<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:51984.wais]
THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 2822, TO REAFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE SWAN
CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES AS A DISTINCT FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
OCTOBER 7, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-116
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-984 WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held October 7, 1998..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Camp, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan................................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 5
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island, prepared statement of........... 53
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Knollenberg, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Chamberlain, Kevin, Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Gould, Gerald, Chief, Swan Creek Black River Confederated
Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, Saginaw, Michigan............... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Gould, Harold, Administrative Subchief, Swan Creek Black
River...................................................... 35
Gover, Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, United
States Department of the Interior.......................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Jackson, Deborah Davis, Ph.D., prepared statement of......... 48
McClurken, James Michael, Ethno-Historical Consultant,
prepared statement of...................................... 45
Patterson, L. Brooks, County Executive, Oakland County,
Michigan................................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Additional material supplied:
Engler, Hon. John, Governor, State of Michigan, letter to Mr.
Knollenberg................................................ 55
Further letter to Mr. Knollenberg........................ 69
H.R. 2822, text of........................................... 56
Lawson, Michael L., Ph.D., Senior Associate, Morgan, Angel &
Associates, Washington, DC, prepared statement of.......... 76
HEARING ON H.R. 2822, TO REAFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
OF THE SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES AS A DISTINCT
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 1:06
p.m., in room 1324, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken
Calvert [acting chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Mr. Calvert. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Today, we are meeting to adopt an oversight
report regarding the designation of the Escalante Grand
Staircase National Monument. Immediately following the
consideration of this report, we will hear testimony on H.R.
2822, except that we're going to reverse that order--the Swan
Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan Act
authored by Congressman Knollenberg.
I appreciate the hearing witnesses accommodating our change
in schedule, as Congressmen Miller and Kildee--who are very
interested in this legislation--weren't able to come here this
morning at 11 a.m. So, we're going to proceed with the hearing,
since our witnesses are here, as a courtesy to them and I look
forward to hearing from all the witnesses--and, without further
comment, I will recognize my colleague on my left for his
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. As a senior member of this Committee and as co-
chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, there's
no one who is more strong in his support of sovereignty but
also unity and today I am stating for the record my strong
opposition to H.R. 2822, a bill that would grant Federal
recognition to the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa
group.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the scheduling of a hearing on H.R.
2822 this year because of my strong belief that Congress should
not interfere with the internal political affairs of sovereign
tribes. We should urge the Swan Creek members to utilize the
internal processes of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to resolve
their disputes. Although this Committee approved legislation in
previous years granting Federal recognition to various tribes,
H.R. 2822 does not warrant the same treatment by this
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Swan Creek
claimed to be the successors and interests to the Swan Creek
and Black River Bands of the Chippewa Indians. These bands,
however, have always been recognized and treated by the Federal
Government as part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Swan
Creek have not existed as a political entity for more than 140
years. They ceased to exist as a political entity after the
1855 Treaty of Detroit. To recognize them now would severely
undermine the sovereignty of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
The United States has treated Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as one
entity through the Treaty of 1864, the Indian Reorganization
Act--a judgment upon legislation--and continues to treat it as
one body politic today. Congress should not now, in direct
contradiction to the historical evidence presented here today,
split the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe into two entities.
In 1978, the Department of the Interior through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs promulgated regulations establishing
procedures for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Any
group of Indians seeking Federal acknowledgment must first meet
the scope of the regulations found at 25 SFR, part 83. These
regulations preclude any--and this is a term used in that
part--any splinter group from gaining Federal acknowledgement
by separating from the main body of a federally recognized
tribe.
In 1993, the Swan Creek made an ineffective attempt at
administrative recognition. The Swan Creek submitted a letter
of intent to petition the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research for Federal acknowledgement. In
1997, the BIA placed the Swan Creek file on inactive status for
failing to submit a fully documented petition. It is my
understanding that a fully documented petition includes, among
other things, documentation that a group has existed
continuously as a political entity since the first contract
with non-Indians.
I strongly believe that the Swan Creek constitute a
splinter group. They cannot satisfy the mandatory criteria
necessary for acknowledgment. Nevertheless, I believe that it
is appropriate for the Swan Creek to pursue the administrative
route for their recognition.
Mr. Chairman, many members of the Swan Creek received
services and per capita payments by virtue of their membership
in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and not by virtue of their Swan
Creek identity. In reviewing the multitude of programs provided
to this group--from education to health care to paying house
payments--it is hard to believe that the Swan Creek received
disparate treatment in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, as they
claim they do.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe met with the Swan Creek
representatives to see how the tribe could better meet their
needs. The Swan Creek, however, claimed that no amount of
increased services or benefits would accommodate them. This
only begs the question of what it is the Swan Creek really
wants.
It is no secret that the motivation behind H.R. 2822 is
gaming. H.R. 2822 is a gaming bill. This bill is nothing more
than a product of investors trying to create an Indian tribe in
order to open a casino outside of Detroit. I'm appalled at this
notion of a gaming interest seeking to create a tribe, then
seeking a Member of Congress to introduce a bill for that
group, even though this group does not reside in the member's
district, nor is the proposed gaming site in the member's
district. If the Swan Creek was serious about becoming a tribe,
they would have pursued the administrative process as
vigorously as they have pursued the legislative process.
I close by saying, once again, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
should be allowed to manage its affairs without intervention
from Congress, that I will oppose further legislative action on
this bill. And, I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
But, however, Mr. Chairman, I intend to remain here today so I
can benefit from the testimony of all the witnesses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan
INTRODUCTION
Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
As a senior member of this Committee and as Co-Chairman of the
Congressional Native American Caucus, I am stating today for
the record my strong opposition to H.R. 2822, a bill that would
grant Federal recognition to the Swan Creek Black River
Confederated Ojibwa group (Swan Creek).
Mr. Chairman, I opposed the scheduling of a hearing on H.R.
2822 this year because of my strong belief that Congress should
not interfere with the internal political affairs of sovereign
tribes. We should urge the Swan Creek members to use the
internal processes of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to resolve
their disputes. Although this Committee approved legislation in
previous years granting Federal recognition to various tribes,
H.R. 2822 does not warrant the same treatment by this
Committee.
HISTORICAL TREATMENT
Mr. Chairman, the Swan Creek group claims to be the
successors in interest to the Swan Creek and Black River Bands
of the Chippewa Indians. The Federal Government has always
recognized and treated these bands, however, as part of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Swan Creek has not existed as a
political entity for more than 140 years. They ceased to exist
as a political entity after the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. To
recognize them now would severely undermine the sovereignty of
the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
The United States has treated the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as
one entity--through the Treaty of 1864, the Indian
Reorganization Act, the judgement fund legislation--and
continues to treat it as one body politic today. Congress
should not now, in direct contradiction to the historical
evidence presented here today, split the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
into two entities.
BIA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
In 1978, the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, promulgated regulations establishing
procedures for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. Any
group of Indians seeking Federal acknowledgment must first meet
the scope of the regulations found at 25 C.F.R. part 83. These
regulations preclude any ``splinter group'' from gaining
Federal acknowledgment by separating from the main body of a
federally recognized tribe.
In 1993, the Swan Creek made an ineffective attempt at
administrative recognition. The Swan Creek submitted a letter
of intent to petition the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, for Federal acknowledgment. In
1997, the BIA placed the Swan Creek file on inactive status for
failing to submit a ``fully-documented petition.'' It is my
understanding that a fully-documented petition includes, among
other things, documentation that a group has existed
continuously as a political entity since first contact with
non-Indians. I strongly believe that the Swan Creek is a
````splinter group'' and that they cannot satisfy the mandatory
criteria necessary for acknowledgment. Nevertheless, I believe
that it is appropriate for the Swan Creek to pursue the
administrative route for their recognition.
SWAN CREEK RECEIVES TRIBAL SERVICES AND PAYMENTS AS SAGINAW
CHIPPEWA TRIBAL MEMBERS
Mr. Chairman, many members of the Swan Creek receive
services and per capita payments by virtue of their membership
in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and not by virtue of their Swan
Creek identity. In reviewing the multitude of programs provided
to this group, from educational-to health care-to-paying house
payments, it is hard to believe that the Swan Creek receives
disparate treatment from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as they
claim they do.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe met with the Swan Creek
representatives to see how the Tribe could better meet their
needs. The Swan Creek, however, claims that no amount of
increased services or benefits would accommodate them. This
only begs the question of what is it that the Swan Creek really
want.
GAMING INTERESTS
It is no secret that the motivation behind H.R. 2822 is
gaming. H.R. 2822 is a gaming bill. This bill is nothing more
than a product of investors trying to create an Indian tribe to
open a casino outside of Detroit, Michigan. I am appalled at
this notion of gaming interests seeking to create a tribe. Then
seeking a Member of Congress to introduce a bill for that
group, even though this group does not reside in the Member's
district, nor is the proposed gaming site in the Member's
district. If the Swan Creek was serious about becoming a tribe,
it would have pursued the administrative process as vigorously
as they have pursued the legislative process.
CONCLUSION
I close by saying once again, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
should be allowed to manage its affairs without intervention
from Congress. And that I will oppose further legislative
action on this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the
same. In the meantime, however, I will listen attentively to
our witnesses who have traveled far to be with us today. Thank
you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kildee. I'd also like to ask consent to submit a
testimony for Mr. Miller.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller of California
follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
I'd like to thank the tribal members who came here to
testify as well as thank Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover for
being here to personally testify on this bill. I think that
there has been a real positive and noticeable turnabout in
Indian relations under Assistant Secretary Gover and we all
appreciate the excellent work he has done with the Tribes this
Congress. Unfortunately, this Congress has not been what you'd
call a ``hotbed'' of legislative activity, especially when it
pertains to Indian affairs. So, we don't have a lot to
celebrate or even look back upon, but I still have hope that we
may get a few Indian bills such as Self-Governance or
Employment Training to the President's desk before we all go
home.
As far as this bill goes, I would like to agree that there
are some pretty substantial questions out there regarding the
historical and legal issues that the Swan Creek Black River
Tribe and Congress need to address. Right now, the record that
we have is pretty thin. I understand that the basic issue is
whether or not Swan Creek is a separate distinct Indian tribe
or whether it is really part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. I
think we all agree that they once were a separate tribe and
they have the treaties to back them up. It's what happened in
subsequent years that needs to be addressed and I want to see
that happen. But I think that the Administration is correct
that this probably should go through the BAR process which is
where a comprehensive and accurate historical and cultural
record really ought to be developed first. If it turns out that
the Tribe is not a splinter group, then the BAR process should
work. If it doesn't then that's where we should get involved
again.
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman from American Samoa has an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like----
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, this bill comes before us
at an unusual time. Not only are we within a week of our
expected adjournment date, but we are just 2 days from the
House having considered and rejected a bill to establish a fair
administrative procedure to consider the recognition of Native
American Indian tribes.
