Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


114th Congress   }                                           {    Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                           {   114-847

======================================================================

 
 TO PROVIDE THAT AN INDIAN GROUP MAY RECEIVE FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS 
   AN INDIAN TRIBE ONLY BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

December 7, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3764]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 3764) to provide that an Indian group may 
receive Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe only by an 
Act of Congress, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend 
that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

        TITLE I--FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF INDIAN TRIBES, GENERALLY

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Tribal Recognition Act of 2016''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds as follows:
          (1) Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution 
        (commonly known as the ``Indian Commerce Clause'') gives 
        Congress authority over Indian affairs.
          (2) Such authority is plenary and exclusive.
          (3) Such authority may not be exercised by the executive 
        branch, except as expressly delegated by an Act of Congress (or 
        by a treaty ratified by the Senate before March 1871).

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this title:
          (1) Assistant secretary.--The term ``Assistant Secretary'' 
        means the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, or that 
        officer's authorized representative.
          (2) Autonomous.--The term ``autonomous'' means the exercise 
        of political influence or authority independent of the control 
        of any other Indian governing entity. Autonomous must be 
        understood in the context of the history, geography, culture 
        and social organization of the petitioning group.
          (3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means any group of 
        people which can demonstrate that consistent interactions and 
        significant social relationships exist within its membership 
        and that its members are differentiated from and identified as 
        distinct from nonmembers. Community must be understood in the 
        context of the history, geography, culture and social 
        organization of the group.
          (4) Continental united states.--The term ``continental United 
        States'' means the contiguous 48 States and Alaska.
          (5) Continuously or continuous.--The term ``continuously or 
        continuous'' means extending from first sustained contact with 
        non-Indians throughout the group's history to the present 
        substantially without interruption.
          (6) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition'' 
        means the detailed arguments made by a petitioner to 
        substantiate its claim to continuous existence as an Indian 
        tribe, together with the factual exposition and all documentary 
        evidence necessary to demonstrate that these arguments address 
        the mandatory criteria.
          (7) Historically, historical or history.--The term 
        ``historically, historical or history'' means dating from first 
        sustained contact with non-Indians.
          (8) Indian group or group.--The term ``Indian group or 
        group'' means any Indian or Alaska Native aggregation within 
        the continental United States that the Secretary of the 
        Interior does not acknowledge to be an Indian tribe. Indian 
        tribe, also referred to herein as tribe, means any Indian or 
        Alaska Native tribe, band, pueblo, village, or community within 
        the continental United States that the Secretary of the 
        Interior has lawfully acknowledged as an Indian tribe.
          (9) Indigenous.--The term ``indigenous'' means native to the 
        continental United States in that at least part of the 
        petitioner's territory at the time of sustained contact 
        extended into what is now the continental United States.
          (10) Informed party.--The term ``informed party'' means any 
        person or organization, other than an interested party, who 
        requests an opportunity to submit comments or evidence or to be 
        kept informed of general actions regarding a specific 
        petitioner.
          (11) Interested party.--The term ``interested party'' means 
        any person, organization or other entity who can establish a 
        legal, factual or property interest in an acknowledgment 
        determination and who requests an opportunity to submit 
        comments or evidence or to be kept informed of general actions 
        regarding a specific petitioner. ``Interested party'' includes 
        the governor and attorney general of the State in which a 
        petitioner is located, and may include, but is not limited to, 
        local governmental units, and any recognized Indian tribes and 
        unrecognized Indian groups that might be affected by an 
        acknowledgment determination.
          (12) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means 
        an undocumented letter or resolution by which an Indian group 
        requests Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe and 
        expresses its intent to submit a documented petition.
          (13) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any entity 
        that has submitted a letter of intent to the Secretary 
        requesting acknowledgment that it is an Indian tribe.
          (14) Political influence or authority.--The term ``political 
        influence or authority'' means a tribal council, leadership, 
        internal process or other mechanism which the group has used as 
        a means of influencing or controlling the behavior of its 
        members in significant respects, and/or making decisions for 
        the group which substantially affect its members, and/or 
        representing the group in dealing with outsiders in matters of 
        consequence. This process is to be understood in the context of 
        the history, culture and social organization of the group.
          (15) Previous federal acknowledgment.--The term ``previous 
        Federal acknowledgment'' means action by the Federal Government 
        clearly premised on identification of a tribal political entity 
        and indicating clearly the recognition of a relationship 
        between that entity and the United States.
          (16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior or that officer's authorized representative.
          (17) Sustained contact.--The term ``sustained contact'' means 
        the period of earliest sustained non-Indian settlement and/or 
        governmental presence in the local area in which the historical 
        tribe or tribes from which the petitioner descends was located 
        historically.

SEC. 104. GROUPS ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT PETITIONS.

  (a) Eligible Groups.--Indian groups indigenous to the continental 
United States that are not federally recognized Indian tribes on the 
date of the enactment of this Act may submit a petition under this 
title.
  (b) Ineligible Groups.--The following may not submit a petition under 
this title:
          (1) Splinter groups, political factions, communities or 
        groups of any character that separate from the main body of a 
        federally recognized Indian tribe, unless they can establish 
        clearly that they have functioned throughout history until the 
        present as an autonomous tribal entity, even if they have been 
        regarded by some as part of or have been associated in some 
        manner with a federally recognized Indian tribe.
          (2) Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos, Alaska native 
        villages, or communities that have been lawfully acknowledged 
        to be federally recognized Indian tribes and are receiving 
        services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
          (3) Groups that petitioned and were denied Federal 
        acknowledgment under part 83 of title 25, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, including reorganized or reconstituted petitioners 
        previously denied, or splinter groups, spin-offs, or component 
        groups of any type that were once part of petitioners 
        previously denied.
          (4) Groups for which a documented petition has not been filed 
        pursuant to section 109 by the date that is five years after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act.
  (c) Groups With Petitions in Progress.--This title, including the 
criteria in section 107, shall apply to any Indian group whose 
documented petition was submitted and not denied on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 105. FILING A LETTER OF INTENT.

  Any Indian group in the continental United States that believes it 
should be acknowledged as an Indian tribe and that it can satisfy the 
criteria in this title may submit a letter of intent requesting 
acknowledgment that an Indian group exists as an Indian tribe. The 
letter of intent submitted under this section--
          (1) shall be filed with the Assistant Secretary--Indian 
        Affairs, Department of the Interior;
          (2) may be filed in advance of, or at the same time as, a 
        group's documented petition; and
          (3) shall be produced, dated and signed by the governing body 
        of an Indian group.

SEC. 106. DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

  (a) Guidelines.--The Assistant Secretary shall make available 
guidelines for the preparation of documented petitions. These 
guidelines shall--
          (1) include an explanation of the criteria, a discussion of 
        the types of evidence which may be used to demonstrate 
        particular criteria, and general suggestions and guidelines on 
        how and where to conduct research;
          (2) include an example of a documented petition format which 
        shall provide guidance, but not preclude the use of any other 
        format; and
          (3) may be supplemented or updated as necessary.
  (b) Research and Preparation of Petition.--The Assistant Secretary--
          (1) shall provide petitioners with suggestions and advice 
        regarding preparation of the documented petition; and
          (2) shall not be responsible for the actual research on 
        behalf of the petitioner.

SEC. 107. CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

  The criteria for consideration for Federal acknowledgment is, at a 
minimum, the following:
          (1) The petitioner has been identified as an American Indian 
        entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence 
        that the group's character as an Indian entity has from time to 
        time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive 
        evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence to be 
        relied upon in determining a group's Indian identity may 
        include one or a combination of the following, as well as other 
        evidence of identification by other than the petitioner itself 
        or its members:
                  (A) Identification as an Indian entity by Federal 
                authorities.
                  (B) Relationships with State governments based on 
                identification of the group as Indian.
                  (C) Dealings with a county, parish, or other local 
                government in a relationship based on the group's 
                Indian identity.
                  (D) Identification as an Indian entity by 
                anthropologists, historians, and/or other scholars.
                  (E) Identification as an Indian entity in newspapers 
                and books.
                  (F) Identification as an Indian entity in 
                relationships with Indian tribes or with national, 
                regional, or State Indian organizations.
          (2) A predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises 
        a distinct community and has existed as a community from 
        historical times until the present.
                  (A) This criterion may be demonstrated by some 
                combination of the following evidence and/or other 
                evidence that the petitioner meets the definition of 
                community:
                          (i) Significant rates of marriage within the 
                        group, and/or, as may be culturally required, 
                        patterned out-marriages with other Indian 
                        populations.
                          (ii) Significant social relationships 
                        connecting individual members.
                          (iii) Significant rates of informal social 
                        interaction which exist broadly among the 
                        members of a group.
                          (iv) A significant degree of shared or 
                        cooperative labor or other economic activity 
                        among the membership.
                          (v) Evidence of strong patterns of 
                        discrimination or other social distinctions by 
                        nonmembers.
                          (vi) Shared sacred or secular ritual activity 
                        encompassing most of the group.
                          (vii) Cultural patterns shared among a 
                        significant portion of the group that are 
                        different from those of the non-Indian 
                        populations with whom it interacts. These 
                        patterns must function as more than a symbolic 
                        identification of the group as Indian. They may 
                        include, but are not limited to, language, 
                        kinship organization, or religious beliefs and 
                        practices.
                          (viii) The persistence of a named, collective 
                        Indian identity continuously over a period of 
                        more than 50 years, notwithstanding changes in 
                        name.
                          (ix) A demonstration of historical political 
                        influence under the criterion in paragraph (3) 
                        shall be evidence for demonstrating historical 
                        community.
                  (B) A petitioner shall be considered to have provided 
                sufficient evidence of community at a given point in 
                time if evidence is provided to demonstrate any one of 
                the following:
                          (i) More than 50 percent of the members 
                        reside in a geographical area exclusively or 
                        almost exclusively composed of members of the 
                        group, and the balance of the group maintains 
                        consistent interaction with some members of the 
                        community.
                          (ii) At least 50 percent of the marriages in 
                        the group are between members of the group.
                          (iii) At least 50 percent of the group 
                        members maintain distinct cultural patterns 
                        such as, but not limited to, language, kinship 
                        organization, or religious beliefs and 
                        practices.
                          (iv) There are distinct community social 
                        institutions encompassing most of the members, 
                        such as kinship organizations, formal or 
                        informal economic cooperation, or religious 
                        organizations.
                          (v) The group has met the criterion in 
                        paragraph (3) using evidence described in 
                        paragraph (3)(B).
          (3) The petitioner has maintained political influence or 
        authority over its members as an autonomous entity from 
        historical times until the present.
                  (A) This criterion may be demonstrated by some 
                combination of the evidence listed below and/or by 
                other evidence that the petitioner meets the definition 
                of political influence or authority:
                          (i) The group is able to mobilize significant 
                        numbers of members and significant resources 
                        from its members for group purposes.
                          (ii) Most of the membership considers issues 
                        acted upon or actions taken by group leaders or 
                        governing bodies to be of importance.
                          (iii) There is widespread knowledge, 
                        communication and involvement in political 
                        processes by most of the group's members.
                          (iv) The group meets the criterion in 
                        paragraph (2) at more than a minimal level.
                          (v) There are internal conflicts which show 
                        controversy over valued group goals, 
                        properties, policies, processes and/or 
                        decisions.
                  (B) A petitioning group shall be considered to have 
                provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the 
                exercise of political influence or authority at a given 
                point in time by demonstrating that group leaders and/
                or other mechanisms exist or existed which--
                          (i) allocate group resources such as land, 
                        residence rights and the like on a consistent 
                        basis;
                          (ii) settle disputes between members or 
                        subgroups by mediation or other means on a 
                        regular basis;
                          (iii) exert strong influence on the behavior 
                        of individual members, such as the 
                        establishment or maintenance of norms and the 
                        enforcement of sanctions to direct or control 
                        behavior; and
                          (iv) organize or influence economic 
                        subsistence activities among the members, 
                        including shared or cooperative labor.
                  (C) A group that has met the requirements in 
                paragraph (2)(B) at a given point in time shall be 
                considered to have provided sufficient evidence to meet 
                this criterion at that point in time.
          (4) A copy of the group's present governing document 
        including its membership criteria. In the absence of a written 
        document, the petitioner must provide a statement describing in 
        full its membership criteria and current governing procedures.
          (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.
                  (A) Some types of evidence that can be used for this 
                purpose include the following:
                          (i) Rolls prepared by the Secretary on a 
                        descendancy basis for purposes of distributing 
                        claims money, providing allotments, or other 
                        purposes.
                          (ii) State, Federal, or other official 
                        records or evidence identifying present members 
                        or ancestors of present members as being 
                        descendants of a historical tribe or tribes 
                        that combined and functioned as a single 
                        autonomous political entity.
                          (iii) Church, school, and other similar 
                        enrollment records identifying present members 
                        or ancestors of present members as being 
                        descendants of a historical tribe or tribes 
                        that combined and functioned as a single 
                        autonomous political entity.
                          (iv) Affidavits of recognition by tribal 
                        elders, leaders, or the tribal governing body 
                        identifying present members or ancestors of 
                        present members as being descendants of a 
                        historical tribe or tribes that combined and 
                        functioned as a single autonomous political 
                        entity.
                          (v) Other records or evidence identifying 
                        present members or ancestors of present members 
                        as being descendants of a historical tribe or 
                        tribes that combined and functioned as a single 
                        autonomous political entity.
                  (B) The petitioner must provide an official 
                membership list, separately certified by the group's 
                governing body, of all known current members of the 
                group. This list must include each member's full name 
                (including maiden name), date of birth, and current 
                residential address. The petitioner must also provide a 
                copy of each available former list of members based on 
                the group's own defined criteria, as well as a 
                statement describing the circumstances surrounding the 
                preparation of the current list and, insofar as 
                possible, the circumstances surrounding the preparation 
                of former lists.
          (6) The membership of the petitioning group is composed 
        principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged 
        North American Indian tribe. However, under certain conditions 
        a petitioning group may be acknowledged even if its membership 
        is composed principally of persons whose names have appeared on 
        rolls of, or who have been otherwise associated with, an 
        acknowledged Indian tribe. The conditions are that the group 
        must establish that it has functioned throughout history until 
        the present as a separate and autonomous Indian tribal entity, 
        that its members do not maintain a bilateral political 
        relationship with the acknowledged tribe, and that its members 
        have provided written confirmation of their membership in the 
        petitioning group.
          (7) Neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of 
        congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or 
        forbidden the Federal relationship.

