Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Mr. CHAMBERS. If he's not a member of the Apaches now, I believe so. This is an interesting question, because of the case down in your state, Mr. Vice Chairman, that's going to the Supreme Court. I have taken the position, and this may be something reasonable people will differ with me on, that a tribe can have a separate class of membership. As a matter of policy, it is legally up to the tribe to decide that. You have a situation on every major Indian reservation where about 15 percent of the Indian people on the reservation are members of other tribes. You have that at Salt River, where you have Pimas from Gila River or Papagos who have married into the tribe and had children. Now, the children may be enrolled in a different reservation, but they live and have grown up on the reservation. I see no reason legally why a tribe could not establish an associate membership category or why they couldn't admit those people to membership.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is done, will the Federal Government be forced to recognize them as a member of the tribe?

Mr. CHAMBERS. That's for Congress to decide. Congress could pass a statute as part of your plenary power that says you have to have one-quarter blood, or something like that. You haven't usually done that. You've tended to follow the tribal determinations, and I think you should. But certainly tribes can set their own blood quantum-some tribes have very low blood quantums, some tribes have very high blood quantums. I think that's a matter for tribal sovereignty and I think Congress ought to follow the tribal determination. But it is ultimately a matter for your determination.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Chambers. You have been extremely helpful.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you, Mr. CHAIRMAN.

The CHAIRMAN. We now have a panel made up of tribal leaders: The Honorable Darrell Wadena, Chairman of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, will be accompanied by Mr. Kent Tupper; The Honorable Stanley G. Jones, Chairman of the Tulalip Tribe of Washington, accompanied by Mr. Douglas Bell; the Honorable Hilda Manuel, Chief Judge of the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation, representing the Intertribal Council of Arizona; and Ms. Violet Mitchell of the Fort Mojave Tribal Council of Arizona.

Welcome to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. DARRELL WADENA, CHAIRMAN, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY KENT TUPPER, TRIBAL ATTORNEY, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE

Mr. WADENA. Mr. Chairman, my name is Darrell Wadena. I am President of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and I want to thank you for allowing me to testify before this Committee to present the Tribe's views on S. 611.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has some real problems with S. 611 in that we feel that it seriously dilutes the criteria for recognition. Bear in mind, Sir, that I'm not opposed to those tribes that are seeking recognition and are truly being delayed through the process that now exists. I also want to emphasize that there is a difference between tribes and Indians.

We have submitted some extensive testimony but I am going to summarize it as briefly as possible because you have other witnesses here that also want to testify before this Committee and I also want to give the opportunity to my attorney to present some of his views.

The CHAIRMAN. May I assure all the witnesses that your full text will be made part of the record.

Mr. WADENA. We have two situations back in Minnesota that have some bearing on this and right now we have some people who are opposed to tribal government and they are in the process right now of attempting to hold Constitutional Conventions. I'm just questioning whether or not under S. 611 that they would meet the criteria for recognition? In some situations they are seeking recognition for the purpose of gaming in some areas and that raises some questions and some concerns for us.

Second, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is comprised of six reservations. One of the reservations, Mille Lacs, in particular, is holding a referendum on May 16 with their people to seek approval for separation from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Our contention is that they must hold a referendum tribal-wide and all 36,000 to 40,000 members would have to vote on that and approve it before they could separate.

Under S. 611 they meet all the criteria as far as land base, tradition, treaty-the whole gambit that is embodied in this bill-and I wonder if they could then bypass the process that we require under our Constitution and come under S. 611? If that happens with that tribe, we have five others that may want to do the same thing and we would have then secession from our tribe. I think the United States is aware of the last time there was secession; it became the Civil War.

Those then are some of our main concerns. Would they be able to follow our process as far as our Constitution is concerned or would they go forward under S. 611 and meet all the criteria of recognition? Our concern is mainly the traditional government-to-government relationship that we have with the United States that we now enjoy and we would like to have that preserved.

