $52 million over 

the 2010–2014 period. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave—Bureau of Indian Affairs; Robert Stewart—Indian Health Service; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

private sector: Marin Randall. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

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

out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1178 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

There have been no executive communications received by the 

Committee with regard to S. 1178. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, enactment of S. 1178 would affect no changes 

in existing law. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with REPORTS