SEC. 108. PREVIOUS FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

  (a) In General.--Unambiguous previous Federal acknowledgment shall be 
acceptable evidence of the tribal character of a petitioner to the date 
of the last such previous acknowledgment. If a petitioner provides 
substantial evidence of unambiguous Federal acknowledgment, the 
petitioner shall only be required to demonstrate that it meets the 
requirements of section 107 to the extent required by this section. A 
determination of the adequacy of the evidence of previous Federal 
action acknowledging tribal status shall be made during the technical 
assistance review of the documented petition conducted pursuant to 
section 110(b).
  (b) Evidence.--Evidence to demonstrate previous Federal 
acknowledgment includes evidence that the group--
          (1) has had treaty relations with the United States;
          (2) has been denominated a tribe by an Act of Congress or 
        Executive order; and
          (3) has been treated by the Federal Government as having 
        collective rights in tribal lands or funds.

SEC. 109. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF A PETITION.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after receiving a letter of 
intent, or a documented petition if a letter of intent has not 
previously been received and noticed, the Assistant Secretary shall 
acknowledge to the sender such receipt in writing. Notice under this 
subsection shall--
          (1) include the name, location, and mailing address of the 
        petitioner and such other information to identify the entity 
        submitting the letter of intent or documented petition and the 
        date it was received;
          (2) serve to announce the opportunity for interested parties 
        and informed parties to submit factual or legal arguments in 
        support of or in opposition to the petitioner's request for 
        acknowledgment or to request to be kept informed of all general 
        actions affecting the petition; and
          (3) indicate where a copy of the letter of intent and the 
        documented petition may be examined.
  (b) Notice to State Governments.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
notify, in writing--
          (1) the Governor and Attorney General of the State or States 
        in which a petitioner is located; and
          (2) any recognized tribe and any other petitioner that--
                  (A) appears to have a historical or present 
                relationship with the petitioner; or
                  (B) may otherwise be considered to have a potential 
                interest in the acknowledgment determination.
  (c) Publication.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a letter of 
intent, or a documented petition if a letter of intent has not 
previously been received and noticed, the Assistant Secretary shall 
have the notice required under this section published--
          (1) in the Federal Register; and
          (2) in a major newspaper or newspapers of general circulation 
        in the town or city nearest to the petitioner.

SEC. 110. PROCESSING OF THE DOCUMENTED PETITION.

  (a) Review.--Upon receipt of a documented petition, the Assistant 
Secretary--
          (1) shall cause a review to be conducted to determine the 
        extent to which the petitioner has met the criteria set forth 
        in section 107;
          (2) shall include consideration of the documented petition 
        and the factual statements contained therein;
          (3) may initiate other research for any purpose relative to 
        analyzing the documented petition and obtaining additional 
        information about the petitioner's status; and
          (4) may consider any evidence which may be submitted by 
        interested parties or informed parties.
  (b) Technical Assistance.--
          (1) Prior to review of the documented petition under 
        subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall conduct a 
        preliminary review of the petition in order to provide 
        technical assistance to the petitioner.
          (2) The review under paragraph (1) shall be a preliminary 
        review for the purpose of providing the petitioner an 
        opportunity to supplement or revise the documented petition 
        prior to the review under paragraph (1). Insofar as possible, 
        technical assistance reviews under this paragraph will be 
        conducted in the order of receipt of documented petitions. 
        However, technical assistance reviews will not have priority 
        over active consideration of documented petitions.
          (3) After the technical assistance review, the Assistant 
        Secretary shall notify the petitioner by letter of any obvious 
        deficiencies or significant omissions apparent in the 
        documented petition and provide the petitioner with an 
        opportunity to withdraw the documented petition for further 
        work or to submit additional information.
          (4) If a petitioner's documented petition claims previous 
        Federal acknowledgment or includes evidence of previous Federal 
        acknowledgment, the technical assistance review shall also 
        include a review to determine whether that evidence is 
        sufficient to meet the requirements of previous Federal 
        acknowledgment.
  (c) Response to Technical Assistance Review.--
          (1) Petitioners may respond in part or in full to the 
        technical assistance review letter or request, in writing, that 
        the Assistant Secretary proceed with the active consideration 
        of the documented petition using the materials already 
        submitted.
          (2) If the petitioner requests that the materials submitted 
        in response to the technical assistance review letter be again 
        reviewed for adequacy, the Assistant Secretary shall provide 
        the additional review.
          (3) If the assertion of previous Federal acknowledgment under 
        section 108 cannot be substantiated during the technical 
        assistance review, the petitioner may respond by providing 
        additional evidence. A petitioner that claims previous Federal 
        acknowledgment and fails to respond to a technical assistance 
        review letter under this subsection, or whose response fails to 
        establish the claim, shall have its documented petition 
        considered on the same basis as documented petitions submitted 
        by groups not claiming previous Federal acknowledgment. 
        Petitioners that fail to demonstrate previous Federal 
        acknowledgment after a review of materials submitted in 
        response to the technical assistance review shall be so 
        notified. Such petitioners may submit additional materials 
        concerning previous acknowledgment during the course of active 
        consideration.
  (d) Consideration of Documented Petitions.--The Assistant Secretary 
shall--
          (1) review documented petitions in the order that they are 
        determined ready for review;
          (2) establish and maintain a numbered register of documented 
        petitions which have been determined ready for active 
        consideration;
          (3) maintain a numbered register of letters of intent or 
        incomplete petitions based on the original date received by the 
        Department of the Interior; and
          (4) use the register of letters of intent or incomplete 
        petitions to determine the order of review by the Assistant 
        Secretary if two or more documented petitions are determined 
        ready for review on the same date.
  (e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after notifying the petitioner 
that review of the documented petition has begun, the Assistant 
Secretary shall--
          (1) submit a report including a summary of the evidence, 
        findings, petition, and supporting documentation, to the 
        Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 
        and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate;
          (2) notify the petitioner and interested parties that the 
        review is complete and the report required under paragraph (1) 
        has been submitted;
          (3) provide copies of the report to the petitioner and 
        interested parties; and
          (4) provide copies of the report to informed parties and 
        others upon written request.

SEC. 111. CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION AUTHORITY.

  (a) Act of Congress Required.--An Indian group may receive Federal 
acknowledgment (or reacknowledgment) as an Indian tribe only by an Act 
of Congress. The Secretary may not grant Federal acknowledgment (or 
reacknowledgment) to any Indian group.
  (b) Previous Acknowledgment.--This title shall not affect the status 
of any Indian tribe that was federally acknowledged before the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 112. FORCE AND EFFECT OF REGULATIONS.

  Part 83 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force 
or effect.

        TITLE II--FEDERAL RECOGNITION OF VIRGINIA INDIAN TRIBES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of 
Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2016''.

SEC. 202. INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1978.

  Nothing in this title affects the application of section 109 of the 
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1919).