Although there may have to be some work done to streamline the process as far as Federal recognition is concerned, we would like our concerns addressed.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn my time over to my attorney that he may at least give his views.

The CHAIRMAN. Would this provision apply to your problem? The provisions of this act shall not apply to splinter groups, political factions, communities or groups of any character which separate from the main body of an Indian tribe after the Indian tribe has been acknowledged as being an Indian tribe by the Federal Government unless it can be clearly established that the group has functioned since the separation from the main body of the tribe until the present as an autonomous Indian tribal entity. Would that suffice?

Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Chairman, I think the concern of the tribe is that it's the last portion of that sentence. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is basically a confederation of six Chippewa bands. In fact, one of the bands is a confederation of several bands. They were re

organized under the Wheeler-Howard Reorganization Act because of the Nelson Allotment Act which applied the Dawes Allotment Act in Minnesota. It is quite unique compared to the other states and the position being taken after that Allotment Act was that there was only one tribe left, that the bands in fact agreed to become a unified tribe. There isn't any question that these bands have exercised autonomous power on their reservation ever since the Reorganization Act. The Constitution itself was rewritten in 1963 and provides the tribe has limited powers much like the Federal Government and the states do. There isn't any question that if the one band decides it is separating from the tribe that it can establish that it has treaties creating the reservation it is on, it has functioned as an autonomous government with governmental powers since that date. As the Chairman has indicated, if that's the process that all they would have to do is say that they were separating off, we've got the treaties, we've had autonomous government, we merely have to go through this process and we can skip the Constitutional provisions of doing a tribal-wide referendum. That is one of the great concerns the tribe has under this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Even if that so-called separate group has had an autonomous existence since 1790?

Mr. TUPPER. They've had an autonomous government since contact with Europeans. The bands are-

The CHAIRMAN. We are talking about a separate group now. Mr. TUPPER. Yes; but they are now part of the tribe. These bands have been evolving in the Chippewa Nation over the years as they've had their westward migration. The bands in Minnesota probably only occurred in the 1700s as they moved westward out of Eastern states. As treaties were executed in the middle 1800s, reservations were then set aside by the treaties. There was no Mille Lacs band in 1776, it didn't exist at that time, their reservation wasn't created until 1855, and that was the creation of that government. They are splinter groups that came off of either the Lake Superior Chippewas or the Mississippi Chippewas, the greater band or the greater Nation. So it has had an evolving history of its own that predate, of course, its relationship with the United States Government. But they do have, and they always have had, and that's their contention, that they've always been autonomous. They have not liked the Wheeler-Howard Reorganization Act though there was a sufficient vote of the Minnesota Chippewas to create this tribe under the Act in the 1930s and they seek now to leave the tribe without going through the Constitutional provisions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator McCain.

Senator MCCAIN. Let me just briefly follow up. How would the provisions in S. 611 impact the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, where a petitioner from across the Canadian border, perhaps Chippewa or other related tribe, would seek Federal recognition claiming to be indigenous under this legislation?

Mr. TUPPER. I'm sure this panel knows, the Canadian-American border was an arbitrary division across the Chippewa Nation. There are many Chippewa tribes, being in five states as well as in Canada. There are Chippewas that have crossed the border historically prior to the citizenship act.

They have no treaties and yet they occupy, as an example, the International Falls area of Minnesota, which is a border community with a fair number of Indian people residing in them. They may be able to meet the criteria of having an on-going entity. They are not eligible to be enrolled in the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. I might just point out that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Executive Director informs me he has probably denied 10,000 requests for enrollments in the last 10 years.

Senator MCCAIN. On what grounds?

Mr. TUPPER. On the grounds that they don't meet the blood quantum, which is 25 percent. There are a substantial number of people in Minnesota who have Chippewa Indian ancestry but they are not eligible to belong to this political entity that has been created with a Constitutional provision of a blood quantum. Many of them will maintain some type of political relationship for these many years. There is the Quincy Chippewa Council, whose members are eligible to receive per capita land disbursements. They have had conflicts with the tribal entity because they don't like provisions of land settlement acts that hold back money for economic development on the reservations, but they are not eligible to participate in those programs.