As many in this room know, I have worked on that
legislation for over 6 years and I was very discouraged to see
it defeated out of fear of perceived future abuse, especially
on this issue--gaming--is concerned. And, the hypocrisy of this
whole thing, Mr. Chairman--as I recall in the debate on the
floor of the House yesterday--was the fact that the procedures
to provide recognition of Indian tribes had nothing to do with
gaming whatsoever. The hypocrisy that members representing
these very States who collect hundreds of millions of dollars--
oh no, horse racing is not gaming, no, lottery is not gaming.
Then, what is gaming?
Mr. Chairman, in the past 2 years, I have not supported
bills for recognition in an effort to force action on the
legislative remedy. Now, at the end of this Congress, I do not
believe it is time to return to a course of legislative
recognition. I recognize Congress's constitutional plenary
authority over this country's relations with Native American
Indians. But, I am convinced that an objective, public
administrative process remains the best approach toward the
resolution of this issue at this time.
To that extent, I agree with the administration's prior
statements. I appreciate the willingness of Assistant Secretary
Gover to go over with me in crafting legislation to address
this very important area and hope our relationship will
continue toward a final resolution in giving proper recognition
to these tribes that have been waiting--some tribes have been
waiting for 8 years, one tribe I know particularly in North
Carolina has been waiting for over 100 years and, given the
fact that even the Congress officially recognized this Indian
tribe and the only reason why it was rejected was because
supposedly limited resources to be given to other federally
recognized tribes, which to me is absurd.
Concerning the bill today, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar
with the detailed history of the relationship between the Swan
Creek Indians and the Saginaw Chippewa Indians but I do look
forward to hearing from the witnesses this afternoon. I thank
the chairman for the opportunity.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
We have a vote on the floor on the rule--on something dear
to our hearts for this Committee. So we will suspend this
hearing and come back immediately for the vote and Mr.
Knollenberg and Mr. Camp are both here to be in the first
panel. So, hopefully they'll be able to come right back. We'll
be back here in 15 minutes and reconvene at 1:30.
[Recess.]
Mr. Calvert. This hearing will come to order.
Our first panel, we have the Honorable Joe Knollenberg and
the Honorable David Camp. So, without any further hesitation,
we'll recognize our colleague, Joe Knollenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before the Committee. I want to thank you
for presiding today and I just want to take exception to some
of Mr. Kildee's comments saying that this is nothing but a
casino bill. If Mr. Kildee is so opposed to casino gambling,
I'd recommend he criticize the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who have
been operating a casino for years. This bill is about doing
justice and that, as Mr. Kildee pointed out--correctly, I
think--has been put off for over 100 years.
I want to ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks and provide an extended commentary.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Swan Creek Black River's aboriginal land, ceded to the
United States by treaty in 1807, are located in my district and
in southern Michigan. Both county and local officials support
my effort to help this tribe regain its Federal recognition.
Since I introduced this bill in November 1997, I have been
urging action on it. Despite the lateness of this hearing in
the session, we are determined to move H.R. 2822 expeditiously
through the legislative process.
The Swan Creek Black River is recognized by the State of
Michigan as a tribe and, for centuries, the Swan Creek Black
River has been a tribe separate and distinct from any other
tribe. As you will hear in greater detail this afternoon, Swan
Creek Black River is the political successor in interest to the
signatories of numerous 18th and 19th century treaties and its
government-to-government relationship with the United States
continued well beyond the treaty period.
Unfortunately, when the tribe submitted its request in 1936
to reorganize under the Indian Reorganization Act, the
Department of Interior made a terrible mistake and, in effect,
illegitimately terminated the Swan Creek Black River's Federal
recognition.
It is well settled, however, that administrative action
cannot terminate an Indian tribe's Federal recognition. This
Congress has cured administrative mistakes and legislatively
restored the Federal recognition of many other Michigan tribes,
tribes such as the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, the
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River
Band of Ottawa Indians.
As the evidence demonstrates, the fact pattern of the
Federal relationship with the Swan Creek Black River is almost
identical to these other Michigan tribes.
[Chart.]
As indicated by the chart--and the chart is displayed, I
believe--the Federal Government often entered into treaties
with more than one tribe. This joiner, however, was simply for
administrative ease and did not in any way lessen the integrity
of any of the tribes' political structures. Yet, in the 1930's,
when these tribes attempted to reorganize under the Indian
Reorganization Act, their Federal recognition was unilaterally
and wrongfully ended by the Department of the Interior.
Just as Congress legislatively reaffirmed these tribes, so
too should we reverse the effective termination of this tribe
by promptly enacting H.R. 2822. Swan Creek Black River's
mission is to reaffirm its Federal recognition and restore to
its tribal members some of their aboriginal lands and Federal
services to which they are entitled because of their status as
Indians.
It is neither the intent of Swan Creek Black River nor my
bill to infringe on the rights of any other federally
recognized tribe or seek to acquire property that is rightfully
within another tribe's aboriginal lands or diminish or compete
with their Federal funding or other revenue sources or compete
for membership or health and other services. Quite frankly, a
cause of great frustration to us these past months has been the
inaccurate characterization of Swan Creek Black River as
nothing more than a disgruntled splinter group with a mere
intra-tribal conflict with the Saginaw Band of the Isabella
Reservation.
It has been suggested that these two tribes should resolve
their conflicts between themselves, first before the Swan Creek
Black River presents its case to Congress. To this end, the
Swan Creek Black River advised me they had initiated calls to
the Saginaw Tribe and arranged an attentive one cordial but
inconclusive meeting with the Saginaw Tribe's leadership. Then,
the Saginaw Tribe postponed the planned follow-on meeting and
never returned subsequent phone calls by Swan Creek Black River
to reconvene.
I am told that last week the general counsel of Saginaw
Tribe contacted a representative of the Swan Creek Black River,
suggesting that a meeting could be held between the leadership
of the two tribes if the Swan Creek Black River would agree to
cancel this hearing. Neither the Swan Creek Black River nor I
believe that tradeoff--that particular tradeoff--is
constructive nor do I believe that a meeting of the minds
between these two tribes should be a precondition to
congressional action to restore Swan Creek Black River's
Federal recognition.
I do, however, believe, that a meeting of these tribes'
minds would smooth the path. And, therefore, I call on my
colleagues who have taken the greatest interest in this
matter--Congressman Kildee, Congressman Camp, Congressman
Barcia, and Congressman Stupak--to join me in hosting a meeting
between the two tribes to discuss and agree on amendments to
H.R. 2822 that will resolve outstanding concerns.
With or without such a meeting, I am committed to fight for
prompt enactment of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the relationship
between the government of the Swan Creek Black River and the
government of the United States. It is time to begin to correct
the injustices that the Swan Creek Black River has suffered for
so long. I urge the members of the Subcommittee to support this
bill, H.R. 2822, and report it to the House of Representatives
without further delay.
And, once again, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
Committee, I thank you very much for my allowance to testify
today. I would also like to suggest if I could--I noticed his
name was omitted from the roster, the agenda today--the county
executive of the county in which I live, L. Brooks Patterson,
would also like to make some comments and I would urge if we
possibly can see fit to allow him to speak his mind during the
panel 2 session.
Mr. Calvert. We could add him to the panel, without
objection. No objection, we will add him to panel 2.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knollenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for presiding today and
to thank Chairman Young for scheduling this long-awaited
hearing on H.R. 2822, the bill I sponsored along with
Congressman Barcia to reaffirm the Federal relationship with
the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of
Michigan. The Swan Creek Black River's aboriginal lands, ceded
to the United States by treaty in 1807, are located in my
district and in southern Michigan. Both county and local
officials support my effort to help this tribe regain its
Federal recognition.
Since I introduced this bill in November of 1997, I have
been urging action on it. Despite the lateness of this hearing
in the session, we are determined to move H.R. 2822
expeditiously through the legislative process.
The Swan Creek Black River is recognized by the state of
Michigan as a tribe, and for centuries the Swan Creek Black
River has been a tribe separate and distinct from any other
tribe. As you will hear in greater detail this morning, Swan
Creek Black River is the political successor in interest to the
signatories of numerous 18th and 19th century treaties, and its
government-to-government relationship with the United States
continued well beyond the treaty period. Unfortunately, when
the tribe submitted its request in 1936 to reorganize under the
Indian Reorganization Act, the Department of the Interior made
a terrible mistake and, in effect, illegitimately terminated
the Swan Creek Black River's Federal recognition.
It is well settled, however, that administrative action
cannot terminate an Indian tribe's Federal recognition. This
Congress has cured administrative mistakes and legislatively
restored the Federal recognition of many other Michigan tribes,
such as: (1) the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians; (2) the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians;
(3) the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; and (4) the
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.
As the evidence demonstrates, the fact pattern of the
Federal relationship with the Swan Creek Black River is almost
identical to these other Michigan tribes. Like the Swan Creek
Black River, these tribes are the political successors in
interest to the signatories of treaties with the Federal
Government, treaties which were signed both independently and
together with other tribes. As indicated by the chart, the
Federal Government often entered into treaties with more than
one tribe. This joinder, however, was simply for administrative
ease and did not, in any way, lessen the integrity of any of
the tribes' political structures. Yet, in the 1930s, when these
tribes attempted to reorganize under the Indian Reorganization
Act, their Federal recognition was unilaterally and wrongfully
ended by the Department of the Interior.
Just as Congress legislatively reaffirmed these tribes, so
too should we reverse the effective termination of this tribe
by promptly enacting H.R. 2822. Swan Creek Black River's
mission is to reaffirm its Federal recognition and restore to
its tribal members some of the their aboriginal lands and
Federal services to which they are entitled because of their
status as Indians. It is neither the intent of Swan Creek Black
River, nor my bill, to infringe on the rights of any other
federally recognized tribe, or seek to acquire property that is
rightfully within another tribe's aboriginal lands, or diminish
or compete with their Federal funding or other revenue sources,
or compete for membership, or health and other services. If we
need to clarify or otherwise amend provisions of my bill to
accommodate legitimate, documented concerns, we are and have
been open to and available for those kinds of constructive
discussions.
As you will hear in more detail later in this hearing, the
Swan Creek Black River seek to reaffirm Federal recognition of
their government-to-government relationship with the United
States, established in the early 1800s through numerous
treaties. The Swan Creek Black River's sovereignty must be
restored and the tribes granted their rightful Federal
recognition because: (1) they had treaty relations with the
U.S.; (2) they were denominated as tribes by Acts of Congress;
(3) they were treated by the U.S. as having collective rights
in tribal lands and funds; (4) they meet these primary, and all
other criteria for Federal recognition; and (5) they have never
relinquished their tribal sovereignty (although the U.S.
unilaterally and improperly abandoned the Federal
relationship). For these reasons, the Swan Creek's case for
Federal recognition is equally or more compelling than the
other six Michigan tribes which have reclaimed their status as
distinct tribal governments.