                 Subtitle A--Chickahominy Indian Tribe

SEC. 211. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) in 1607, when the English settlers set shore along the 
        Virginia coastline, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe was one of 
        about 30 tribes that received them;
          (2) in 1614, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe entered into a 
        treaty with Sir Thomas Dale, Governor of the Jamestown Colony, 
        under which--
                  (A) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe agreed to provide 2 
                bushels of corn per man and send warriors to protect 
                the English; and
                  (B) Sir Thomas Dale agreed in return to allow the 
                Tribe to continue to practice its own tribal 
                governance;
          (3) in 1646, a treaty was signed which forced the 
        Chickahominy from their homeland to the area around the York 
        Mattaponi River in present-day King William County, leading to 
        the formation of a reservation;
          (4) in 1677, following Bacon's Rebellion, the Queen of 
        Pamunkey signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation on behalf of 
        the Chickahominy;
          (5) in 1702, the Chickahominy were forced from their 
        reservation, which caused the loss of a land base;
          (6) in 1711, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg 
        established a grammar school for Indians called Brafferton 
        College;
          (7) a Chickahominy child was one of the first Indians to 
        attend Brafferton College;
          (8) in 1750, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to migrate 
        from King William County back to the area around the 
        Chickahominy River in New Kent and Charles City Counties;
          (9) in 1793, a Baptist missionary named Bradby took refuge 
        with the Chickahominy and took a Chickahominy woman as his 
        wife;
          (10) in 1831, the names of the ancestors of the modern-day 
        Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to appear in the Charles City 
        County census records;
          (11) in 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe formed Samaria 
        Baptist Church;
          (12) from 1901 to 1935, Chickahominy men were assessed a 
        tribal tax so that their children could receive an education;
          (13) the Tribe used the proceeds from the tax to build the 
        first Samaria Indian School, buy supplies, and pay a teacher's 
        salary;
          (14) in 1919, C. Lee Moore, Auditor of Public Accounts for 
        Virginia, told Chickahominy Chief O.W. Adkins that he had 
        instructed the Commissioner of Revenue for Charles City County 
        to record Chickahominy tribal members on the county tax rolls 
        as Indian, and not as White or colored;
          (15) during the period of 1920 through 1930, various 
        Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia wrote letters of 
        introduction for Chickahominy Chiefs who had official business 
        with Federal agencies in Washington, DC;
          (16) in 1934, Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins wrote to John 
        Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, requesting money to 
        acquire land for the Chickahominy Indian Tribe's use, to build 
        school, medical, and library facilities and to buy tractors, 
        implements, and seed;
          (17) in 1934, John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
        wrote to Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins, informing him that 
        Congress had passed the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as 
        the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), but 
        had not made the appropriation to fund the Act;
          (18) in 1942, Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins wrote to John 
        Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, asking for help in 
        getting the proper racial designation on Selective Service 
        records for Chickahominy soldiers;
          (19) in 1943, John Collier, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
        asked Douglas S. Freeman, editor of the Richmond News-Leader 
        newspaper of Richmond, Virginia, to help Virginia Indians 
        obtain proper racial designation on birth records;
          (20) Collier stated that his office could not officially 
        intervene because it had no responsibility for the Virginia 
        Indians, ``as a matter largely of historical accident'', but 
        was ``interested in them as descendants of the original 
        inhabitants of the region'';
          (21) in 1948, the Veterans' Education Committee of the 
        Virginia State Board of Education approved Samaria Indian 
        School to provide training to veterans;
          (22) that school was established and run by the Chickahominy 
        Indian Tribe;
          (23) in 1950, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe purchased and 
        donated to the Charles City County School Board land to be used 
        to build a modern school for students of the Chickahominy and 
        other Virginia Indian tribes;
          (24) the Samaria Indian School included students in grades 1 
        through 8;
          (25) in 1961, Senator Sam Ervin, Chairman of the Subcommittee 
        on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary of 
        the Senate, requested Chickahominy Chief O.O. Adkins to provide 
        assistance in analyzing the status of the constitutional rights 
        of Indians ``in your area'';
          (26) in 1967, the Charles City County school board closed 
        Samaria Indian School and converted the school to a countywide 
        primary school as a step toward full school integration of 
        Indian and non-Indian students;
          (27) in 1972, the Charles City County school board began 
        receiving funds under the Indian Self-Determination and 
        Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.) on behalf of 
        Chickahominy students, which funding is provided as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act under title V of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aaa et 
        seq.);
          (28) in 1974, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe bought land and 
        built a tribal center using monthly pledges from tribal members 
        to finance the transactions;
          (29) in 1983, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe was granted 
        recognition as an Indian tribe by the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
        along with 5 other Indian tribes; and
          (30) in 1985, Governor Gerald Baliles was the special guest 
        at an intertribal Thanksgiving Day dinner hosted by the 
        Chickahominy Indian Tribe.

SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Chickahominy Indian 
        Tribe.

SEC. 213. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to 
        federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area comprised of New Kent County, 
        James City County, Charles City County, and Henrico County, 
        Virginia.

SEC. 214. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 215. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 216. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City 
        County, or Henrico County, Virginia; and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City 
        County, or Henrico County, Virginia.
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 217. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

        Subtitle B--Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division

SEC. 221. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) in 1607, when the English settlers set shore along the 
        Virginia coastline, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe was one of 
        about 30 tribes that received them;
          (2) in 1614, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe entered into a 
        treaty with Sir Thomas Dale, Governor of the Jamestown Colony, 
        under which--
                  (A) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe agreed to provide 2 
                bushels of corn per man and send warriors to protect 
                the English; and
                  (B) Sir Thomas Dale agreed in return to allow the 
                Tribe to continue to practice its own tribal 
                governance;
          (3) in 1646, a treaty was signed which forced the 
        Chickahominy from their homeland to the area around the York 
        River in present-day King William County, leading to the 
        formation of a reservation;
          (4) in 1677, following Bacon's Rebellion, the Queen of 
        Pamunkey signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation on behalf of 
        the Chickahominy;
          (5) in 1702, the Chickahominy were forced from their 
        reservation, which caused the loss of a land base;
          (6) in 1711, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg 
        established a grammar school for Indians called Brafferton 
        College;
          (7) a Chickahominy child was one of the first Indians to 
        attend Brafferton College;
          (8) in 1750, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to migrate 
        from King William County back to the area around the 
        Chickahominy River in New Kent and Charles City Counties;
          (9) in 1793, a Baptist missionary named Bradby took refuge 
        with the Chickahominy and took a Chickahominy woman as his 
        wife;
          (10) in 1831, the names of the ancestors of the modern-day 
        Chickahominy Indian Tribe began to appear in the Charles City 
        County census records;
          (11) in 1870, a census revealed an enclave of Indians in New 
        Kent County that is believed to be the beginning of the 
        Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division;
          (12) other records were destroyed when the New Kent County 
        courthouse was burned, leaving a State census as the only 
        record covering that period;
          (13) in 1901, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe formed Samaria 
        Baptist Church;
          (14) from 1901 to 1935, Chickahominy men were assessed a 
        tribal tax so that their children could receive an education;
          (15) the Tribe used the proceeds from the tax to build the 
        first Samaria Indian School, buy supplies, and pay a teacher's 
        salary;
          (16) in 1910, a 1-room school covering grades 1 through 8 was 
        established in New Kent County for the Chickahominy Indian 
        Tribe--Eastern Division;
          (17) during the period of 1920 through 1921, the Chickahominy 
        Indian Tribe--Eastern Division began forming a tribal 
        government;
          (18) E.P. Bradby, the founder of the Tribe, was elected to be 
        Chief;
          (19) in 1922, Tsena Commocko Baptist Church was organized;
          (20) in 1925, a certificate of incorporation was issued to 
        the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division;
          (21) in 1950, the 1-room Indian school in New Kent County was 
        closed and students were bused to Samaria Indian School in 
        Charles City County;
          (22) in 1967, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe and the 
        Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division lost their schools 
        as a result of the required integration of students;
          (23) during the period of 1982 through 1984, Tsena Commocko 
        Baptist Church built a new sanctuary to accommodate church 
        growth;
          (24) in 1983 the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division 
        was granted State recognition along with 5 other Virginia 
        Indian tribes;
          (25) in 1985--
                  (A) the Virginia Council on Indians was organized as 
                a State agency; and
                  (B) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division 
                was granted a seat on the Council;
          (26) in 1988, a nonprofit organization known as the ``United 
        Indians of Virginia'' was formed; and
          (27) Chief Marvin ``Strongoak'' Bradby of the Eastern Band of 
        the Chickahominy presently chairs the organization.

SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Chickahominy Indian 
        Tribe--Eastern Division.

SEC. 223. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        future services and benefits provided by the Federal Government 
        to federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area comprised of New Kent County, 
        James City County, Charles City County, and Henrico County, 
        Virginia.

SEC. 224. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 225. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 226. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City 
        County, or Henrico County, Virginia; and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of New Kent County, James City County, Charles City 
        County, or Henrico County, Virginia.
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 227. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

                   Subtitle C--Upper Mattaponi Tribe

SEC. 231. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) during the period of 1607 through 1646, the Chickahominy 
        Indian Tribes--
                  (A) lived approximately 20 miles from Jamestown; and
                  (B) were significantly involved in English-Indian 
                affairs;
          (2) Mattaponi Indians, who later joined the Chickahominy 
        Indians, lived a greater distance from Jamestown;
          (3) in 1646, the Chickahominy Indians moved to Mattaponi 
        River basin, away from the English;
          (4) in 1661, the Chickahominy Indians sold land at a place 
        known as ``the cliffs'' on the Mattaponi River;
          (5) in 1669, the Chickahominy Indians--
                  (A) appeared in the Virginia Colony's census of 
                Indian bowmen; and
                  (B) lived in ``New Kent'' County, which included the 
                Mattaponi River basin at that time;
          (6) in 1677, the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indians were 
        subjects of the Queen of Pamunkey, who was a signatory to the 
        Treaty of 1677 with the King of England;
          (7) in 1683, after a Mattaponi town was attacked by Seneca 
        Indians, the Mattaponi Indians took refuge with the 
        Chickahominy Indians, and the history of the 2 groups was 
        intertwined for many years thereafter;
          (8) in 1695, the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indians--
                  (A) were assigned a reservation by the Virginia 
                Colony; and
                  (B) traded land of the reservation for land at the 
                place known as ``the cliffs'' (which, as of the date of 
                enactment of this Act, is the Mattaponi Indian 
                Reservation), which had been owned by the Mattaponi 
                Indians before 1661;
          (9) in 1711, a Chickahominy boy attended the Indian School at 
        the College of William and Mary;
          (10) in 1726, the Virginia Colony discontinued funding of 
        interpreters for the Chickahominy and Mattaponi Indian Tribes;
          (11) James Adams, who served as an interpreter to the Indian 
        tribes known as of the date of enactment of this Act as the 
        ``Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe'' and ``Chickahominy Indian 
        Tribe'', elected to stay with the Upper Mattaponi Indians;
          (12) today, a majority of the Upper Mattaponi Indians have 
        ``Adams'' as their surname;
          (13) in 1787, Thomas Jefferson, in Notes on the Commonwealth 
        of Virginia, mentioned the Mattaponi Indians on a reservation 
        in King William County and said that Chickahominy Indians were 
        ``blended'' with the Mattaponi Indians and nearby Pamunkey 
        Indians;
          (14) in 1850, the census of the United States revealed a 
        nucleus of approximately 10 families, all ancestral to modern 
        Upper Mattaponi Indians, living in central King William County, 
        Virginia, approximately 10 miles from the reservation;
          (15) during the period of 1853 through 1884, King William 
        County marriage records listed Upper Mattaponis as ``Indians'' 
        in marrying people residing on the reservation;
          (16) during the period of 1884 through the present, county 
        marriage records usually refer to Upper Mattaponis as 
        ``Indians'';
          (17) in 1901, Smithsonian anthropologist James Mooney heard 
        about the Upper Mattaponi Indians but did not visit them;
          (18) in 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank 
        Speck published a book on modern Virginia Indians with a 
        section on the Upper Mattaponis;
          (19) from 1929 until 1930, the leadership of the Upper 
        Mattaponi Indians opposed the use of a ``colored'' designation 
        in the 1930 United States census and won a compromise in which 
        the Indian ancestry of the Upper Mattaponis was recorded but 
        questioned;
          (20) during the period of 1942 through 1945--
                  (A) the leadership of the Upper Mattaponi Indians, 
                with the help of Frank Speck and others, fought against 
                the induction of young men of the Tribe into 
                ``colored'' units in the Armed Forces of the United 
                States; and
                  (B) a tribal roll for the Upper Mattaponi Indians was 
                compiled;
          (21) from 1945 to 1946, negotiations took place to admit some 
        of the young people of the Upper Mattaponi to high schools for 
        Federal Indians (especially at Cherokee) because no high school 
        coursework was available for Indians in Virginia schools; and
          (22) in 1983, the Upper Mattaponi Indians applied for and won 
        State recognition as an Indian tribe.

