Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe…
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe in the country. Though the size of the Lumbee Tribe does not disqualify it from consideration for recognition, it does demand, nonetheless, that Congress exercise great caution. And I will point that out later on in my remarks.
Madam Speaker, a fundamental principle of Indian law is that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition. The BIA process might have its problems, but at least it has a clear set of standards that a petitioner must meet.
We in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining that the Lumbee Tribe warrants recognition. Legislative proposals to recognize the Lumbee has surfaced numerous times over the last century, yet none were enacted. No new information has come to light to justify passing that legislation today. Moreover, the committee applied no visible standard for determining why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere.
The lack of transparent standards in H.R. 31 leads to a major issue: the tribe size and the cost of providing services to it. Two years ago when we considered the same legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that recognizing the Lumbees would cost taxpayers $480 million over 5 years based on an enrollment of about 40,000 members. Today, CBO advises that the bill is going to cost $786 million over 5 years based on a tribal enrollment of 54,000.
$786 million, Madam Speaker, is an enormous sum and it could force the BIA and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation.
A recent news article in the North Carolina paper indicates the tribal rolls are closed because of the concerns over the size of the tribe. The implication is that the tribal rolls will be reopened again after Congress passes this bill. As I said earlier, the size of the tribe is not an issue here. What is at issue is the kind of enrollment standards the tribe applies because taxpayers and other tribes want to know what the cost implications will be down the road.
Let me restate a few points that I made when the Committee on Natural Resources marked up this measure, because the objections and the concerns that I raised then have not been resolved today.
First, the Obama administration testified in support of H.R. 31, reversing the stance of the previous administration. In the committee hearing on the
bill, the Department's witness did not explain how the administration came to the conclusion that the Lumbees warrant Federal recognition. When I asked the witness who was at the Department who made the decision, his reply was, The political leadership.
The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is the top political leader there. I would note since the day he took office, Secretary Salazar has repeatedly stressed that his decisions will be based on the law and sound science. For example, an Interior news release quotes him as saying: ``My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision making, high ethical standards, and respect to scientific integrity.'' Again, this is from a news release that was sent out by the Department.
We are debating a bill about tribal recognition and the Department of the Interior is supposed to base its recognition decisions based on the research of the professional historians, anthropologists, and genealogists employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
So in this new leadership at Interior, how did this new leadership at Interior and the administration arrive at support of H.R. 31? Was it because of the professional opinion of those career social scientists? Was there openness in this decisionmaking? I think the answer is no. The Department has not provided the committee with any data supporting its conclusion that the Lumbee met the same basic criteria as other tribes the Secretary has recognized.
While there are a number of other concerns with H.R. 31, let me highlight one more which is extremely important. While the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority to recognize a tribe, the Congress must respect some reasonable limits on the exercise of this authority. To do otherwise undermines the whole notion of tribal recognition and thereby dishonors all validly recognized tribes. With this in mind, the House today should, at a minimum, ensure that a tribe being formally recognized descends from a known historic tribe.
H.R. 31 fails this test. The legislation limits the Secretary to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the Tribe's constitution.''
The tribe has testified that its members are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. At a minimum, the Secretary should verify that every member of the tribe descends from such historic tribes. Such verification has not been done, and it is not required under H.R. 31. It could have been done if the amendment filed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) were made in order by the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee chose not to make his amendment in order.
His amendment would have required the Secretary to evaluate the Lumbee recognition petition using the Bureau of Indian Affairs' seven mandatory criteria. One of the criteria requires a petitioner to show that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe.
H.R. 31, again, Madam Speaker, does not impose a reasonable standard that justifies the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe.
So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
I am, in its current form, Madam Speaker.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit amends the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the Cheraw and coastal North Carolina tribes. I don't believe this is unreasonable, and I say that because the preamble contained in H.R. 31 states that, ``the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw.''
At the same time, section 3 of the legislation limits the Secretary's role in verifying the Lumbee tribal rolls only to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the tribe's constitution.''
Thus, Madam Speaker, nothing in H.R. 31 requires the Secretary or any third party to verify that individuals enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the historic Cheraw and coastal North Carolina Indians.
Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations, as has been mentioned several times today, one of the seven mandatory requirements that must be met to be recognized by the Secretary as a tribe is that: ``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.'' These regulations list a wide variety of evidence that can be used to meet this requirement.
The Rules Committee, as I have mentioned and as Mr. McHenry mentioned, would not make Mr. Shuler of North Carolina's amendment in order that would have required the Lumbees to meet all seven of the BIA criteria, including the one quoted above, to obtain Federal recognition.
This motion requires the Secretary to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe meet the equivalent of just one of the seven criteria that are applied to the other petitioners seeking recognition through the BIA process.
I believe, Madam Speaker, this is reasonable because there have been some concerns about the tribe's enrollment.
Today, the tribe claims 54,000 members, and the CBO says the cost would be $786 million over 5 years. This is an increase from just 2 years ago when they were told that there were 40,000 tribal members. Moreover, it appears the tribe is keeping its rolls closed until Congress passes this bill.
It is fair to have the Secretary verify the base rolls the tribe uses to establish membership. This verification requirement does not cancel the tribe's recognition; it merely provides a means of verifying the base rolls, something the BIA should do if the Lumbees had gone through the regulatory process.
Thus, a motion to recommit merely ensures the House has taken extra care to ensure the decision to extend recognition to the Lumbee is appropriate, because a wrong decision, a wrong decision, Madam Speaker, could have an adverse impact on all tribes.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.