Quite frankly, a cause of great frustration to us these
past months has been the inaccurate characterization of Swan
Creek Black River as nothing more than a disgruntled splinter
group with a mere intra-tribal conflict with the Saginaw Band
of the Isabella Reservation.
It has been suggested that these two tribes should resolve
their conflicts between themselves first before the Swan Creek
Black River presents its case to Congress. To this end, the
Swan Creek Black River advised me that they initiated calls to
the Saginaw tribe, and arranged and attended one cordial but
inconclusive meeting with the Saginaw tribe's leadership. Then
the Saginaw tribe postponed the planned follow on meeting, and
never returned subsequent phone calls by Swan Creek Black River
to reconvene.
I am told that last week the general counsel of the Saginaw
tribe contacted a representative of the Swan Creek Black River
suggesting that a meeting could be held between the leadership
of the two tribes if the Swan Creek Black River would agree to
cancel this hearing. Neither the Swan Creek Black River nor I
believe that trade off is constructive. Nor do I believe that a
meeting of the minds between these two tribes should be a pre-
condition to congressional action to restore Swan Creek Black
River's Federal recognition. I do, however, believe that a
meeting of these tribes' minds would smooth the path.
Therefore, I call on my colleagues who have taken the greatest
interest in this matter--Congressmen Kildee, Camp, Barcia, and
Stupak--to join me in hosting a meeting between the two tribes
to discuss and agree on amendments to H.R. 2822 that will
resolve outstanding concerns.
With or without such a meeting, I am committed to fight for
prompt enactment of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the relationship
between the government of the Swan Creek Black River and the
government of the United States. It is time to begin to correct
the injustices that the Swan Creek Black River has suffered for
so long. I urge the members of this Committee to support H.R.
2822 and report it to the House of Representatives without
further delay.
Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
Committee for allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Calvert. Before we start with Mr. Camp, I would remind
the audience that any phones or beepers, please put them on
vibrate or turn them off. We would appreciate your courtesy.
And with that, Mr. Camp, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID CAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing and for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2822.
I, too, have a written statement that I would ask be made
part of the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Camp. I also have a letter from the Governor of the
State of Michigan, written to all members of the Michigan
Congressional Delegation, expressing his explicit opposition to
congressional acknowledgement of additional Indian tribes and
would ask that that be made part of the record as well.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]pages 14 to 20
Mr. Camp. Mr. Chairman, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
has its home in the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan,
located in the heart of the Fourth Congressional District which
I represent. I'm here today to testify in opposition to H.R
2822, a bill that would accord Federal recognition to the Swan
Creek Black River group.
Several of the individuals who are advocating Federal
recognition of the Swan Creek Band of Chippewas are currently
members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. These individuals have
several disagreements with the leadership of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe and I fear that Congress is on the verge of
interfering in the internal matters of a recognized tribe,
which would clearly violate their sovereign right to determine
their own membership.
This is, in my mind, a matter that should not be before the
Congress. There is already a process in place for recognizing
tribes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been given the
authority to review the recognition petitions, not the U.S.
Congress.
Federal recognition is a very serious matter. Federal
recognition grants tribes protection, services, and monetary
benefits of the Federal Government. Acknowledgement also
entitles tribes to the immunities and privileges available to
federally recognized tribes by virtue of a government-to-
government relationship with the United States of America as
well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and
obligations of those tribes.
In 1978, Congress recognized that the issue of
reestablishing Federal recognition of tribes was difficult and
subject to too many political considerations. The Branch of
Acknowledgement and Recognition, BAR, was established under the
Bureau of Indian Affairs for the specific purpose of deciding
these issues on the facts. The specialized staff of the BAR
exists for the sole purpose of reviewing and analyzing
petitions for Federal recognition.
In 1993, the Swan Creek Band of Chippewas filed a petition
with the BAR and, while that petition remains open, little
action has been taken to proceed with this congressionally
established recognition process. I understand that the BAR is
understaffed and underfunded and that many tribes with valid
cases must wait years for actions on their petitions. However,
I am very concerned that in the last 5 years not enough
information has been provided to move the Swan Creek petition
forward. Instead, Congress is being asked to play the role of
the BAR, a task we are unsuited to undertake.
We have passed legislation recognizing tribes in the past,
including several in Michigan, but those situations were
significantly different. Congress should be the last stop in
seeking Federal recognition. There are over 100 groups
currently awaiting action by the BAR. To allow the Swan Creek
to circumvent the entire BAR process would be a grave injustice
to those groups who are awaiting BAR action. This Committee
must consider these other groups also when acting on this bill.
We should encourage groups to follow the guidelines
established by Congress 20 years ago. A precedent could be set
which would have this Committee holding dozens of similar
hearings in the future, as groups see that the BAR process need
not be followed.
I want to close by stressing my disappointment with the
slow pace of the BAR process. On May 20 of this year, this
Committee marked up and passed H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997 and--although
I had some concerns with certain aspects of that legislation
which the House failed to pass--I applaud the Committee for
moving to reform the process and provide a third party to
review and approve petitions. In light of your work on this
legislation, I urge you to continue to work to improve the
process so that groups may have the confidence that their
requests will be met in a timely and fair manner.
It is my hope that the Committee will recommend that the
Swan Creek follow the BAR process and not pass a bill until BAR
has a chance to conduct a thorough review. I hope the Committee
will also consider the sovereign rights of the Saginaw Chippewa
and their rights to determine their own membership. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camp follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dave Camp, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan
I want to thank the Committee on Resources again for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 2822.
My reason for testifying on this bill is because of my deep
concern for the rights of a federally recognized tribe, the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and for need to abide by the
Congressionally established process of tribal recognition. The
Committee today will hear testimony in support of and in
opposition to a bill that would accord Federal recognition to
the Swan Creek Black River band. I am in opposition to H.R.
2822 because it fails to recognize the rights of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe and circumvents the recognition process put into
place by Congress itself. I have met with both of the
interested parties on numerous occasions to listen to their
arguments. I have come to two conclusions based on these
meetings.
First: I am not an expert in 17th and 18th century treaties
and Native American ethnogenealogy and I would venture to say
that neither is any other Member of Congress. There are
however, a group of people who not only have expertise in this
area but are directed by Congress to use their considerable
skills in these areas to determine whether a group of Native
Americans meet the Congressional defined criteria for
recognition as a federally recognized tribe.
In 1978, Congress recognized that the issue of re-
establishing Federal recognition of tribes was difficult and
subject to too many political considerations. The Branch of
Acknowledgment and Recognition (BAR) was established under the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the specific purpose of
deciding these issues on the facts. The specialized staff of
the BAR exists for the sole purpose of reviewing and analyzing
petitions for Federal recognition.
The Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) is set forth in 25
C.F.R. Part 83. Any group that petitions the BAR for
recognition must, under the FAP, be able to demonstrate that it
is a distinct social and political entity that existed
continuously from the period of first sustained contact with
Euro-Americans until the present day. For Congress to determine
this, along with the other criteria, would be difficult to say
the least. Other than the standards Congress set and instructed
the BAR to enforce, Congress has no discernable criteria by
which to judge tribal status. We established criteria and
assigned the BAR to ensure that these criteria are met in order
for a tribe to be recognized.
Federal recognition is a most serious matter. Bestowing
Federal recognition grants recognized tribes with the
protection, services and monetary benefits of the Federal
Government. Acknowledgment also entitles tribes to the
immunities and privileges available to federally recognized
tribes by virtue of government-to-government relationship with
the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers,
limitations and obligations of such tribes.
The Swan Creek band has presented me with a case for their
recognition as a separate tribe. I do not believe I possess the
knowledge to determine whether their statements are factual.
The BIA's own publication ``What is the Background of the
Federal Acknowledgment Regulations?'' states the following:
The BIA cannot take the petitioners' statements on face value,
as much as the petitioner themselves may believe in them. This
is why petitioners must document their claims, and professional
staff employed by the BIA must verify the claims.
In the case of H.R. 2822, Congress is being asked to play the role
of the BIA, a task we are unsuited to undertake. Congress should not be
the first stop in seeking Federal recognition, as it is with the Swan
Creek. There are over 100 groups who have filed petitions with the BAR
and are currently awaiting action on those petitions. One of these
groups is the Swan Creek, who submitted their petition on May 4, 1993.
What has happened since 1993 that would warrant Congress acting ahead
of BAR on this matter? Nothing. The Swan Creek have not provided their
information to the BAR that might prove their case. They have, however,
provided me with a great deal of information that seems like it should
belong at the BAR to be researched and verified. To allow the Swan
Creek to circumvent the entire BAR process would be a grave injustice
to those groups who have spent years and even decades in some cases
working with the BAR to meet the criteria. This Committee must consider
these groups when acting on this bill.
True, we have, years ago, passed legislation recognizing tribes,
including several in Michigan, but those situations were significantly
different. The Swan Creek will argue that their case is similar to
those cases. One of the three Michigan tribes recognized legislatively
was the Pokagon Band, who had nearly completed the BAR process at the
time of legislative recognition. The Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa
Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians pursued the BAR
process and were recognized because of their long histories of separate
political organizations. They also had the support of the Tribes with
which they were previously associated, who endorsed their efforts to
gain legislative recognition. That situation does not exist with the
Swan Creek, who face strong opposition from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
My second conclusion: The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has rights as a
sovereign nation that must not be trampled by Congress. Many of the
individuals who are advocating Federal recognition of the Swan Creek
are presently members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who have
differences with the tribal leadership. Under the approach of H.R.
2822, the ties which have bound these Chippewa Indians would be broken.
Congress cannot remove a member of a tribe from his tribe. This
legislation might actually do just that by forcing currently enrolled
members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to essentially choose between
competing factions of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. I fear that Congress
is on the verge of interfering in the internal matters of a recognized
tribe, which would clearly violate their sovereign right to determine
their own membership. This, in my mind, is a matter that should not be
under the jurisdiction of Congress.
I want to close by stating that I am disappointed with the
effectiveness of the BAR process. On May 20 of this year, this
Committee marked-up and passed H.R. 1154, the Indian Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1997. The House recently
considered this bill just two days ago but failed to approve it. I
applaud the Committee for moving to speed the process and provide a
third party to review and approve petitions. In light of your work on
this legislation, I urge you to continue to work to improve the process
so that groups may have the confidence that their requests will be met
in a timely and fair manner, and not seek to avoid the process
altogether.
It is my hope that the Committee will recommend that this group
follow the BAR process and not pass a bill until BAR has a chance to
conduct a thorough review. I hope that the Committee will also consider
the sovereign rights of the Saginaw Chippewa and their rights to
determine their own membership. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
Mr. Kildee, do you have any questions?
Mr. Kildee. Pardon me.
Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the members, both for
whom I have the greatest respect even though they have
different points of view on this. But, we have a deep
friendship and respect and this is what makes the Congress
work. I appreciate it.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Any other member have any questions?