SEC. 232. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Upper Mattaponi 
        Tribe.

SEC. 233. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to 
        federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area within 25 miles of the Sharon 
        Indian School at 13383 King William Road, King William County, 
        Virginia.

SEC. 234. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 235. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 236. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of King William County, Caroline County, Hanover 
        County, King and Queen County, and New Kent County, Virginia; 
        and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of King William County, Caroline County, Hanover 
        County, King and Queen County, and New Kent County, Virginia.
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 237. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

                  Subtitle D--Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.

SEC. 241. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) during the initial months after Virginia was settled, the 
        Rappahannock Indians had 3 encounters with Captain John Smith;
          (2) the first encounter occurred when the Rappahannock 
        weroance (headman)--
                  (A) traveled to Quiyocohannock (a principal town 
                across the James River from Jamestown), where he met 
                with Smith to determine whether Smith had been the 
                ``great man'' who had previously sailed into the 
                Rappahannock River, killed a Rappahannock weroance, and 
                kidnapped Rappahannock people; and
                  (B) determined that Smith was too short to be that 
                ``great man'';
          (3) on a second meeting, during John Smith's captivity 
        (December 16, 1607, to January 8, 1608), Smith was taken to the 
        Rappahannock principal village to show the people that Smith 
        was not the ``great man'';
          (4) a third meeting took place during Smith's exploration of 
        the Chesapeake Bay (July to September 1608), when, after the 
        Moraughtacund Indians had stolen 3 women from the Rappahannock 
        King, Smith was prevailed upon to facilitate a peaceful truce 
        between the Rappahannock and the Moraughtacund Indians;
          (5) in the settlement, Smith had the 2 Indian tribes meet on 
        the spot of their first fight;
          (6) when it was established that both groups wanted peace, 
        Smith told the Rappahannock King to select which of the 3 
        stolen women he wanted;
          (7) the Moraughtacund King was given second choice among the 
        2 remaining women, and Mosco, a Wighcocomoco (on the Potomac 
        River) guide, was given the third woman;
          (8) in 1645, Captain William Claiborne tried unsuccessfully 
        to establish treaty relations with the Rappahannocks, as the 
        Rappahannocks had not participated in the Pamunkey-led uprising 
        in 1644, and the English wanted to ``treat with the 
        Rappahannocks or any other Indians not in amity with 
        Opechancanough, concerning serving the county against the 
        Pamunkeys'';
          (9) in April 1651, the Rappahannocks conveyed a tract of land 
        to an English settler, Colonel Morre Fauntleroy;
          (10) the deed for the conveyance was signed by Accopatough, 
        weroance of the Rappahannock Indians;
          (11) in September 1653, Lancaster County signed a treaty with 
        Rappahannock Indians, the terms of which treaty--
                  (A) gave Rappahannocks the rights of Englishmen in 
                the county court; and
                  (B) attempted to make the Rappahannocks more 
                accountable under English law;
          (12) in September 1653, Lancaster County defined and marked 
        the bounds of its Indian settlements;
          (13) according to the Lancaster clerk of court, ``the tribe 
        called the great Rappahannocks lived on the Rappahannock Creek 
        just across the river above Tappahannock'';
          (14) in September 1656, (Old) Rappahannock County (which, as 
        of the date of enactment of this Act, is comprised of Richmond 
        and Essex Counties, Virginia) signed a treaty with Rappahannock 
        Indians that--
                  (A) mirrored the Lancaster County treaty from 1653; 
                and
                  (B) stated that--
                          (i) Rappahannocks were to be rewarded, in 
                        Roanoke, for returning English fugitives; and
                          (ii) the English encouraged the Rappahannocks 
                        to send their children to live among the 
                        English as servants, who the English promised 
                        would be well-treated;
          (15) in 1658, the Virginia Assembly revised a 1652 Act 
        stating that ``there be no grants of land to any Englishman 
        whatsoever de futuro until the Indians be first served with the 
        proportion of 50 acres of land for each bowman'';
          (16) in 1669, the colony conducted a census of Virginia 
        Indians;
          (17) as of the date of that census--
                  (A) the majority of the Rappahannocks were residing 
                at their hunting village on the north side of the 
                Mattaponi River; and
                  (B) at the time of the visit, census-takers were 
                counting only the Indian tribes along the rivers, which 
                explains why only 30 Rappahannock bowmen were counted 
                on that river;
          (18) the Rappahannocks used the hunting village on the north 
        side of the Mattaponi River as their primary residence until 
        the Rappahannocks were removed in 1684;
          (19) in May 1677, the Treaty of Middle Plantation was signed 
        with England;
          (20) the Pamunkey Queen Cockacoeske signed on behalf of the 
        Rappahannocks, ``who were supposed to be her tributaries'', but 
        before the treaty could be ratified, the Queen of Pamunkey 
        complained to the Virginia Colonial Council ``that she was 
        having trouble with Rappahannocks and Chickahominies, 
        supposedly tributaries of hers'';
          (21) in November 1682, the Virginia Colonial Council 
        established a reservation for the Rappahannock Indians of 3,474 
        acres ``about the town where they dwelt'';
          (22) the Rappahannock ``town'' was the hunting village on the 
        north side of the Mattaponi River, where the Rappahannocks had 
        lived throughout the 1670s;
          (23) the acreage allotment of the reservation was based on 
        the 1658 Indian land act, which translates into a bowman 
        population of 70, or an approximate total Rappahannock 
        population of 350;
          (24) in 1683, following raids by Iroquoian warriors on both 
        Indian and English settlements, the Virginia Colonial Council 
        ordered the Rappahannocks to leave their reservation and unite 
        with the Nanzatico Indians at Nanzatico Indian Town, which was 
        located across and up the Rappahannock River some 30 miles;
          (25) between 1687 and 1699, the Rappahannocks migrated out of 
        Nanzatico, returning to the south side of the Rappahannock 
        River at Portobacco Indian Town;
          (26) in 1706, by order of Essex County, Lieutenant Richard 
        Covington ``escorted'' the Portobaccos and Rappahannocks out of 
        Portobacco Indian Town, out of Essex County, and into King and 
        Queen County where they settled along the ridgeline between the 
        Rappahannock and Mattaponi Rivers, the site of their ancient 
        hunting village and 1682 reservation;
          (27) during the 1760s, 3 Rappahannock girls were raised on 
        Thomas Nelson's Bleak Hill Plantation in King William County;
          (28) of those girls--
                  (A) one married a Saunders man;
                  (B) one married a Johnson man; and
                  (C) one had 2 children, Edmund and Carter Nelson, 
                fathered by Thomas Cary Nelson;
          (29) in the 19th century, those Saunders, Johnson, and Nelson 
        families are among the core Rappahannock families from which 
        the modern Tribe traces its descent;
          (30) in 1819 and 1820, Edward Bird, John Bird (and his wife), 
        Carter Nelson, Edmund Nelson, and Carter Spurlock (all 
        Rappahannock ancestors) were listed on the tax roles of King 
        and Queen County and taxed at the county poor rate;
          (31) Edmund Bird was added to the tax roles in 1821;
          (32) those tax records are significant documentation because 
        the great majority of pre-1864 records for King and Queen 
        County were destroyed by fire;
          (33) beginning in 1819, and continuing through the 1880s, 
        there was a solid Rappahannock presence in the membership at 
        Upper Essex Baptist Church;
          (34) that was the first instance of conversion to 
        Christianity by at least some Rappahannock Indians;
          (35) while twenty-six identifiable and traceable Rappahannock 
        surnames appear on the pre-1863 membership list, and twenty-
        eight were listed on the 1863 membership roster, the number of 
        surnames listed had declined to twelve in 1878 and had risen 
        only slightly to fourteen by 1888;
          (36) a reason for the decline is that in 1870, a Methodist 
        circuit rider, Joseph Mastin, secured funds to purchase land 
        and construct St. Stephens Baptist Church for the Rappahannocks 
        living nearby in Caroline County;
          (37) Mastin referred to the Rappahannocks during the period 
        of 1850 to 1870 as ``Indians, having a great need for moral and 
        Christian guidance'';
          (38) St. Stephens was the dominant tribal church until the 
        Rappahannock Indian Baptist Church was established in 1964;
          (39) at both churches, the core Rappahannock family names of 
        Bird, Clarke, Fortune, Johnson, Nelson, Parker, and Richardson 
        predominate;
          (40) during the early 1900s, James Mooney, noted 
        anthropologist, maintained correspondence with the 
        Rappahannocks, surveying them and instructing them on how to 
        formalize their tribal government;
          (41) in November 1920, Speck visited the Rappahannocks and 
        assisted them in organizing the fight for their sovereign 
        rights;
          (42) in 1921, the Rappahannocks were granted a charter from 
        the Commonwealth of Virginia formalizing their tribal 
        government;
          (43) Speck began a professional relationship with the Tribe 
        that would last more than 30 years and document Rappahannock 
        history and traditions as never before;
          (44) in April 1921, Rappahannock Chief George Nelson asked 
        the Governor of Virginia, Westmoreland Davis, to forward a 
        proclamation to the President of the United States, along with 
        an appended list of tribal members and a handwritten copy of 
        the proclamation itself;
          (45) the letter concerned Indian freedom of speech and 
        assembly nationwide;
          (46) in 1922, the Rappahannocks established a formal school 
        at Lloyds, Essex County, Virginia;
          (47) prior to establishment of the school, Rappahannock 
        children were taught by a tribal member in Central Point, 
        Caroline County, Virginia;
          (48) in December 1923, Rappahannock Chief George Nelson 
        testified before Congress appealing for a $50,000 appropriation 
        to establish an Indian school in Virginia;
          (49) in 1930, the Rappahannocks were engaged in an ongoing 
        dispute with the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States 
        Census Bureau about their classification in the 1930 Federal 
        census;
          (50) in January 1930, Rappahannock Chief Otho S. Nelson wrote 
        to Leon Truesdell, Chief Statistician of the United States 
        Census Bureau, asking that the 218 enrolled Rappahannocks be 
        listed as Indians;
          (51) in February 1930, Truesdell replied to Nelson saying 
        that ``special instructions'' were being given about 
        classifying Indians;
          (52) in April 1930, Nelson wrote to William M. Steuart at the 
        Census Bureau asking about the enumerators' failure to classify 
        his people as Indians, saying that enumerators had not asked 
        the question about race when they interviewed his people;
          (53) in a followup letter to Truesdell, Nelson reported that 
        the enumerators were ``flatly denying'' his people's request to 
        be listed as Indians and that the race question was completely 
        avoided during interviews;
          (54) the Rappahannocks had spoken with Caroline and Essex 
        County enumerators, and with John M.W. Green at that point, 
        without success;
          (55) Nelson asked Truesdell to list people as Indians if he 
        sent a list of members;
          (56) the matter was settled by William Steuart, who concluded 
        that the Bureau's rule was that people of Indian descent could 
        be classified as ``Indian'' only if Indian ``blood'' 
        predominated and ``Indian'' identity was accepted in the local 
        community;
          (57) the Virginia Vital Statistics Bureau classed all 
        nonreservation Indians as ``Negro'', and it failed to see why 
        ``an exception should be made'' for the Rappahannocks;
          (58) therefore, in 1925, the Indian Rights Association took 
        on the Rappahannock case to assist the Rappahannocks in 
        fighting for their recognition and rights as an Indian tribe;
          (59) during the Second World War, the Pamunkeys, Mattaponis, 
        Chickahominies, and Rappahannocks had to fight the draft boards 
        with respect to their racial identities;
          (60) the Virginia Vital Statistics Bureau insisted that 
        certain Indian draftees be inducted into Negro units;
          (61) finally, 3 Rappahannocks were convicted of violating the 
        Federal draft laws and, after spending time in a Federal 
        prison, were granted conscientious objector status and served 
        out the remainder of the war working in military hospitals;
          (62) in 1943, Frank Speck noted that there were approximately 
        25 communities of Indians left in the Eastern United States 
        that were entitled to Indian classification, including the 
        Rappahannocks;
          (63) in the 1940s, Leon Truesdell, Chief Statistician, of the 
        United States Census Bureau, listed 118 members in the 
        Rappahannock Tribe in the Indian population of Virginia;
          (64) on April 25, 1940, the Office of Indian Affairs of the 
        Department of the Interior included the Rappahannocks on a list 
        of Indian tribes classified by State and by agency;
          (65) in 1948, the Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 
        included an article by William Harlen Gilbert entitled, 
        ``Surviving Indian Groups of the Eastern United States'', which 
        included and described the Rappahannock Tribe;
          (66) in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Rappahannocks 
        operated a school at Indian Neck;
          (67) the State agreed to pay a tribal teacher to teach 10 
        students bused by King and Queen County to Sharon Indian School 
        in King William County, Virginia;
          (68) in 1965, Rappahannock students entered Marriott High 
        School (a White public school) by executive order of the 
        Governor of Virginia;
          (69) in 1972, the Rappahannocks worked with the Coalition of 
        Eastern Native Americans to fight for Federal recognition;
          (70) in 1979, the Coalition established a pottery and 
        artisans company, operating with other Virginia tribes;
          (71) in 1980, the Rappahannocks received funding through the 
        Administration for Native Americans of the Department of Health 
        and Human Services to develop an economic program for the 
        Tribe; and
          (72) in 1983, the Rappahannocks received State recognition as 
        an Indian tribe.