So those are some of the concerns. There are substantial segments out there that aren't, as far as the tribes 'concerned, entitled to that designation as a tribal government though they are clearly descendants of the people who executed treaties.

Senator MCCAIN. Could you comment on S. 912?

Mr. TUPPER. To be perfectly honest, I haven't had a chance other than just a cursory glance this morning to look at it. But I think, as the Chairman has suggested, the tribe is not opposed to recognition of tribes that should be recognized. I think we're trying to point out that there are concerns that maybe haven't been thought of. As we all know, every time there is legislation, lawyers see it as kind of a social security program, you can look for more ways to litigate things. Everyone of these things has some legal complications or implications that somebody is going to be looking at as to can my group now be recognized, is this the legitimate group. I'm sure the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe isn't the only tribe that doesn't like this concept of the Wheeler-Howard Act, that felt it was an arbitrary imposition upon tribes, that they, in fact, were altered and these are Federal creations and aren't real tribes.

Senator MCCAIN. We'd appreciate your written comments, Mr. Chairman, when you have had a chance to examine S. 912 and any recommendations you might have to make it better. [Information to be provided appears in appendix.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gorton.

Senator GORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I now call on Chairman Jones.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY G. JONES, SR., CHAIRMAN, TULALIP TRIBES, TULALIP, WA, ACCOMPANIED BY DOUGLAS L. BELL, TRIBAL ATTORNEY, TULALIP TRIBE

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Stanley G. Jones, Chairman of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Skykomish Tribes and other Tribes and bands signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott.

On behalf of the Tulalip Tribes, I thank the Committee for this opportunity to present this statement regarding S. 611. I would like to also thank Senator Gorton from Washington for being here today. I appreciate seeing our Senator here.

Mr. Chairman, we are unconditionally opposed to S. 611. This bill would make acknowledgement possible for several groups whose claims have already been denied administratively, judicially, and/or legislatively. Our tribal sovereignty, integrity, and resource base could be seriously damaged and our treaty rights impaired by this bill. Yet, neither the Tulalip Tribes nor our attorneys were contacted by the lawyers who were drafting the bill.

This legislation is drafted to favor certain unrecognized groups the Tulalip Tribes have opposed in their efforts to gain Federal recognition. Some years ago these same groups failed in their attempt to prove that they are tribes. A Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said their evidence did not show them to be bona fide Indian tribes. The United States Supreme Court denied their bid for review.

They then_petitioned the Federal Acknowledgment Project for recognition. One of the groups, the Samish, has been denied recognition by FAP for exactly the same reasons that the Federal courts refused to recognize them. The Secretary of Interior denied their appeal for reconsideration after a full review of their petition. They could have requested a judicial review but they did not. The FAP also made a proposed finding that the Snohomish group was not a tribe for exactly the same reasons that the Federal courts gave.

Mr. Chairman, this bill unlawfully provides for administrative reconsideration and overturning of prior Federal court decisions denying acknowledgment. Groups who petitioned and have been previously denied are unlawfully provided multiple additional opportunities for recognition under much easier standards.

The bill provides for automatic recognition of petitioning groups in the event of administrative failure to meet certain deadlines set up in the bill. Sometime, though the deadline is missed by one day, the petitioning group could be granted recognition.

Our treaty right has been judicially affirmed all the way to the United States Supreme Court and as a layman I have to ask the question: if this bill goes through in its present form and these groups become recognized, they obviously would insist on participating in the treaty fisheries-which, as I've already pointed out, has been judicially affirmed to us-and wouldn't this then raise a question of a Fifth Amendment taking?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to state in closing that in the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott, the signatory tribes and their members agreed to move to and settle upon the reservation. The tribes and

98-364 0-89 - 3

« ForrigeFortsett »