The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to compliment both gentlemen
for their fine statements and I appreciate their support for
what was supposed to be a significant improvement in the
procedures on how to recognize Native American Tribes but,
unfortunately, some of our colleagues thought that this was a
gaming scheme behind the whole proposed legislation and I say,
Mr. Chairman, that was a very unfortunate turn of events on the
legislation on the floor yesterday.
And, I want to compliment Mr. Camp's statement that I've
been following this issue of tribal recognition since I've been
here, for almost 10 years now, and, given the fact that
Assistant Secretary Gover and I have made every earnest effort
to see that we were not asking for making the process easier
for the tribes--we're only asking for making the process more
fair. We've got situations that--I think Assistant Secretary
Gover will testify to that situation--but it's really
unfortunate to see that both groups are here before this
Committee and expecting us to find a resolution to the problems
that I think it's really inherent to the State of Michigan.
And, I want to acknowledge--certainly want to thank--
Congressman Knollenberg for his suggestion that the
congressional members in Michigan and the two tribes get
together and see if this can be done outside of parameters of
having a committee to decide whether or not this tribe is a
tribe. I mean, it's--I just wish we wouldn't have to be forced
into making these kinds of decisions, which I honestly believe
ought to be done outside of this Committee.
But, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and, Mr.
Chairman, I thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman and, as a courtesy to
our two colleagues, if you would like to remain and come up to
the dais with unanimous consent, I'm sure that no one here
would mind, if you would like to join us for the second panel.
Mr. Camp. I appreciate that.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
OK. Panel No. 2: Mr. Kevin Gover, the Assistant Secretary
of Native American Affairs, the United States Department of
Interior; Chief Kevin Chamberlain, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, Mt.
Pleasant, Michigan; and Chief Gerald Gould, Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, Saginaw,
Michigan. And the gentleman, Mr. Brooks Patterson, would also
please--a county executive of Oakland county, Michigan.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, if I may--while they're taking
their seats--I always point out whenever I see L. Brooks
Patterson that L. Brooks Patterson was a student at University
of Detroit High School when I was teaching there and I will add
a very, very good student. I won't add the second part--you
might want to add that--but he was a very, very good student,
person for whom I have enormous respect. We worked very closely
together.
Mr. Patterson. Well, Mr. Chairman, he always adds that it's
obvious that I didn't teach him political science.
Mr. Kildee. That's right. That's usually a line I add to
that----
Mr. Calvert. Right. The gentleman must have graduated from
college at a very young age.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. OK. If everyone is present, we welcome this
panel and would recognize Mr. Kevin Gover first. Before you
start your opening statement, just as a reminder, we have those
little lights there. We ask that each of the witnesses keep
their opening remarks to 5 minutes. If you have extended
remarks, we'd be more than happy to accept them and make them
part of the record. Again, a light will come on, we'll give you
1 minute warning and then the red light.
So, with that, Mr. Kevin Gover, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Gover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've submitted written
testimony which we request be made a part of the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gover. Mr. Chairman, first, since this may be the last
time I'll appear before the Committee in this Congress, I want
to thank the Committee for all of its assistance and work
during the past year and that we look forward very much to
working with all of you in 106th Congress.
Mr. Chairman, our testimony is very simple this morning. We
oppose this bill for the simple reason that we are unable to
say with any degree of confidence whatsoever that this is or is
not a tribe. The group has submitted to us a petition--or more
accurately--a notice that it intends to petition for Federal
recognition and did so in 1993. Since that time, there's been
no further action on the petition and I want to make clear that
we don't fault the tribe for that. There's been no call for any
action because it's simply not at the point in the process
where they're required to submit materials but certainly they
could if they choose to do so.
We have no opinion as to exactly what the status of this
group of Indian people is. What we would prefer very much is to
be allowed to develop such an opinion, to review a complete
petition, and to either recognize or not recognize this group
as a federally recognized tribe.
We have a number of specific concerns about the bill that--
were this Committee and the Congress to choose to move forward,
we would certainly want to see those other matters addressed as
well. But, our primary concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this
group simply has not yet gone through the process that's been
established and that we've been administering for some time.
Let me also say that I'm very sensitive to the criticisms
of the Branch of Acknowledgement Research (BAR) and that there
clearly has been a problem over the years that we're not
proceeding quickly enough on these petitions. We recently had a
change in leadership in BAR. We've been working with Mr.
Faleomavaega this year to try to find some common ground and to
improve upon this process. We are very hopeful that that would
have moved forward so that we could join the debate further in
the Senate and perhaps agree on an appropriate way to handle
what is, perhaps, the most fundamental of questions when it
comes to our Indian communities. That is, whether or not there
is a group that is going to be recognized by the United States
of America and if it will be afforded the many benefits and
advantages and, frankly, some of the disadvantages that
accompany being recognized as a Indian tribe by the United
States.
That's a summary of my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I'd be
happy to answer any specific questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gover may be found at end of
hearing.]
Statement of Hon. Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My
name is Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at
the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 2822, a bill to ``to reaffirm
and clarify the Federal relationship of the Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes as a distinct federally
recognized Indian tribe, and for other purposes.''
H.R. 2822 would extend Federal recognition to an
organization known as the Swan Creek Black River Confederated
Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, Inc. (Swan Creek). Swan Creek
submitted a letter of intent in 1993 to petition under the
acknowledgment regulations, 25 CFR Part 83. To date, they have
not submitted any documentation to the Department to support
their petition. They remain on inactive status on the
``Register of Letters of Intent to petition.''
The Department opposes H.R. 2822 for the following reasons:
There are many unanswered questions concerning the group's
membership, history, community, and tribal government that
should be resolved before legislation is considered. For
instance, the group has not submitted a current membership
list, which is the one document that is essential in
identifying the group. Additionally, we do not know whether
they represent the main body of current descendants of the
historic Swan Creek Band.
A good possibility exists that a significant proportion of
the Swan Creek membership is also part of the Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe of Michigan (Saginaw Chippewa), a federally
recognized Indian tribe. If the Swan Creek people are closely
related to and have participated in the political life of the
Saginaw Chippewa, Swan Creek may be a splinter group from the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The Department opposes the splintering
of recognized tribes. However, because so little information
has been submitted to the Department about the group and its
membership, it is not possible to adequately evaluate the
current political relationship between the group and the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. We note that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
has expressed strong opposition to the Swan Creek petition on
the grounds that it is a splinter group and that the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe is the exclusive successor in interest to the
Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians.
Historically, the Swan Creek Band has been associated with
the Saginaw Chippewa Band since the early 19th century. The two
bands co-signed a treaty in 1855. This treaty and a subsequent
1864 treaty established a reservation for these bands near
modern-day Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The historical record is
clear that while some members of the Swan Creek Band refused to
relocate to the Isabella Reservation as contemplated by the
treaties, others did so. Some Saginaw Chippewa Band members
also did not relocate to the reservation. We do not have clear
evidence that a separate Swan Creek Band remained after treaty
times, or that those who did not choose to move to the
reservation formed an independent tribe.
No information has been provided to the Department to
substantiate the claim that the Swan Creek have maintained a
separate political existence from the Saginaw Chippewa since
the organization of a tribal government under the Indian
Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1937, or that Swan Creek had
previously maintained a separate political existence between
1855 and 1937.
Because of the complex history of enrollment of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe, and the lack of a membership list for the Swan
Creek organization, it is impossible to develop a clear picture
of the group and it's relationship to the recognized Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. However, some conclusions can be drawn which
illustrate that the circumstances of this case merit further
study before any legislation is enacted.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as organized in 1937 under the
IRA included all of the residents of the reservation, including
descendants of the Swan Creek Band. However, it excluded from
membership a large number of the descendants from the Saginaw
Chippewa and Swan Creek Bands who had not relocated, as well as
others who had migrated from the reservation. This exclusion
was the subject of protests for some years. This circumstance
changed in 1986, when the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe modified its
constitution and opened its enrollment for 18 months to
individuals who could demonstrate Swan Creek or Saginaw
Chippewa ancestry and one-fourth or more degree Indian blood.
This change was made to allow many descendants of these bands
who had not been eligible for membership under the 1937
constitution the opportunity to enroll. The enrollment change
resulted from a compromise between the tribe and unenrolled
off-reservation descendants over whether the latter were
entitled to share in funds awarded in Docket 59 and 13-E before
the Indian Claims Commission, and 13-F before the United States
Court of Claims. The compromise was incorporated in Public Law
99-346, the ``Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
Distribution of Judgment Funds Act'' of 1986.
Approximately 1,900 people enrolled within the 18-months,
tripling the membership of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe from
about 900 to 2,800. Thus, much of the off-reservation Swan
Creek Band descendants are likely to have become members of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in 1986. Because the expansion of the
enrollment included so many non-residents, it is likely that
there is a substantial overlap between the Swan Creek
organization's membership and that of the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe.
We offer the following additional comments on H.R. 2822:
Section 4 (b)(2) describes the service area of the tribe.
It concludes by providing that Federal services came provided
to members outside the named service area unless prohibited by
law or regulation. At the same time, the preceding paragraph,
Section 4 (B)(1), authorizes the provision of services and
benefits without regard to the existence of a reservation or
the location of the residence of any member on or near a
reservation. It is not clear what function, if any, it serves
to define a service area and at the same time authorize the
provision of services and benefits without regard to residence.
The provision of services to Indian tribal members generally is
limited to those residing on or near a reservation or within a
defined area.
Section 4 (b) would establish a very large, twelve county
service area which includes highly populated counties and the
city of Detroit. Given the size of this area, without an
analysis of the tribe's population in these counties and
present access to services from other sources, it is difficult
to reach definite conclusions. However, we have concerns about
the manageability and appropriateness of such a large area from
the perspective of providing social services. We are concerned
about whether it would be feasible for the tribe to operate
Federal and Bureau programs in twelve counties. The designation
of service areas for programs is usually accomplished
administratively, with an appropriate analysis of needs,
funding and staffing.
The language in Section 6, Tribal Lands, could be read to
limit the Secretary's discretion in accepting title to lands in
trust for the tribe. We suggest that this section read that
``The Secretary may accept land in the tribe's service area
specified in this Act pursuant to his authority under the Act
of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq. Commonly referred to as
the `Indian Reorganization Act').''
For purposes of gaming, Section 6 places no limitations on
the number of parcels that the tribe can acquire, and does not
limit the amount of time that the tribe can acquire land, that
would qualify under the exceptions in the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii). From the
Department's experience and from actions the Department has
taken with other tribes, the bill should establish reasonable
limits on the amount of land that would qualify under the
exceptions and the period of time during which it could be
acquired.
Sections 7 and 8 do not clearly designate either a
membership list/roll or a constitution or bylaws that would
articulate the criteria for membership. Section 8 refers only
to ``the governing documents in effect on the date of enactment
of this Act.'' The Act should designate a specific governing
document or documents, identified by their date of adoption by
the group. Ideally, it should also designate an existing roll
as the base or initial roll, and specify the criteria for
adding members either by describing them in the legislation or
by identifying a specific governing document. We have not seen
the governing document and thus cannot comment on it. There is
presently no way to clearly determine who would be recognized
as the Swan Creek Tribe and no legislative guidance as to what
the criteria for membership should be.