SEC. 242. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``Tribe'' means the 
                organization possessing the legal name Rappahannock 
                Tribe, Inc.
                  (B) Exclusions.--The term ``Tribe'' does not include 
                any other Indian tribe, subtribe, band, or splinter 
                group the members of which represent themselves as 
                Rappahannock Indians.

SEC. 243. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to 
        federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area comprised of King and Queen 
        County, Caroline County, Essex County, and King William County, 
        Virginia.

SEC. 244. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 245. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 246. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of King and Queen County, Stafford County, 
        Spotsylvania County, Richmond County, Essex County, and 
        Caroline County, Virginia; and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of King and Queen County, Richmond County, Lancaster 
        County, King George County, Essex County, Caroline County, New 
        Kent County, King William County, and James City County, 
        Virginia.
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 247. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

                   Subtitle E--Monacan Indian Nation

SEC. 251. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) in 1677, the Monacan Tribe signed the Treaty of Middle 
        Plantation between Charles II of England and 12 Indian ``Kings 
        and Chief Men'';
          (2) in 1722, in the Treaty of Albany, Governor Spotswood 
        negotiated to save the Virginia Indians from extinction at the 
        hands of the Iroquois;
          (3) specifically mentioned in the negotiations were the 
        Monacan tribes of the Totero (Tutelo), Saponi, Ocheneeches 
        (Occaneechi), Stengenocks, and Meipontskys;
          (4) in 1790, the first national census recorded Benjamin 
        Evans and Robert Johns, both ancestors of the present Monacan 
        community, listed as ``white'' with mulatto children;
          (5) in 1782, tax records also began for those families;
          (6) in 1850, the United States census recorded 29 families, 
        mostly large, with Monacan surnames, the members of which are 
        genealogically related to the present community;
          (7) in 1870, a log structure was built at the Bear Mountain 
        Indian Mission;
          (8) in 1908, the structure became an Episcopal Mission and, 
        as of the date of enactment of this Act, the structure is 
        listed as a landmark on the National Register of Historic 
        Places;
          (9) in 1920, 304 Amherst Indians were identified in the 
        United States census;
          (10) from 1930 through 1931, numerous letters from Monacans 
        to the Bureau of the Census resulted from the decision of Dr. 
        Walter Plecker, former head of the Bureau of Vital Statistics 
        of the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to allow Indians to 
        register as Indians for the 1930 census;
          (11) the Monacans eventually succeeded in being allowed to 
        claim their race, albeit with an asterisk attached to a note 
        from Dr. Plecker stating that there were no Indians in 
        Virginia;
          (12) in 1947, D'Arcy McNickle, a Salish Indian, saw some of 
        the children at the Amherst Mission and requested that the 
        Cherokee Agency visit them because they appeared to be Indian;
          (13) that letter was forwarded to the Department of the 
        Interior, Office of Indian Affairs, Chicago, Illinois;
          (14) Chief Jarrett Blythe of the Eastern Band of Cherokee did 
        visit the Mission and wrote that he ``would be willing to 
        accept these children in the Cherokee school'';
          (15) in 1979, a Federal Coalition of Eastern Native Americans 
        established the entity known as ``Monacan Co-operative 
        Pottery'' at the Amherst Mission;
          (16) some important pieces were produced at Monacan Co-
        operative Pottery, including a piece that was sold to the 
        Smithsonian Institution;
          (17) the Mattaponi-Pamunkey-Monacan Consortium, established 
        in 1981, has since been organized as a nonprofit corporation 
        that serves as a vehicle to obtain funds for those Indian 
        tribes from the Department of Labor under Native American 
        programs;
          (18) in 1989, the Monacan Tribe was recognized by the 
        Commonwealth of Virginia, which enabled the Tribe to apply for 
        grants and participate in other programs; and
          (19) in 1993, the Monacan Tribe received tax-exempt status as 
        a nonprofit corporation from the Internal Revenue Service.

SEC. 252. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Monacan Indian 
        Nation.

SEC. 253. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to 
        federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area comprised of all land within 25 
        miles from the center of Amherst, Virginia.

SEC. 254. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 255. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 256. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of Amherst County, Virginia; and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of Amherst County, Virginia, and those parcels in 
        Rockbridge County, Virginia (subject to the consent of the 
        local unit of government), owned by Mr. J. Poole, described as 
        East 731 Sandbridge (encompassing approximately 4.74 acres) and 
        East 731 (encompassing approximately 5.12 acres).
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 257. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

                   Subtitle F--Nansemond Indian Tribe

SEC. 261. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) from 1607 until 1646, Nansemond Indians--
                  (A) lived approximately 30 miles from Jamestown; and
                  (B) were significantly involved in English-Indian 
                affairs;
          (2) after 1646, there were 2 sections of Nansemonds in 
        communication with each other, the Christianized Nansemonds in 
        Norfolk County, who lived as citizens, and the traditionalist 
        Nansemonds, who lived further west;
          (3) in 1638, according to an entry in a 17th century sermon 
        book still owned by the Chief's family, a Norfolk County 
        Englishman married a Nansemond woman;
          (4) that man and woman are lineal ancestors of all of members 
        of the Nansemond Indian tribe alive as of the date of enactment 
        of this Act, as are some of the traditionalist Nansemonds;
          (5) in 1669, the 2 Nansemond sections appeared in Virginia 
        Colony's census of Indian bowmen;
          (6) in 1677, Nansemond Indians were signatories to the Treaty 
        of 1677 with the King of England;
          (7) in 1700 and 1704, the Nansemonds and other Virginia 
        Indian tribes were prevented by Virginia Colony from making a 
        separate peace with the Iroquois;
          (8) Virginia represented those Indian tribes in the final 
        Treaty of Albany, 1722;
          (9) in 1711, a Nansemond boy attended the Indian School at 
        the College of William and Mary;
          (10) in 1727, Norfolk County granted William Bass and his 
        kinsmen the ``Indian privileges'' of clearing swamp land and 
        bearing arms (which privileges were forbidden to other non-
        Whites) because of their Nansemond ancestry, which meant that 
        Bass and his kinsmen were original inhabitants of that land;
          (11) in 1742, Norfolk County issued a certificate of 
        Nansemond descent to William Bass;
          (12) from the 1740s to the 1790s, the traditionalist section 
        of the Nansemond tribe, 40 miles west of the Christianized 
        Nansemonds, was dealing with reservation land;
          (13) the last surviving members of that section sold out in 
        1792 with the permission of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
          (14) in 1797, Norfolk County issued a certificate stating 
        that William Bass was of Indian and English descent, and that 
        his Indian line of ancestry ran directly back to the early 18th 
        century elder in a traditionalist section of Nansemonds on the 
        reservation;
          (15) in 1833, Virginia enacted a law enabling people of 
        European and Indian descent to obtain a special certificate of 
        ancestry;
          (16) the law originated from the county in which Nansemonds 
        lived, and mostly Nansemonds, with a few people from other 
        counties, took advantage of the new law;
          (17) a Methodist mission established around 1850 for 
        Nansemonds is currently a standard Methodist congregation with 
        Nansemond members;
          (18) in 1901, Smithsonian anthropologist James Mooney--
                  (A) visited the Nansemonds; and
                  (B) completed a tribal census that counted 61 
                households and was later published;
          (19) in 1922, Nansemonds were given a special Indian school 
        in the segregated school system of Norfolk County;
          (20) the school survived only a few years;
          (21) in 1928, University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Frank 
        Speck published a book on modern Virginia Indians that included 
        a section on the Nansemonds; and
          (22) the Nansemonds were organized formally, with elected 
        officers, in 1984, and later applied for and received State 
        recognition.

SEC. 262. DEFINITIONS.

  In this subtitle:
          (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (2) Tribal member.--The term ``tribal member'' means--
                  (A) an individual who is an enrolled member of the 
                Tribe as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
                  (B) an individual who has been placed on the 
                membership rolls of the Tribe in accordance with this 
                subtitle.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Nansemond Indian 
        Tribe.

SEC. 263. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) Federal Recognition.--
          (1) In general.--Federal recognition is extended to the 
        Tribe.
          (2) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including regulations) 
        of the United States of general applicability to Indians or 
        nations, Indian tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act 
        of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.)) that are not 
        inconsistent with this subtitle shall be applicable to the 
        Tribe and tribal members.
  (b) Federal Services and Benefits.--
          (1) In general.--On and after the date of enactment of this 
        Act, the Tribe and tribal members shall be eligible for all 
        services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to 
        federally recognized Indian tribes without regard to the 
        existence of a reservation for the Tribe.
          (2) Service area.--For the purpose of the delivery of Federal 
        services to tribal members, the service area of the Tribe shall 
        be considered to be the area comprised of the cities of 
        Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, 
        Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

SEC. 264. MEMBERSHIP; GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

  The membership roll and governing documents of the Tribe shall be the 
most recent membership roll and governing documents, respectively, 
submitted by the Tribe to the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 265. GOVERNING BODY.

  The governing body of the Tribe shall be--
          (1) the governing body of the Tribe in place as of the date 
        of enactment of this Act; or
          (2) any subsequent governing body elected in accordance with 
        the election procedures specified in the governing documents of 
        the Tribe.

SEC. 266. RESERVATION OF THE TRIBE.

  (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Tribe, the Secretary of the 
Interior--
          (1) shall take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any 
        land held in fee by the Tribe that was acquired by the Tribe on 
        or before January 1, 2007, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of the city of Suffolk, the city of Chesapeake, or 
        Isle of Wight County, Virginia; and
          (2) may take into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land 
        held in fee by the Tribe, if such lands are located within the 
        boundaries of the city of Suffolk, the city of Chesapeake, or 
        Isle of Wight County, Virginia.
  (b) Deadline for Determination.--The Secretary shall make a final 
written determination not later than three years of the date which the 
Tribe submits a request for land to be taken into trust under 
subsection (a)(2) and shall immediately make that determination 
available to the Tribe.
  (c) Reservation Status.--Any land taken into trust for the benefit of 
the Tribe pursuant to this paragraph shall, upon request of the Tribe, 
be considered part of the reservation of the Tribe.
  (d) Gaming.--The Tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a matter 
of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any Federal 
law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq.) or under any regulations thereunder promulgated by the Secretary 
or the National Indian Gaming Commission.

SEC. 267. HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, GATHERING, AND WATER RIGHTS.

  Nothing in this subtitle expands, reduces, or affects in any manner 
any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe 
and members of the Tribe.

           TITLE III--LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa 
Indians Restoration Act of 2016''.

SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds that--
          (1) the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a political 
        successor to signatories of the Pembina Treaty of 1863, under 
        which a large area of land in the State of North Dakota was 
        ceded to the United States;
          (2) the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa of North Dakota and 
        the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation of 
        Montana, which also are political successors to the signatories 
        of the Pembina Treaty of 1863, have been recognized by the 
        Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes;
          (3) the members of the Little Shell Tribe continue to live in 
        the State of Montana, as their ancestors have for more than 100 
        years since ceding land in the State of North Dakota as 
        described in paragraph (1);
          (4) in the 1930s and 1940s, the Tribe repeatedly petitioned 
        the Federal Government for reorganization under the Act of June 
        18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the 
        ``Indian Reorganization Act'');
          (5) Federal agents who visited the Tribe and Commissioner of 
        Indian Affairs John Collier attested to the responsibility of 
        the Federal Government for the Tribe and members of the Tribe, 
        concluding that members of the Tribe are eligible for, and 
        should be provided with, trust land, making the Tribe eligible 
        for reorganization under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 
        461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization 
        Act'');
          (6) due to a lack of Federal appropriations during the 
        Depression, the Bureau of Indian Affairs lacked adequate 
        financial resources to purchase land for the Tribe, and the 
        members of the Tribe were denied the opportunity to reorganize;
          (7) in spite of the failure of the Federal Government to 
        appropriate adequate funding to secure land for the Tribe as 
        required for reorganization under the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 
        U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian 
        Reorganization Act''), the Tribe continued to exist as a 
        separate community, with leaders exhibiting clear political 
        authority;
          (8) the Tribe, together with the Turtle Mountain Band of 
        Chippewa of North Dakota and the Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the 
        Rocky Boy's Reservation of Montana, filed 2 lawsuits under the 
        Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049) (commonly known as the 
        ``Indian Claims Commission Act''), to petition for additional 
        compensation for land ceded to the United States under the 
        Pembina Treaty of 1863 and the McCumber Agreement of 1892;
          (9) in 1971 and 1982, pursuant to Acts of Congress, the 
        tribes received awards for the claims described in paragraph 
        (8);
          (10) in 1978, the Tribe submitted to the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs a petition for Federal recognition, which is still 
        pending as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
          (11) the Federal Government, the State of Montana, and the 
        other federally recognized Indian tribes of the State have had 
        continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of 
        the Tribe since the 1930s.

SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title:
          (1) Member.--The term ``member'' means an individual who is 
        enrolled in the Tribe pursuant to section 307.
          (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        the Interior.
          (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Little Shell Tribe 
        of Chippewa Indians of Montana.

SEC. 304. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

  (a) In General.--Federal recognition is extended to the Tribe.
  (b) Effect of Federal Laws.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
title, all Federal laws (including regulations) of general application 
to Indians and Indian tribes, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 
U.S.C. 461 et seq.) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization 
Act''), shall apply to the Tribe and members.

SEC. 305. FEDERAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS.

  (a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Tribe and each member shall be eligible for all services and benefits 
provided by the United States to Indians and federally recognized 
Indian tribes, without regard to--
          (1) the existence of a reservation for the Tribe; or
          (2) the location of the residence of any member on or near an 
        Indian reservation.
  (b) Service Area.--For purposes of the delivery of services and 
benefits to members, the service area of the Tribe shall be considered 
to be the area comprised of Blaine, Cascade, Glacier, and Hill Counties 
in the State of Montana.

SEC. 306. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

  (a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes any right or 
privilege of the Tribe or any member that existed before the date of 
enactment of this Act.
  (b) Claims of Tribe.--Except as otherwise provided in this title, 
nothing in this title alters or affects any legal or equitable claim of 
the Tribe to enforce any right or privilege reserved by, or granted to, 
the Tribe that was wrongfully denied to, or taken from, the Tribe 
before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 307. MEMBERSHIP ROLL.

  (a) In General.--As a condition of receiving recognition, services, 
and benefits pursuant to this title, the Tribe shall submit to the 
Secretary, by not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, a membership roll consisting of the name of each individual 
enrolled as a member of the Tribe.
  (b) Determination of Membership.--The qualifications for inclusion on 
the membership roll of the Tribe shall be determined in accordance with 
sections 1 through 3 of article 5 of the constitution of the Tribe 
dated September 10, 1977 (including amendments to the constitution).
  (c) Maintenance of Roll.--The Tribe shall maintain the membership 
roll under this section.

SEC. 308. TRANSFER OF LAND.

  (a) Homeland.--The Secretary shall acquire, for the benefit of the 
Tribe, trust title to 200 acres of land within the service area of the 
Tribe to be used for a tribal land base.
  (b) Additional Land.--The Secretary may acquire additional land for 
the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 18, 
1934 (25 U.S.C. 465) (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization 
Act'').

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 3764 is to provide that an Indian group 
may receive Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe only by 
an Act of Congress.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 3764 reclaims Congress's Constitutional Article I role 
over recognizing tribes from the Executive Branch, which has 
wrongly appropriated this power. The bill establishes a 
statutory process for examining the evidence submitted by 
groups seeking recognition as tribes and for reserving to 
Congress the prerogative to render a final determination.
    H.R. 3764 is necessary because the Indian Commerce Clause 
(Article I, Section 8) gives sole responsibility for Indian 
policy to Congress (not to the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs). The Committee holds that this is a 
separation of powers issue of significant constitutional 
importance, rather than a parochial Indian matter.
    The Framers vested responsibility over Indian affairs to 
the Congress--the political branch. Article I, Section 8, 
Clause 3 of the Constitution grants Congress power to 
``regulate commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.'' 
Supplemented by the Treaty making power\1\ in the Constitution, 
the so-called Indian Commerce Clause delegates to Congress what 
the Supreme Court has said is ``plenary'' power over Indian 
affairs.\2\ Inherent in this delegation of authority to 
Congress is the power to recognize a tribe, as well as the 
prerogative not to extend recognition. Congress may create, 
modify, or terminate any of the services, benefits, powers, and 
privileges described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Treaty making with the Indian tribes was abolished by Congress 
in 1871 (``. . . Provided, That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe 
within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or 
recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the 
United States may contract by treaty . . .'' [U.S. Statutes at Large, 
16:566]).
    \2\According to the Supreme Court, Congress's power regarding 
Indian tribes ``has always been deemed a political one, not subject to 
be controlled by the judicial department of the government.'' Lone Wolf 
v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) at 565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal recognition of an Indian tribe is a solemn act of 
the United States, with substantial, long-term consequences not 
only to the tribe's members, but to other tribes, states, and 
non-Indian citizens. A federally recognized tribe is eligible 
to obtain a variety of federal services and benefits and to 
enjoy certain powers and privileges available to it because of 
the Indian status of its members. These include: immunity from 
taxation and from state civil and criminal jurisdiction; 
operation of a non-taxable casino; absolute sovereign immunity 
against any person or government except the federal government; 
federal protection in controversies where states, local 
governments, or private citizens are adverse parties; and the 
exercise of special political authority over Indians in the 
tribe's territory. Current law authorizes the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) to accept title to Indian land in trust, 
divesting state and local government jurisdiction over such 
property. A tribe is not deemed to be a party to the 
Constitution and as a result, an individual in tribal court 
does not possess the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, 
except as provided by Act of Congress. Federally recognizing a 
tribe incurs an obligation on Congress to increase funding for 
Indian programs lest the share of funds for other tribes is 
reduced by the addition of individuals eligible for benefits 
from the government.
    While the Executive Branch has played an important role in 
Indian affairs, often serving as a first point of contact with 
the tribes and to carry out Acts of Congress concerning the 
administration of tribal affairs, the historical record is 
clear: federal Indian policy, which includes the question of 
extending formal recognition to a tribe, is not the province of 
an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy (today known as the 
BIA), but to the elected, publicly accountable branch of 
government.
    The importance of reserving the power over recognizing a 
tribe to the accountable branch of government is highlighted by 
a tribal leader in the second legislative hearing on H.R. 3764, 
testifying that ``the current process [of federally recognizing 
tribes] is inherently flawed and subject to influence by those 
who have the best relationships within the Executive 
Branch.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
martin_testimony_12_8_15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, in recent years Congress has often 
passed legislation to recognize new tribes whose histories were 
not often clear or fully examined. Where the BIA hires 
professional historians and ethnographers to process and 
evaluate documented petitions from groups seeking recognition, 
the Congress generally does not.
    H.R. 3764 combines the analytical expertise of BIA's 
personnel with the judgment of a more transparent, accountable 
Congress.