Section 7 stipulates that ``[n]ot later than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this act, the Tribe shall
submit to the Secretary membership rolls consisting of all
individuals eligible for membership in the Tribe.'' The phrase
``all individuals eligible for membership'' should be omitted,
since it may create unintended difficulties. Commonly, tribal
rolls do not include all eligible persons, since individuals
eligible to enroll in more than one tribe may choose to enroll
elsewhere, e.g., the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The roll should be
a complete list of all of the enrolled members of the tribe. We
would also note that while we're aware of a couple of statutes
which require publication of the roll in the Federal Register
we believe such publication is an unnecessary invasion of
privacy of the members.
Section 8 stipulates that ``the governing body of the Tribe
shall be the governing body in place on the date of the
enactment of this Act, or any new governing body selected under
the election procedures specified in the interim governing
documents of the Tribe.'' Without a clear designation by
Congress of the governing documents, there could arise problems
determining how such an election would proceed.
Section 8 of the bill requires the Secretary to call and
conduct an election in accordance with the Indian
Reorganization Act (IRA) to ratify the Tribe's constitution. Is
this to imply that the Tribe has committed itself to organize
under the IRA? Section 8 also calls for the Secretary to
conduct the initial election of tribal of finials after
adoption of this constitution. The election of officers should
be the responsibility of the Tribe and not the Secretary.
The Department has strongly opposed dividing recognized
tribes. There are presently a substantial number of instances
around the country where parts of recognized tribes are seeking
or have recently sought to separate themselves from the main
body of the tribe, usually as the result of intra-tribal
disputes. These conflicts are often the result of historical
circumstances under which separate bands or tribes were placed
on the same reservation and combined into a single tribe. While
these groups, as here, may have some separate history, we do
not believe it is an adequate or appropriate solution to tribal
disputes to now divide the tribes. Resolution should be sought
within the constitutional processes of the tribe. We believe
that legislation here would encourage other groups to seek a
similar solution, which we do not believe is appropriate except
under very special circumstances such as that at Lac Vieux
Desert.
If, however, the Swan Creek is not a splinter group and has
historically remained a separate, politically autonomous Band
since treaty times, then the most appropriate route is for them
to be evaluated under the acknowledgment process.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Chief Chamberlain, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN, CHIEF, SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE,
MT. PLEASANT, MICHIGAN
Mr. Chamberlain. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Kevin Chamberlain, Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
of Michigan. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before this distinguished body to voice our tribe's
opposition to H.R. 2822.
My testimony will consist of brief remarks on why the
Committee should oppose H.R. 2822. I respectfully request that
my full written testimony, including our historical analysis,
be entered into the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Chamberlain. Thank you.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe opposes H.R. 2822. Any action on
this bill is of utmost concern to the tribe because its effect
would be to separate the federally recognized Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe into two separate tribes and it would allow a splinter
group to claim treaty-preserved rights, political jurisdiction,
and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
Our position is staunchly set upon our desire to preserve our
tribe's heritage and sovereign status and to protect tribal
sovereignty of all Indian nations by preventing political
factions and splinter groups from being able to secede from
their tribes and create sovereign nations unto themselves.
This claim has no merit; it is an attempt by businessmen to
buy a tribe and push a bill through Congress to further their
goal of opening a casino.
The membership issues--the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe not only
opposes this bill's content but also opposes the holding of
this hearing today. This bill deals directly with an intra-
tribal membership matter. The United States courts have
consistently held that one of the Indian tribe's most basic
powers is the authority to determine the questions of its own
membership. There should be no congressional intervention on a
matter so fundamental to a sovereign nation's existence. The
sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe should handle
this membership issue.
The Swan Creek group, the party pushing this bill, claims
that they are a successor in the interest of the Swan Creek and
Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians. Since the 1855 Treaty of
Detroit, the Swan Creek and Black River Bands have been
considered part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Before then,
they were considered a part of the Missisauga Chippewa, the
name used for the large group of southeastern Michigan bands
before and during the treaty era.
The Swan Creek group, however, claims that they are a
separate entity deserving of sovereign nation status. This is
absolutely untrue. Many of the Swan Creek group's participants
are currently enrolled members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
including Mr. Gerald Gould, the Swan Creek's organizer. They
wish to split from the tribe, obviously.
Individuals who are members and beneficiaries of one Indian
nation should not be able simply secede from the Nation and
create their own nation complete with the rights and privileges
of all tribes whether because of political differences,
personal choices to live away from the reservation, or for any
other reason. The existing sovereign nation to which the
individuals belong should resolve membership issues internally.
Tribal politics is not a matter for Congress; it is a matter
for members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and its elected
leaders.
For the record, the Saginaw Chippewa's Tribal Council
serves all of its members with health, education, vocational,
housing and other programs without distinguishing bands they
may descend. The tribe provides an at-large program which
specifically serves those living off the reservation.
Annually, the tribe spends approximately $970,000 on at-
large programs, which include but are not limited to health
services, medical services--including transportation to medical
appointments--living expense needs, food costs--house payments,
rent, land tax payments, utilities--burial grants, educational
seminars, and family services. Further, the tribe spends
roughly $550,000 per year on cultural enrichment programs for
the at-large residents and $468,000 on medical coverage.
The programs are freely accessible to all at-large persons.
Over 1,290 at-large persons live within 2 hours of the
reservation and take full advantage of these programs. If the
Swan Creek group is stating that they get disparate treatment
for not living on the reservation, this is absolutely not the
case. They are free to take advantage of all programs. It is
not the tribe's fault if persons live far away from the
reservation. It can only provide the services and programs to
the best of its ability. The at-large programs funded and
administered by the tribe generously provide for a myriad of
needs for the tribe's at-large membership.
Also, there is a seat guaranteed on the Council for a
representative of the tribe in the at-large district, so that
such individuals that comprise this district are fully
represented and have a voice in the governing body.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council has also met many times
with representatives of the Swan Creek group to better
understand and address its concerns. In most recent meetings
held earlier this year, the Swan Creek group informed the
tribal leaders and myself that no political accommodations or
additional benefits would appease them; they simply want their
own tribe.
H.R. 2822 obviously circumvents the administrative process.
Since Congress has decided to become involved in the intra-
tribal issue, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe wants to voice its
opinion that this bill is nothing more than an attempt to
politically circumvent the appropriate process for becoming a
fairly recognized tribe.
In closing, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe would like to
reiterate its opposition to holding this hearing. The tribe
firmly believes that this is a tribal membership issue in which
Congress should play no role. Further, the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe believes that since the Swan Creek group would not be
able to meet the administrative criteria, it certainly should
not gain recognition from Congress based upon 5 minutes of
testimony. Federal recognition of sovereign nations should be
granted only after careful research and deliberate review. If
Congress takes any action on this bill, it should only be to
the extent of directing the Swan Creek group back to the line
at the BIA.
For these reasons, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe respectfully
requests that this Committee vote against H.R. 2822. I have
attached our historical analysis and relevant documentation as
part of my testimony. I'd like to thank you again for my
opportunity to testify and I also welcome questions from the
Committee as would our tribe's ethno-historian, Dr. James
McClurken. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamberlain may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, Chief Gould is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GERALD GOULD, CHIEF, SWAN CREEK BLACK RIVER
CONFEDERATED OJIBWA TRIBES OF MICHIGAN, SAGINAW, MICHIGAN
Mr. Gerald Gould. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
members, and guests. My name is Gerry Son-non-quet Gould and I
am Chief of the Swan Creek Black River Ojibwa Tribe.
I would first like to thank Representatives Knollenberg and
Barcia for sponsoring H.R. 2822 and recognizing issues facing
my people today. This is an historic moment in our tribe's
history. I am honored to address you on behalf of our tribe,
many of whom have traveled all night by bus in order to witness
this historic occasion. We come to ask that Congress enact
promptly H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the trust relationship promised
to our ancestors over 190 years ago.
When I was a young boy, my mother shared with me, as her
mother shared with her, and as my great-grandmother shared with
my grandmother, the rich traditions of our people. My great-
grandmother was born in 1848 and lived in the areas beyond the
white settlements. The story my mother told me was of a land of
abundance, and a time of health and simple prosperity in
southern Michigan. My people were trappers, fishermen, hunters,
and farmers. They were communities of grandfathers and
grandmothers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, elders
and infants. It was a time before the reservations when our
people lived in harmony with their environment, with nature,
and with each other. This was our proud heritage before the
settlers came.
As my mother explained to me, and her mother to her, the
non-Indians promised that if we would sign the Treaty of
Detroit of 1807, the United States would take only a small
portion of our lands, leaving us the rest upon which to hunt,
fish, and make our living. We signed with the belief and hope
that our people and the non-Indians would dwell together in
peace. As white settlements grew, we were forced to move
numerous times during that period.
We have awaited this moment with great anticipation and
also with some regret, for there is much to be said in the yet
precious few moments that we have together. This afternoon I
would like to describe how, as a result of Federal Government
action--which violated the trust relationship--the BIA refuses
to acknowledge our tribe. As a result, our people are
disenfranchised by the very governmental agency which is
obligated to act in our trust.
We have signed 15 treaties with the United States,
including one where we are the sole tribal signatory. Despite
our extensive treaty relationship with the United States,
Federal actions and policies have resulted in the effective
loss of our Federal recognition.
First, the United States artificially combined us with
other tribes on the same reservation, solely for its
administrative convenience pursuant to the Treaty of 1855.
Second, in 1936, the BIA compounded this error by
rejecting: one, the Swan Creek Black River's request to
organize as a separate IRA tribe; and two, the draft
constitution whose preamble listed the Swan Creek Black River
and the Saginaw Bands as separate tribes. Instead, the BIA
organized an IRA tribe on the Isabella Reservation, decreeing
that only members living on the reservation were eligible for
membership. At that time, the individuals residing there were
Odawa, Potawatomi and Ojibwa--mostly Ojibwa of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the
Swan Creek Black River lived off the reservation.
To complicate matters, in 1939 the Department of the
Interior determined to withdraw funding gradually and prohibit
any future tribal organization under the IRA. By ignoring the
Swan Creek Black River's separate tribal existence, the United
States breached its trust obligations to our tribal members.
Notwithstanding the Federal Government's unilateral action--
which was legally and morally wrong--the Swan Creek Black River
people continued to function as a tribe. Indeed, we remain a
tribe, since only the Congress can terminate a tribe and it has
never taken this action.
[Chart.]
This chart that we have brought with us depicts how the
United States, through treaties, combined tribes in Michigan
together. In virtually every case, the United States has
untangled these artificial groupings, reaffirming the
individuality, sovereignty of each previously combined tribe.
We appeal to you today to remedy this historic injustice.
The Swan Creek Black River has never surrendered or
relinquished our sovereignty. We have undertaken extensive
historical, anthropological, and genealogical research, all of
which supports our position.
We are submitting this box of documents as part of this
hearing's official record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gerald Gould. This research proves that we have
maintained ourselves as a distinct tribe with distinct kinship
relationships, distinct annuity roles, distinct genealogy,
distinct culture, and a distinct geographic area. In addition
to the substantial documentation we have submitted for the
record, we are accompanied by our experts to answer any
questions you may pose.
We do not seek to harm any other tribe; we simply seek to
be treated like the other sovereign Michigan tribes whose
Federal recognition, in recent years, has been reaffirmed by
Acts of Congress.
We sincerely hope that you will support our effort toward
the restoration of our trust relationship with you. In the
Civil War, Swan Creek Black River tribal members fought and
died for the Union to emancipate other subjugated peoples. The
outcome of that great conflict brought new meaning to the
phrase ``we, the people.'' Thus, the concept ``we, the people''
holds an even special meaning for us. At this time, ``we, the
Swan Creek Black River people'' request the Congress to restore
these same rights possessed by other sovereign Indian nations.
Thank you. We also have brought Dr. Michael Lawson, our
expert on the BIA acknowledgement process, to address the
Committee if you would like. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerald Gould may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, Mr. Patterson, would you like to have an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF L. BROOKS PATTERSON, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, OAKLAND
COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Mr. Patterson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Brooks Patterson and I'm the elected
county executive from Oakland county, Michigan.
Permit me to set the stage for my brief remarks by telling
you a little bit about the 910 square miles that we call
Oakland. It's a naturally beautiful county with rolling hills
and 450 lakes. We are the headwaters for five separate rivers
that wind their way through the county, some ending up in
neighboring Lake St. Clair, others pouring eventually into the
Detroit River. By our very name you can imagine the sturdy oak
trees that crowd the landscape.
Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, Indian tribes--
specifically the Swan Creek Black River tribe--roamed this
beautiful territory, fishing its streams and hunting its thick
forests.
Much has changed since those early days in Oakland county.
Now nearly 1.2 million residents enjoy a unique and rich
quality of life in Oakland county. We have 40,400 businesses
thriving there. We are headquarters for many Fortune 500
companies, not least among them Chrysler Corporation, K-Mart
and Meritor.
Oakland was beautiful and rugged in the 17th and 18th
centuries and it combines an urban and rural beauty today. To
preserve much of what the Swan Creek Black River tribe enjoyed,
we have set aside in our county over 87,000 acres of public
park land. For purposes of identifying my county still further
for members of the Committee, we are also home to some of your
colleagues--Spence Abraham lives in Auburn Hills, Carl Levin in
Southfield, Sandy Levin in Royal Oak, Representative Joe
Knollenberg, in the heart of the territory claimed by this
tribe, in Bloomfield township. Those are the residents.
As Oakland county executive, among my many
responsibilities, I am broadly charged as the steward of
Oakland county's vast resources. To that extent, I feel a real
connection with those stewards similarly charged 200 years ago.
Out of deep sense of respect and duty to the ancestors of Chief
Gerald Gould--who sits to my right--I am here to acknowledge
the past and rectify a 2-century-old miscarriage.
My testimony today is small repayment for what the Swan
Creek Black River Indians lost. What they seek today is
recognition of a historical fact: Oakland county was their
aboriginal land and, through the inevitable passage of time and
events, they have been disenfranchised.
Their case for recognition is replete with compelling
evidence of the tribe's existence and territorial claims
contained in that box. Not least among the evidence are signed
treaties with the very Federal Government before which I appear
this afternoon. Some experts familiar with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the whole recognition process have stated that the
Swan Creek Black River has presented as compelling a documented
case as they have ever examined.
I fear some oppose the rightful restoration of the tribe's
identity and heritage this afternoon for one simple albeit
selfish reason: what will the tribe do with its new found
recognition? Will they eventually open a casino? Maybe. Will
they build clinics and schools for their people? Probably. Will
they bask in the pride that their heritage has been restored,
their historical role has been recognized, and the long
nightmare in search of their identity and self-esteem is
finally over? Absolutely.
What we are engaged in here this afternoon rises far above
attempting to influence or manipulate a congressional committee
in hopes of protecting one city or one tribe's avaricious
gaming monopoly. What we are engaged in here is a far more
noble cause; it truly touches upon dignity, self-esteem,
morality and justice.
In conclusion, let me respectfully suggest that the
question before this Committee is not what the tribe may or may
not do when granted Federal recognition. The question is, have
they proven their case by clear and convincing evidence.
And, as to a comment made by Chief Chamberlain, I can
assure you, sir, that Oakland county is not interested in
buying a tribe. As its elected representative, I am interested
in them fighting against the maxim that justice delayed is
justice denied. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patterson may be found at
end of hearing.]
[Applause.]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kildee, you're recognized for questions.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question first of all for Chief Chamberlain. From
what I've heard today, there seems to be some confusion about
the circumstances surrounding the reorganization of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. Could you
explain to this Committee exactly what occurred and the impact
it had?
Mr. Chamberlain. In 19--under our--when our constitution
was formed?
Mr. Kildee. The Indian Reorganization Act.
Mr. Chamberlain. For our tribe specifically?
Mr. Kildee. Yes, right.
Mr. Chamberlain. Well, again, the group of the Swan Creek
Black River and those living within the area of Isabella
Reservation, which were comprised of both the Ojibwa, Odawa and
the Potawatomi--our whole existence is based on the compilation
of those people. The same treaty areas that we're talking about
today and that have been discussed by them are the same exact
treaties we're formed under. The same ceded land territories.
How are you going to split that?
You'd have to split that. When we were organized in 1936--
when IGRA came about and our tribe was formed and we formed our
first constitution--it was based on everything that they're
claiming now, that this particular group is claiming. And, I
guess my question is--and kind of a question back to just
anybody in the room--how can they split off from everything
we're based on? Everything we're based on. I mean, that's what
the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe--and I'm sorry but the majority of
the treaties were also signed by our group, too, and only one
or two were solely done by the Swan Creek Black River.
I sit before you as a Swan Creek Black River person,
myself. I don't know if that answers your question or not,
but----
Mr. Kildee. It does. Could you also--there seems to be some
confusion about article VI of the 1855 Treaty. Could you give
some explanation of its impact?
Mr. Chamberlain. I would like to defer, if I could, those
questions to our ethno-historian.
Mr. Kildee. Sure.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Mr. Chairman? Could I----
Mr. Kildee. Chief Gould, I'm still talking to----
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman, Mr. Kildee, controls the time
at the present moment.
Mr. Kildee. Could I have counsel come forward?
Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman recognize himself at the
microphone, please?
Dr. McClurken. Thank you for calling me, Congressman.
Mr. Calvert. Please recognize yourself for the record.
Dr. McClurken. My name is James Michael McClurken and I'm
an ethno-historical consultant for the tribe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the
gentleman can sit on the dais there in the bottom? It would
probably be easier----
Mr. Calvert. I would say the gentleman--he can pull up a
chair or----
Mr. Kildee. I will pull up a chair, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. If you could please spell your name for the
Clerk?
Dr. McClurken. M-C-C-L-U-R-K-E-N. Sir, the dissolution
language in the 1855 Treaty has no implemental meaning for the
Saginaw Swan Creek or Black River Chippewas at all. That
language was created in a treaty that was negotiated 2 days
earlier with the Ottawas and Chippewas on the west side of the
state.
In 1836, Henry Schoolcraft and Lewis Cass invented a tribe
called the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation of Michigan. That tribe
was created to compel the Ottawas--who had determined not to
sell their land in Michigan to the United States--to sell. The
Chippewas who were also parties to that treaty were determined
to sell the land. And, the Chippewas who were part of the
delegation were also the relatives of the Indian agent at the
time. To force the Ottawas to sell, he told them that the
Chippewas were willing to sell and if the Ottawas didn't sign
the Chippewas would get all the benefits from the sale.
The Ottawas were angry about that for 20 years. They lost
all of their land, they lost their annuities, they lost their
reservation and, when they made a treaty with the United States
in 1855, they insisted that the fictitious tribe called the
Ottawas and Chippewas of Michigan be dissolved and that each of
the independent tribes be allowed to negotiate in their own
interest. That was done at the insistence of the tribe itself.
I've submitted documentation in my report from the treaty
journal itself to show the origin of that language.
The Treaty of 1855 negotiated with Saginaw Chippewas 2 days
later incorporated a lot of the language of the treaty that was
made previously. The treaty with the Saginaw Chippewas was
almost an afterthought for the treaty negotiators at that time.
The Chippewas had no reservations in Michigan, they had no
remaining annuities, and, as an afterthought, they negotiated a
treaty to try to solve a bad political problem.
The dissolution clause in the 1855 Treaty with the Saginaw
Chippewas had no operative meaning; in fact, that language was
never raised in any discussions about that treaty with the
Saginaw Chippewas until the year 1870, after the Saginaw Swan
Creek and Black River Chippewas had negotiated another treaty
with the United States.
The Indian agent in 1870 questioned the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs on whether or not a tribe that was dissolved
could negotiate a valid treaty with the United States. And, the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs examined the situation and said,
yes, they are an Indian tribe and they can negotiate a valid
treaty. The dissolution language of the 1855 treaty was never
again used in documents that I've seen concerning the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe, though it was raised and was used consistently
to harm and damage the interests of the Ottawas and Chippewas
from 1870 up until 1970.
Mr. Kildee. The time has expired----
Mr. Calvert. Does that answer your question?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kildee. And that is--you will submit that for the
record?
Dr. McClurken. That has been submitted for the record, sir.
Mr. Kildee. It has been, for the record. Right.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Kildee. Very good. I think my time has expired.
Mr. Calvert. I'm sure we'll be coming right back to you----
Mr. Kildee. Yes, the second round.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Knollenberg.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you very much. I would like to
extend as a matter of courtesy to all of the witnesses the
opportunity to revise and extend their remarks and to submit in
its entirety all of their summary, comments, charts, et cetera
and, in particular, I believe it may already be a part of the
information----
Mr. Calvert. Indeed, all of these can be submitted to the
record----
Mr. Knollenberg. Including the chart, in particular?
Mr. Calvert. Including the chart.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I had to pause a little bit when I have heard it from a
couple of different people--in fact, I think three now--that
have testified that Congress should not meddle in this affair,
Congress should get out. Congress was involved in the problem
in the first place. That's why we have the difficulty that
we're trying to straighten out today. That's why the injustice
was created.
And, frankly, Congress has the responsibility of taking
care of its problems and this is one we're bringing to their
attention today. So, I think it's perfectly within the rights
of Congress obviously to deal with that.
Let me suggest also--I know there's been reference made by
a couple of the folks who have testified here--that we should
use the system that's in place which may take 10, 15, 20 years.