BIA Regulations

    In 1978, the BIA crafted tribal recognition regulations--
now contained in 25 CFR Part 8 to recognize any group that can 
meet seven mandatory criteria to establish a continuous 
existence as an autonomous Indian tribe throughout history to 
the present. The BIA developed these regulations even as 
Congress discussed, but did not enact, a bill to establish 
standards and conditions for when federal recognition may be 
extended to a tribe. Thus, the ``Part 83'' regulations, today 
administered by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment of the 
Department of the Interior, should not have the force of law.
    The 1978 regulations (then codified in Part 54) cited the 
following as the sources of authority for the BIA to recognize 
tribes: ``5 U.S.C. 301; and sections 463 and 465 of the revised 
statutes 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and 230 DM 1 and 2.'' (``DM'' in 
the citation of BIA authority stands for Departmental Manual, 
which is not a source of law). Today, the Part 83 regulations 
cite the following as the sources of authority for the BIA to 
recognize tribes: ``5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C 2, 9, 479a-1; Pub. 
L. 103-454 Sec. 103 (Nov. 2, 1994); and 43 U.S.C. 1457.''
    None of these sources on their face authorize the Executive 
Branch, let alone an obscure office within a Bureau of the 
Department of the Interior, to promulgate the Part 83 
regulations or otherwise extend recognition without express 
direction from Congress. A discussion of each statute the BIA 
wrongly cites as a delegation of power to create rules for the 
recognition of tribes follows here.
    5 U.S.C. 301 is merely an authorization for all Executive 
departments to promulgate rules, and not a source of authority 
for a specific rule.
            25 U.S.C. 2 (Section 43 of the Revised Statutes). Duties of 
                    Commissioner
    The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the 
direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to 
such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the 
management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out 
of Indian relations.
    This provision of law is a codification of a section of the 
Revised Statutes derived from the Act of July 9, 1932, ch. 174, 
section 1, 4 Stat. 564. 25 U.S.C. 2 simply creates a position 
of Commission of Indian Affairs within the War Department. 
Congress believed it to be necessary to enact this law because 
``Secretary of War [John C.] Calhoun, by his own order, and 
without special authorization from Congress, created in the War 
Department what he called the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. 
To head the office Calhoun appointed McKenney [a Superintendent 
of Indian Trade] and assigned him two clerks as assistants. . . 
.''\4\ (Italics added for emphasis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative 
Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834, at 57 (1971 
ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This statute cannot be reasonably read to imply that the 
early 19th-century creation of a relatively small bureaucratic 
post carries with it the solemn power to recognize tribal 
nations endowed with the large range of powers, privileges, and 
immunities described previously.
            25 U.S.C. 9. Regulations by President
    The President may prescribe such regulations as he may 
think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of 
any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of 
the accounts of Indian affairs.
    This provision of law is derived from the Act of June 30, 
1834, ch. 162, Sec. 17, 4 Stat. 738. The plain text 
unambiguously does not authorize the President or anyone else 
to extend federal recognition to a tribe. 25 U.S.C. 9 simply 
authorizes the President to prescribe regulations for 
``carrying into effect'' laws concerning tribal affairs and for 
the settlement of their accounts. It is not a substantive 
source of authority for the laws that the President's 
regulations implement.
            25 U.S.C. 479a-1, now reclassified as 25 U.S.C. 5131.
            Sec. 5131. Publication of list of recognized tribes
    (a) Publication of List.--The Secretary shall publish in 
the Federal Register a list of all Indian tribes which the 
Secretary recognizes to be eligible for the special programs 
and services provided by the United States to Indians because 
of their status as Indians.
    (b) Frequency of Publication.--The list shall be published 
within 60 days of November 2, 1994, and annually on or before 
every January 30 thereafter.
    This statute does not provide a substantive source of 
authority for the Secretary of the Interior to recognize 
tribes. Its purpose is to require the Secretary of the Interior 
to implement the administrative duty of publishing a list of 
federally recognized tribes on an annual basis in the Federal 
Register.
Excerpts of the statements of the House Floor Managers 
describing the purpose and intent of Title I of H.R. 4180, 
later codified as 25 U.S.C. 479a (now 25 U.S.C. 5131), reveal 
no authority was granted to the Secretary to extend recognition 
to tribes:

          Mr. RICHARDSON [Majority Floor Manager]. Mr. Speaker, 
        H.R. 4180 is a bill with three titles. The first title 
        simply requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
        promulgate an annual list of federally recognized 
        Indian tribes.
          Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming [Minority Floor Manager]. Mr. 
        Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
          Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of H.R. 4180 I rise to 
        urge my colleagues to support it. Title I would require 
        the Secretary to publish an annual list of all the 
        recognized tribes. Congressional Record, Oct. 3, 1994, 
        page H10490)
            Public Law 103-454, Sec. 103 (Nov. 2, 1994).

SEC. 103. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
          (1) the Constitution, as interpreted by Federal case 
        law, invests Congress with plenary authority over 
        Indian Affairs;
          (2) ancillary to that authority, the United States 
        has a trust responsibility to recognized Indian tribes, 
        maintains a government-to-government relationship with 
        those tribes, and recognizes the sovereignty of those 
        tribes;
          (3) Indian tribes presently may be recognized by Act 
        of Congress; by the administrative procedures set forth 
        in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
        denominated `Procedures for Establishing that an 
        American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe;' or by 
        a decision of a United States court;
          (4) a tribe which has been recognized in one of these 
        manners may not be terminated except by an Act of 
        Congress;
          (5) Congress has expressly repudiated the policy of 
        terminating recognized Indian tribes, and has actively 
        sought to restore recognition to tribes that previously 
        have been terminated;
          (6) the Secretary of the Interior is charged with the 
        responsibility of keeping a list of all federally 
        recognized tribes;
          (7) the list published by the Secretary should be 
        accurate, regularly updated, and regularly published, 
        since it is used by the various departments and 
        agencies of the United States to determine the 
        eligibility of certain groups to receive services from 
        the United States; and
          (8) the list of federally recognized tribes which the 
        Secretary publishes should reflect all of the federally 
        recognized Indian tribes in the United States which are 
        eligible for the special programs and services provided 
        by the United States to Indians because of their status 
        as Indians.
    Section 103 of Public Law 103-454 is no more than a set of 
``Findings.'' Congressional findings are often points of 
contention but are frequently included in acts because they 
have no substantive force and effect and they do not provide a 
substantive source of authority. As the Minority Floor Manager 
for the bill enacted as Pubic Law 103-454, complained: 
``[F]indings are not legally binding.'' (Congressional Record, 
Oct. 3, 1994, page H10490).
            43 U.S.C. 1457

Sec. 1457. Duties of Secretary

    The Secretary of the Interior is charged with the 
supervision of public business relating to the following 
subjects and agencies:
    1. Alaska Railroad.
    2. Alaska Road Commission.
    3. Bounty-lands.
    4. Bureau of Land Management.
    5. United States Bureau of Mines.
    6. Bureau of Reclamation.
    7. Division of Territories and Island Possessions.
    8. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    9. United States Geological Survey.
    10. Indians.
    11. National Park Service.
    12. Petroleum conservation.
    13. Public lands, including mines.

    43 U.S.C. 1457 is derived from a large number of acts of 
Congress dating back to 1849 and up to 1992. On its face this 
section of the U.S. Code cannot be reasonably construed to 
grant the Secretary of the Interior with power to promulgate 
regulations for the recognition of new tribes any more than it 
can be construed to give the Secretary power to create new U.S. 
territories or new National Parks.
    If it is assumed for the sake of argument that any or all 
of these statutes vested the BIA with some kind of power to 
promulgate the Part 83 regulations, there can be no question 
that none of these statutes contain standards, guidelines, or 
even suggestions for who may be eligible for federal 
recognition as a tribe.
            Addressing Opposition to Congress Reclaiming Power over 
                    Tribal Recognition
    Opponents of H.R. 3764 argue that the bill ``politicizes'' 
tribal recognition.\5\ In their view, the Department of the 
Interior should have the primary role of making the rules for 
recognizing tribes, not Congress. Inexplicably, several of the 
Members who voted against H.R. 3764 in Committee because it 
``politicizes'' tribal recognition have also cosponsored and 
voted in favor of legislation to recognize new tribes that did 
not undergo any formal analysis by the BIA. It would appear 
that opponents of H.R. 3764 would prefer to extend legislative 
recognition only to groups about which they know very little. 
Either that or many of the opponents of H.R. 3764 hold 
simultaneously contradictory views on the proper role of 
Congress in tribal recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-
releases/ranking-member-grijalva-i-join-tribes-in-strongly-opposing-
just-pas$2$DKA1:[E.TRAP]sed-republican-bill-that-politicizes-tribal-
recognition-process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3764 is necessary to ensure that when such Members 
cast their votes on a bill to recognize a tribe, they do so 
after receiving the BIA's formal analysis of that group. This 
improves Congress' ability to make fully informed, reasoned 
decisions, and puts into its proper place the BIA's 
unauthorized role over recognition, which has its own checkered 
history of political machinations and unethical behavior (see 
Office of Inspector General Investigative Report: ``Allegations 
Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and 
Concerns Related to Indian Gaming,'' February 2002, U.S. 
Department of the Interior).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/01-i-329.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Controversial BIA Revision of Recognition Standards
    On July 1, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finalized a 
controversial rule to revise the ``Part 83'' recognition 
regulations.\7\ At an April 22, 2015, Subcommittee on Indian, 
Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs hearing\8\, the then-
proposed rule was the focus of criticism from bipartisan 
Members of the House and Senate, and from several federally 
recognized tribes. Though the Government Accountability Office, 
Members of Congress, federally recognized tribes, and other 
interest holders (states and local governments) for years have 
criticized the Part 83 process for being inefficient, 
inconsistent, and lacking transparency, there has been 
virtually no requests for the Administration to relax the 
criteria or lower the evidentiary standards a petitioner must 
meet to be acknowledged as a tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/text/idc1-
031255.pdf.
    \8\http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the Subcommittee's April hearing, the proposed 
revisions were sharply criticized by several tribal witnesses. 
For example, one tribal leader testified that ``the proposed 
revisions fail to uphold or establish safeguards to protect the 
federal government's treaty and trust obligations to existing 
federally recognized tribes.''\9\ Another tribal witness asked 
that the Department ``withdraw the proposed rule in its 
entirety'' because the changes to recognition standards 
``threaten the fabric which currently binds all tribal nations. 
. . .''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Testimony of Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation.
    \10\Testimony of Robert Martin, Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission 
Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposed revisions were endorsed by the National 
Congress of American Indians,\11\ even though a number of 
recognized tribal governments have entered opposition to the 
revisions into the public record.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Testimony of the National Congress of American Indians.
    \12\A number of tribes and tribal organizations submitted comments 
to the BIA raising concerns with the relaxation of criteria and 
standards in the proposed rule; other tribes passed formal resolutions 
opposing the proposed rule (e.g., see Resolution No. 15-13 of the 
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The final rule published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
2015 (80 FR 37861), addressed some of the concerns raised by 
tribes, non-tribal stakeholders, and certain Members of 
Congress, but the rule remains flawed in two major respects: 
(1) the standards and criteria, finalized by administrative 
fiat, are not authorized by Congress; and (2) the standards and 
criteria have been relaxed.
    The Summary of the Final Rule states that the rule does not 
substantively change the Part 83 criteria, except in two 
instances: (1) allowing internal as well as external evidence 
for . . . identity as an American Indian entity; and (2) 
changing the way marriages are counted as evidence for . . . 
community. This statement, however, is misleading. The final 
rule makes several substantive changes that relax the 
acknowledgment criteria. For example, petitioners will not have 
to provide evidence prior to 1900 to meet criteria relating to 
community, political influence or authority. This reduces the 
evidentiary requirement for these criteria by 111 years. The 
final rule also restricts the rights of third parties to 
participate in the Secretary's review of a petition, compared 
to the participants having an equal footing with the petitioner 
under the previous rules.
    In addition, without providing an explanation of its 
grounds for doing so in the proposed rule, the final rule 
eliminates the important requirement for the Department to 
approve additions to a tribe's base roll so as to prevent a 
tribe from transforming itself into a different entity after it 
obtains recognition from the Secretary. Moreover, the rule 
fails to address a troubling phenomenon that has grown in 
recent years: that of certain Indian tribes rescinding the 
membership of certain individuals from their rolls without 
meaningful review by the Congress, the BIA, or the federal 
courts.

Analysis of H.R. 3764

    H.R. 3764 invokes Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 to set 
forth a comprehensive process for determining whether a group 
petitioning for recognition as an Indian tribe shall be 
accorded such status. Under the bill, the BIA will process and 
examine petitions according to standards borrowed from the Part 
83 rules, and upon completion of its analysis, submits its 
findings to Congress, which then decides whether to extend 
recognition. The bill prohibits the Department of the Interior 
from making the determination.
    The process established by H.R. 3764 enables Members of 
Congress to weigh the merits of a group's documented history 
and the impact of extending recognition to them on: the federal 
budget; the interests of other tribes, some of which assert 
that petitioning groups are actually splinter groups of 
existing tribes; and state and local governments, whose civil, 
criminal, and tax jurisdiction is divested when a tribal 
reservation is created.
    It is anticipated that controversies such as off-
reservation gambling can be partly addressed through the 
process created under H.R. 3764. Many of these disputes occur 
after a tribe is recognized by the BIA (usually but not always 
under the Part 83 process). Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988, a newly recognized tribe under Part 83 obtains the 
right to operate a casino on its ``initial reservation,'' which 
is on lands acquired by the tribe and put in trust by the BIA. 
Such initial reservations are sometimes located in areas where 
the local populace or the state opposes the presence of a 
casino and the impacts it may bring. Because the BIA, not being 
elected or accountable, may ignore objections of those most 
affected by its decisions--and this usually includes nearby 
Indian tribes--there is little anyone can do outside of filing 
expensive lawsuits to persuade the BIA to locate the initial 
reservation in an area presenting fewer conflicts.
    Under H.R. 3764, if Congress chose to recognize a tribe, it 
could write in appropriate stipulations and limits on the 
tribe's powers to conduct gaming or the location of its trust 
lands on which a casino may be operated. Congress would be 
inclined to weigh interests of all stakeholders, including 
states, counties, cities, landowners, and other tribes for the 
simple fact that such stakeholders can hold them accountable 
every two or six years. The BIA is incapable of properly 
weighing such interests for the simple fact it is not elected, 
and most BIA staff are career employees who, while well 
intentioned, do not suffer any consequences for making the 
wrong decisions.
    In the Committee markup of H.R. 3764, an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Rob Bishop was 
adopted. The amendment made several technical changes, and 
added two titles to recognize six Virginia tribes and a tribe 
in Montana. Though not fully consistent with the requirement of 
the underlying bill that a group undergo a formal analysis by 
the BIA, these groups have been studied and debated in Congress 
for several years. In addition, the group from Montana fully 
documented a petition through the Part 83 process (that 
petition, however, was initially rejected but the group has 
appealed it). The addition of the two new titles represents a 
compromise to show that Congress is willing to extend 
recognition to tribes when the BIA's power to do so is 
eliminated.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 3764 was introduced on October 20, 2015, by 
Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. The 
Subcommittee held two hearings on the bill, one on October 28, 
2015, and another on December 8, 2015. On September 7, 2016, 
the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman 
Rob Bishop offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
designated 001. Congressman Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
designated 037; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes to 20 nays, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Congressman Raul M. Grijalva offered an amendment to the 
amendment in nature of a substitute designated 040; it was not 
adopted by a roll call vote of 16 ayes to 22 nays, as follows:


    Congressman Raul Ruiz (D-CA) offered an amendment to the 
amendment in nature of a substitute designated 039; it was 
adopted by voice vote. The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by Congressman Rob Bishop (001), as amended, 
was adopted by voice vote. No other amendments were offered, 
and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 23 
ayes to 13 nays on September 8, 2016, as follows:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and 
(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
and sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for 
the bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, November 22, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman:  The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3764, the Tribal 
Recognition Act of 2016.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Robert 
Reese (for programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs), and 
Robert Stewart (for programs of the Indian Health Service).
            Sincerely,
                                             Mark P. Hadley
                                        (For Keith Hall, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3764--Tribal Recognition Act of 2016

    Summary: H.R. 3764 would stipulate that an Indian group can 
become a federally recognized Indian tribe only through the 
Congress enacting legislation to that effect. The bill would 
outline the process for such Indian groups to file petitions 
for federal recognition with the Department of the Interior 
(DOI).
    The bill also would provide federal recognition to the 
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana and 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 
$100 million over the 2017-2021 period, assuming appropriation 
of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 3764 would not affect 
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3764 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 3764 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by exempting 
some lands from taxation by state and local governments, but 
CBO estimates the cost of the mandate would be small and well 
below the threshold established in that act ($77 million in 
2016, adjusted annually for inflation).
    H.R. 3764 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of H.R. 3764 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--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                2020
                                                                     2017     2018     2019     2021   2017-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Department of the Interior:
    Estimated Authorization Level...................          9          9        9        9       10        46
    Estimated Outlays...............................          8          9        9        9       10        45
Indian Health Service:
    Estimated Authorization Level...................         11         11       11       11       11        55
    Estimated Outlays...............................         11         11       11       11       11        55
    Total Increases:
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         20         20       20       20       21       101
        Estimated Outlays...........................         19         20       20       20       21       100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
3764 will be enacted before the end of calendar year 2016, that 
the necessary amounts will be provided each year, and that 
outlays will follow historical patterns for similar assistance 
to other tribes.
    The bill would repeal the current framework for the federal 
government to recognize Indian groups as Indian tribes, which 
has been in place since 2015. The bill also would stipulate new 
administrative procedures for Indian groups to petition for 
federal recognition. Those procedures would be similar to the 
procedures that existed before 2015. CBO estimates that 
implementing the procedures required in H.R. 3764 would not 
significantly change DOI's administrative costs over the 2017-
2021 period. (In 2016, DOI allocated about $2 million for 
administrative expenses related to Indian tribal recognition.)
    H.R. 3764 also would provide federal recognition to an 
Indian tribe in Montana and six Indian tribes in Virginia. Such 
recognition would allow those tribes and about 7,460 tribal 
members (including members of other federally recognized tribes 
who live far from their own tribal service area, but close to 
the service area of the tribes that would be recognized under 
H.R. 3764) to receive benefits from various programs 
administered by DOI and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
    Based on average per capita expenditures by DOI and the IHS 
for other Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 
3764 would cost $100 million over the 2017-2021 period, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Department of the Interior

    DOI, primarily through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
provides funding to federally recognized tribes for various 
purposes, including child welfare services, adult care, 
community development, and other general assistance. In total, 
CBO estimates that providing those services to the seven tribes 
that would be recognized under H.R. 3764 would cost $45 million 
over the 2017-2021 period, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts and accounting for anticipated inflation. 
That estimate reflects per capita expenditures for services 
provided to the newly recognized tribes that would be similar 
to those for other federally recognized tribes located in the 
eastern states. (In 2015, the most recent year for which 
historical information on such spending is available, per 
capita expenditures for eastern tribes averaged about $1,200.)

Indian Health Service

    H.R. 3764 also would make members of the tribes newly 
recognized under H.R. 3764 eligible to receive health benefits 
from the IHS. Based on information from the IHS, CBO estimates 
that about 55 percent of tribal members--or about 4,300 
people--would receive benefits each year. CBO expects that the 
cost to serve those individuals would be similar to the costs 
for current IHS beneficiaries--about $2,650 per individual in 
2017. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds and 
accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that health 
benefits for those tribes would cost $55 million over the 2017-
2021 period.

Other Federal agencies

    In addition to assistance from DOI and IHS, 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 and Montana, the tribes specified in the 
bill are already eligible to receive support from those 
departments. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3764 
would not authorize additional spending by those agencies.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 3764 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in UMRA by exempting some lands from taxation by state and 
local governments, but CBO estimates the cost of the mandate 
would be small and well below the threshold established in that 
act ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 3764 contains 
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimates: CBO has transmitted estimates for 
two other bills with provisions that are similar to provisions 
of H.R. 3764:
     On March 25, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate 
for S. 35, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians 
Restoration Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2015. S. 35 is similar 
to Title III of H.R. 3764.
     On March 26, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate 
for S. 465, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia 
Federal Recognition Act of 2015, as ordered reported by the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 2015. S. 465 is 
similar to Title II of H.R. 3764.
    Differences in our estimates of spending subject to 
appropriation under the relevant sections of H.R. 3764, S. 35, 
and S. 465 reflect increases in the estimated size of tribal 
populations served (because of expected growth between 2015 and 
2017) and in the per capita cost of benefits provided by the 
IHS.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Robert Reese--Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, Robert Stewart--Indian Health Service; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Rachel Austin; 
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to provide that an Indian group may 
receive Federal acknowledgement as an Indian tribe only by an 
Act of Congress.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that 
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any 
specific rule-making proceedings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Chairman Bishop's legislation would give Congress sole 
authority to formally recognize Native American tribes. Aside 
from further delaying an already interminable process, the bill 
would consolidate the power of tribal recognition in the hands 
of a very few Members of Congress, including the Chairman of 
this Committee.
    The Secretary of Interior's authority to acknowledge the 
existence of Indian tribes is deeply rooted in the laws passed 
by Congress and the structure of the Constitution. Congress 
rightly granted the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs the 
authority to ``have management of all Indian affairs and of all 
matters arising out of Indian relations.''\1\ This includes the 
authority to administratively acknowledge Indian tribes. This 
authority is well established, and has been upheld by the 
courts.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\25 U.S.C. Sec. 2 and Sec. 9, and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1457.
    \2\See, e.g., Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana. Inc. v. United 
States Dept of the Interior, 255 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir. 2001); James 
v. United States Dep 't of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132, 1137 
(D.C. Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Congressional findings that supported the Federally 
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 reiterated that Indian 
tribes could be recognized ``by the administrative procedures 
set forth in part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
denominated `Procedures for Establishing that an American 
Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe,''' and described the 
relationship that the United States has with federally 
recognized tribes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Public Law 103-454 Sec. 103(2), (3), (8) (Nov. 2, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the power delegated by Congress, the 
Executive Branch has independent constitutional authority to 
recognize Tribal Nations through the Constitution's Treaty 
Clause.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R 3764 seeks to upset this recognized authority by 
stipulating that only Congress has the authority to recognize 
Indian tribes.
    The bill obscures its true intent by setting forth its own 
process by which a tribe can petition the Department of 
Interior for recognition. However, the only requirement at the 
end of that process would be for the Department to ``submit a 
report including a summary of the evidence, findings, petition, 
and supporting documentation, to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Indian Affairs of the Senate.'' There would be no final step 
forward for administrative recognition.
    Chairman Bishop successfully offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute (ANS) which added two new titles to the 
end of the introduced bill consisting of the texts of H.R. 286: 
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2015, 
and H.R. 872: 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.
    These are long overdue and non-controversial recognition 
bills, both of which would have passed out of Committee 
unanimously. Their inclusion in this highly controversial 
legislation is a disservice to the six Virginia tribes and the 
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana.
    The ANS also amends Sec. 104 to require that any new 
documented petitions must be filed within five years of 
enactment of this Act. This has the effect of setting an 
arbitrary deadline for the United States Government to halt the 
entire tribal recognition process, no matter what future 
evidence might show.
    Ranking Member Raul Grijalva offered an amendment to remove 
Title I and instead pass these two titles independently; the 
amendment was defeated on a party line vote. The Ranking Member 
also offered an amendment to ensure that all land taken into 
trust prior to the Carcieri decision is reaffirmed as tribal 
trust land, but this was also defeated along party fines.
    Many tribes have still not established or reaffirmed their 
relationship with the federal government. The Department of 
Interior's Part 83 process provides a ton-partisan, research 
based approach to determining the validity of tribal claims--a 
rigorous, time-consuming process that is based on hard science 
and meticulous investigation.
    Taking that process away, and leaving an act of Congress as 
the sole option will only result in further delays and 
difficulties for tribes. Most dangerous of all, it will leave 
tribal recognition decisions victim to political whims and 
special interest influence.
    For these reasons, we opposed the adoption of H.R. 3764.

                                   Raul Grijalva,
                                           Ranking Member. 
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Alan Lowenthal.
                                   Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
                                   Jared Polis.