And, when you think about it for a moment, when an injustice
was created by Congress why should it take 10 or 15 or 20
years? There should be something far simpler, far more quickly
done that would provide the proper recognition for the Act that
took away their sovereignty some time back.
I would like to refer to Chief Gould for a moment to
respond to the testimony which I have a very difficult time
understanding provided by the historian just a moment ago. And,
if he wishes and if it were in order, Mr. Chairman, he could
refer to the historian of their tribe.
Chief?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Thank you very much. What I'd like to do
is take this opportunity to have our consultant, Dr. Michael
Lawson, to respond to the comments made previously, if the
Chair will allow.
Mr. Calvert. The Chair will allow it.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Just find a microphone on the other side.
Mr. Lawson. I have prepared a statement that runs
approximately five----
Mr. Calvert. Please identify enter your name into the
record.
Mr. Lawson. Yes. My name is Michael Lawson. I am a
historian and I have a wide range of experience evaluating and
comparing relative the merits of tribal entities seeking
recognition through both the Bureau of Indian Affairs process
and through legislation. I am also familiar with Ojibwa
history, having grown up in Genesee county, one of the six
counties in which the Swan Creek Black River people primarily
reside.
For nearly 10 years, I was a historian with the BIA's
Branch of Acknowledgement and Research, providing technical
assistance to unrecognized tribes, evaluating the evidence
contained in documented tribal petitions, and occasionally
reviewing the evidence presented by tribes seeking recognition
or restoration by Congress. I also helped draft the current
revisions to the acknowledgment regulations. As a private
consultant, I have conducted research and assisted unrecognized
tribes seeking Federal recognition over the last 5 years.
On the basis of my experience and the extensive and high
quality documentation I have reviewed, it is my conclusion that
Swan Creek Black River presents a particularly compelling case
for Federal reaffirmation.
Swan Creek Black River is a legitimate, treaty-based,
tribal entity that represents a politically, socially and
geographically distinct Indian community whose members have
verifiable Ojibwa ancestry.
For years, Swan Creek Black River and its members and
researchers have been gathering historical, anthropological and
genealogical information and evidence that fits both the BIA
and congressional evaluations of what is required based on the
seven mandatory criteria set forth in the acknowledgment
regulations. In my opinion, based on this evidence, if Swan
Creek Black River were to submit a documented petition to the
BIA, this tribe would have a very favorable chance of being
acknowledged as a federally recognized tribe.
I am also of the fervent opinion that Swan Creek Black
River could qualify for expedited consideration under the
acknowledgment regulations based on its previous Federal
recognition, perhaps as recently as 1982, when it was treated
as having collective rights in a tribal judgment award of the
U.S. Court of Claims--and I might add that Swan Creek Black
River is still considered an active petitioner in the BIA
process.
I have submitted to the Committee a more detailed statement
summarizing the evidence collected by Swan Creek Black River
that likely meet all seven of the acknowledgement criteria.
However, I think it is important to note that Swan Creek Black
River satisfies the tribal membership criterion, contrary to
the claim that we've heard here that it is a splinter group
where membership is composed primarily of people enrolled in
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. About 80 percent of the Swan Creek
Black River members are enrolled only with Swan Creek Black
River, while the number of Swan Creek Black River members
currently constitute approximately less than 1 percent of the
Saginaw Chippewa membership. Most of these people are members
of an unrecognized tribal group and do not receive Federal
services.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lawson. It is not unusual for members of unrecognized
tribes also to be enrolled in other tribes prior to
recognition. Such was the case, for example, of Lac Vieux
Desert Band of Michigan, nearly all of whose members were
previously enrolled in other tribes. Congress has recognized
tribes for which it determines the administrative process is
not appropriate because of compelling, extenuating, historical
circumstances and because the administrative process has proven
neither timely nor efficient.
In the 20-year period since the acknowledgement regulations
were established in 1978, the BIA has resolved only 25 cases, a
historical average of 1.25 cases per year. Still lacking
adequate resources, the BIA now faces an overwhelming backlog
of 27 fully acknowledged--fully documented but yet unresolved
cases. At the present rate, the BIA might not take final action
on Swan Creek Black River--for more than 20 years. This would
mean that a generation of Swan Creek Black River elders would
pass on without ever having the benefit of their right to
continuous Federal recognition.
[Applause.]
Mr. Lawson. It is neither appropriate nor fair that this
tribe should have to wait 20 years or more to demonstrate that
it meets the acknowledgement criteria since 1982 and, even if
H.R. 1154 or a similar bill or reform legislation were enacted,
it could take years before the new procedures were promulgated
and even more years to clear the present backlog of cases.
Since 1982, Congress has legislatively recognized or
restored eight worthy tribes that were also acknowledgement
petitioners, including four in Michigan. Of the four Michigan
tribes, however, only two proceeded very far in the BIA's
process: the Little Traverse Band of Odawa and the Little River
Band of Ottawa submitted letters of intent to proceed through
the acknowledgement process. But, they never did. Instead,
these tribes secured legislative recognition in 1994.
My review of the evidence in these cases convinces me that
Swan Creek Black River is similarly situated--if not better
situated--than these other legislatively recognized tribes. In
summary, while the acknowledgement process might be the best
method for evaluating probably 95 percent of the unrecognized
tribes that are still out there, given the extenuating
circumstances that I have described it is more appropriate and
fair for Swan Creek Black River to be reaffirmed legislatively.
And, in closing, I'd like to say that based on my knowledge
of the history and issues involved it appears that the Saginaw
Chippewa have badly distorted the facts and mischaracterized
the Swan Creek Black River people and their history. Such----
[Applause.]
Mr. Calvert. The Chair would ask the audience to refrain
from public adulation.
Mr. Lawson. Such audacious prejudgment of the case also
ignores the fact that, one, the granting of tribal recognition
or restoration is solely the Federal Government's decision to
make and not the Saginaw Chippewas; and two, that this is not
an adversarial process. Furthermore, not even the Saginaw
Chippewa can credibly deny that the Swan Creek Black River have
a constitutional right to petition Congress to address an
unresponsive governmental bureaucracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from American Samoa. The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a couple of questions and I wanted to thank my
good friend, Congressman Knollenberg, to again reemphasize the
fact that Congress has the plenary authority to do whatever it
pleases as it relates to the nations of the Indian tribes under
the Constitution of the United States.
There are some problems that I would like to share with the
members of the panel.
I would like to ask Chief Chamberlain, how many members
make up the Saginaw Tribe?
Mr. Chamberlain. Approximately 2,800.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Twenty-eight hundred. And, Chief Gould,
how many do you claim to represent in the Swan Creek Tribe?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Approximately 200.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Am I correct to say that every Swan Creek
and Saginaw are interrelated?
Mr. Chamberlain. I am Swan Creek Black River.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Chief Gould, are you also Saginaw?
Mr. Gould. No. No, I'm not; I'm just Swan Creek Black
River.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I noticed that Secretary Gover had
indicated that the Swan Creek did file a letter of intent with
the division of the BAR, they call it--the fancy title of the
BAR--in 1993. Was that true?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Did you then receive an OD from the
Department of the Interior--it's called an letter of Obvious
Deficiencies and Significant Omissions. Has your tribe followed
through since 1993 in responding to those areas of concern by
the division of BAR?
Mr. Gerald Gould. We have done extensive research since
1992, 1993 and we looked at the difficulties of going through
the current Federal application process and, based upon being a
treaty-based tribe, have not continued that process after we
researched it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, in other words, after receiving your
OD from the--from this division that there----
Mr. Gerald Gould. Well, because we did not receive an OD.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You didn't?
Mr. Gerald Gould. No.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Secretary Gover, can you respond to that?
Mr. Gover. No, that's correct. They've not received a
letter of Obvious Deficiencies. They've only filed a notice.
They haven't actually filed a petition, yet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But, the BAR did not provide any response
to the tribe?
Mr. Gover. Only to acknowledge receipt of their letter of
intent. But, we've received no further information from the
tribe since that time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to say to both Chiefs here, this
is the very thing that I feared very much. Now we have two
historians fighting among themselves as to who's telling the
gospel truth about the case at hand and it's really sad to see
that we're--I just can't conceive how we, as members of this
panel, are going to be overnight experts and say who's telling
the truth and who's not.
And, I find it very difficult to see how we're going to
find a solution to the fact that everybody agrees that the
current system of giving recognition to tribes is totally
unacceptable. But, coming to that agreement and having tried
for the past 6 years to provide legislation to provide a more
fair system of recognition--and that has failed--so we're right
back to ``square one'' and I'm sorry to say that we were not
able to resolve that issue.
I'd like to ask the historian for Chief Gould, if I could,
you were personally involved as a historian with the
recognition process and worked for the Department of the
Interior, am I correct?
Mr. Lawson. Yes, that's correct; from approximately 1984
until 1993.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And during that 10-year period, did you
think the BAR was doing a great service to the Indian
communities seeking recognition?
Mr. Lawson. I think we were doing the best job that we
could under the circumstances and I think that the
circumstances are that there weren't enough resources for us to
do a job in a timely manner.
Neither, I might add, do I think that there are enough
resources for tribes that are seeking Federal recognition to
adequately have allowed them to document, to present the large
documentary record that's required by the acknowledgement
process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Recognizing the fact, Chief Gould, that
since 1993 you felt that the system of Federal recognition was
just bizarre, why have you waited until now to ask the Congress
to give full recognition to your tribe? Why didn't you request
immediately that let the Congress do the recognition process
rather than BAR?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Well, it's--even the legislative process
is difficult. Even the legislative process is complicated for
people who don't understand it. Plus, we were gathering
documentation.
The case that we present to you today is the result of
years and years of research, both here in Washington, DC--where
you have the majority of the records and we don't live--and the
State of Michigan, and we have spent many, many years gathering
the documentation that we provide to you today. But, also,
we're not familiar with the entire legislative process as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My problem, Chief Gould--I know, Mr.
Chairman, my time is up--you're to come up with 5,000 pages to
justify your position and Chief Chamberlain is going to come up
with 5,000 pages justifying his position and then it puts us in
a very difficult situation who is who and what and where and,
you know, what do we want to do about this. That's my problem
and I'm sorry that my time is up.
Mr. Calvert. You have the staff worried. That means they'd
have to read 10,000 pages.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to follow up
on the comments of my friend from American Samoa.
Mr. Gover, let me ask you this. If I understand your
testimony correctly, the Department of Interior is opposed to
H.R. 2822 because there are many unanswered questions regarding
this situation.
Mr. Gover. That's correct.
Mr. Camp. And, I know that you have questions regarding the
group's membership, their history, their community and their
tribal government. In fact, I believe you don't even have a
current membership list of the Swan Creek Black River Tribe. Is
that correct?
Mr. Gover. That's correct.
Mr. Camp. And, because of that I know that you feel you
could use more information and that because so little
information has been provided to you that you aren't even in a
position to adequately evaluate the political relationship
between the group and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
Mr. Gover. That's right. At this point, we have no idea. We
don't even know who the group is because we don't have a
membership list. So, we're unable to say whether they're even
Indians except by looking at them and that's usually not good
enough for Federal recognition. That's why we would much prefer
to, at least, make some progress on the BAR process so that we
can have our historians who have no axe to grind here take a
look and give us their best opinion on whether or not this
group is a separate Indian tribe.
Mr. Camp. And, the two bands signed a treaty in 1855 and a
later one in 1864 which established a reservation for these
bands right near Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Is that accurate?
Mr. Gover. That's my understanding, yes.
Mr. Camp. And that you don't have any clear evidence that
the Swan Creek band remained after these treaties as a separate
and distinct entity or independent tribe?
Mr. Gover. We don't rule that out but we have no such
evidence at this point.
Mr. Camp. And you haven't received any evidence since 1993
to the contrary?
Mr. Gover. Only a very minimal amount of evidence.
Mr. Camp. Is it also true that, in 1986, in the
Distribution of Judgment of Funds Act, there was a provision
that said that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe should open its
enrollment for 18 months and that was open to individual who
could demonstrate either Swan Creek or Saginaw Chippewa
ancestry, is that correct?
Mr. Gover. Yes.
Mr. Camp. And, because of that, tribal membership increased
during that 18 month enrollment period?
Mr. Gover. Considerably, yes; it tripled.
Mr. Camp. And you believe that much of the off-reservation
Swan Creek band were likely to have become members of the tribe
during that open enrollment process----
Mr. Gover. Yes.
Mr. Camp Is that true?
Under this legislation, there is a 12-county service area
proposed for this tribe, which would include the most populated
counties in the State of Michigan--including the entire city of
Detroit. Are there any problems with a service area of that
size?
Mr. Gover. Well, there are. That's unusually large for the
tribes in Michigan and I notice that they define a service area
as basically the aboriginal lands before their Treaty of
Detroit. And, that's a very considerable service area for a
tribe in that part of the country. It will certainly tax the
tribe's resources and our own to be able to serve people in
that broad of a geographic area.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much and I would just say that I
think this is why the specialized staff of BAR exists--for
reviewing this complex information and for analyzing these
petitions for Federal recognition--and I guess, again, I would
say that this process has not been utilized fully. There are
some situations where unfair denial has occurred in the history
of this country but there is a process there that is available
and open and it's clear that that has not been used yet. And I
would again thank the chairman for allowing me to testify and
also to be a part of the panel later. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. If everyone will be
patient for a minute, Mr. Kildee has a couple of extra
questions----
Mr. Gerald Gould. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Calvert But before I do that, I'm going to go through a
little business of this Committee and then I'll be recognizing
Mr. Kildee and others for another round of questions.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Could we have an opportunity to respond
to the----
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman will have some time to respond
after I get through with this additional business.
[Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the committee proceeded to other
business, to resume at 2:37 p.m.]
Mr. Calvert. [presiding] Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Back in the--it would be 10 years ago or more, I introduced
and was chief sponsor of a settlement bill for the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. Were the Swan Creek Black River members of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe involved in that settlement and in the
distribution of that settlement? Chief Chamberlain?
Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, they were.
Mr. Kildee. They were. So--and, in that, the settlement was
between the sovereign nation of the United States and the
sovereign Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the Swan Creek Black River
people participated in that settlement?
Mr. Chamberlain. Definitely. Again, I want to clarify the
earlier question just for your own clarifications, if you
don't--if it didn't make sense. When he asked me how we're
interrelated, I said I was Swan Creek Black River. What I mean
by that--and this is how I participated--I'm a descendant of
the Swan Creek Black River people. Within tribes, they'll ask
you, I'm a turtle clan, I'm bear clan. I am a descendant--and
that's where I descend totally from--but I'm Saginaw Chippewa
and that's what compiles--I mean, it was a question that you
asked earlier, that's why----
Mr. Faleomavaega. It was my question.
Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. But, that goes and it correlates into
what you just asked. Yes, they participated.
Mr. Kildee. So, they were--it was a settlement between the
sovereign United States and the sovereign Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe and the Swan Creek Black River were involved in that
settlement as members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe?
Mr. Chamberlain. Definitely.
Mr. Kildee. Let me ask this to Mr. Gould. You sent your
letter of petition--or a letter of intent, I should say--in
1993. Why did you not ever followup with a formal petition?
Mr. Gerald Gould. For two reasons, Congressman. One, we
were following--we examined the process of the BAR, which is
extensive, we realized it could take us 15 to 20 years. Two, we
were in the process of doing research and the research and
documentation that you have here today. And, three, after
realizing that we had been federally recognized before in
numerous treaties, that we wanted to reaffirm our trust
relationship through the legislature, which was the appropriate
method to go.
Mr. Kildee. I always, myself, whenever I introduce a bill
call it reaffirmation because you're--the sovereignty of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, for example, was not granted to them.
It was a sovereignty they retained before the first Europeans
ever came here.
Let me ask you this--another question. Were you ever
yourself, Mr. Gould, considered a member of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Yes.
Mr. Kildee. Did you participate in the government----
Mr. Gerald Gould. I was a member of Swan Creek----
Mr. Kildee. [continuing] of the Saginaw----
Mr. Gerald Gould. [continuing] Black River.
Mr. Kildee. OK. As the present Chief participates.
Were you ever involved in the government of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Yes, I was involved and I felt I was
representing Swan Creek Black River.
Mr. Kildee. What capacity were you involved in the
government of the Saginaw Chippewa?
Mr. Gerald Gould. The tribal council of Swan Creek Black
River.
Mr. Kildee. You were on the tribal council of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe.
You brought documentation here. Do you intend to turn that
documentation over and complete your letter of intent to Kevin
Gover on trying to achieve recognition in that manner?
Mr. Gerald Gould. What is the question?
Mr. Kildee. Well, you brought a box of documentation here--
--
Mr. Gerald Gould. Right.
Mr. Kildee. [continuing] for our staff to look over. Will
that documentation also be sent to the BIA as part of the BAR
process?
Mr. Gerald Gould. It's part of the legislative process that
we're involved in now. That's why we're turning the
documentation over to you.
Mr. Kildee. So, you are precluding, then, using the BAR
process?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Because we feel that it's not
appropriate. Just like other tribes that you have supported to
go through the legislative process, we feel it's not
appropriate for us either.
Mr. Kildee. Well, the Huron Potawatomi band, about 2 years
ago, went through the BAR process and achieved recognition.
That's another Michigan tribe that received recognition through
the BAR process. It would seem to me that you might want to
pursue that BAR process as the Huron band of the Potawatomis
did. And, they did get their sovereignty reaffirmed. Why are
you reluctant to go through the BAR process?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Because we feel we're akin to the two
Odawa groups--Little River and the Grand Traverse bands--which
went through the legislative process which didn't really
provide--well, it provided probably as much as documentation as
we have to the BAR.
Mr. Kildee. Yet, the Huron Potawatomi--they found a
successful road to follow and got recognition through the BAR
process and that's a Michigan tribe----
Mr. Gerald Gould. Right.
Mr. Kildee. [continuing] also. The Potawatomi, I know, are
not quite Odawa or Chippewa but--or the Algonquin--it would
seem to me that precluding the BAR process and not following
through with your letter of intent might be reconsidered.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Well, that's what Little River did and we
know the process that we're going through now is one that is
not precedent-setting and we know that you're aware of, for
example, in Michigan that Sioux Saint Marie had previously been
a part of Bay Mills and they realized--the U.S. Government
realized--that they had made an error, that they had combined
two tribes that were separate politically. They were both
Ojibwa but they had different tribal Indian entities.
This error occurred again by previous government when
Keweenaw Bay was combined with Lac Vieux Desert; two different
Ojibwa groups of people--like we are--geographically apart and
the United States, at their request, was able to resolve the
situation and allow the two groups to be recognized separately.
So, now there is Lac Vieux Desert, there is Keweenaw Bay,
there is Sioux Saint Marie, there is Bay Mills. These are
separate, political Indian entities and the U.S. Government
realized that mistake just like when we had been artificially
combined with other groups of Ojibwa, Potawatomi, Odawa up in
Mt. Pleasant. We had been relocated there by our Treaty of 1836
and our previous Treaty of 1807, which established our own--our
singly own--reservation, and an amendment was made that, you
know, the geographic areas are going to be separated.
No, we are not from the Saginaw Valley area. Unfortunately,
good, bad, or indifferent, we have no control over history but
we are from southeastern lower Michigan, which is Swan Creek.
That is where our people lived, that is where our treaties were
devel-
oped, that's where our reservations were. We had approximately
12 square miles of reservations down in that area and that's
where we're from. That's where our people lived until we were
relocated.
And, even after we were relocated to the reservation, we
continued to be separate because we still maintained our
annuity roles separately from other tribes while we were there.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Before I close, I'd like to just
thank Kevin Gover for everything he's done to improve this
administration's relationship with the Indian tribes. I find it
a pleasure of working with you, Kevin, and I just wanted to put
that on the record.
Mr. Gover. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Knollenberg.
Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I have a quick question for Mr. Gover. How long would it--
if you had everything tomorrow--if you had all the
documentation you needed, everything in your lap, how long
would it take you to come to a point of Federal recognition?
Mr. Gover. I don't know the answer to that. It's a hard
question.
Mr. Knollenberg. No, no, no. You had it all tomorrow. If
you had all tomorrow. It's on your lap. You've got it. How long
does it take you to come to the grips with the question and
determine one way or the other?
Mr. Gover. It would depend upon my willingness to bump
aside a number of other petitioners who have been waiting a
long time. If we took in that information and told you we were
going to consider it starting tomorrow, maybe a year from now
we'd have a determination from the BAR staff.
Mr. Knollenberg. Maybe a year?
Mr. Gover. I'm not going to tell you that we would do that
because I'm not, at this point, willing to set aside those
other petitioners.
Mr. Knollenberg. But you could do it in a year?
Mr. Gover. We could probably do the initial round of
findings. The way the process works, we do an initial round of
findings, put it out for comment from the public from the
interested parties and the petitioner, and then we consider
those comments. So, it's a process of probably 2 years from the
moment that we actually begin active consideration.
Mr. Knollenberg. With all of the other petitions, how long
would it take?
Mr. Gover. Well, that's what I say. I don't know. A lot of
those petitions fall by the wayside over time.
Mr. Knollenberg. So, it could be sooner.
Mr. Gover. Pardon me?
Mr. Knollenberg. It could be sooner.
Mr. Gover. Sooner than 2 years? No, sir; it cannot be any
sooner than that.
Mr. Knollenberg. It's interesting how you came to that
determination. But, I would just say to you that it would seem
to me that if you had everything tomorrow, it would not take
quite so long. And, you could give us something in terms of a
finite date that might suggest when.
I want to turn and yield some time now to Chief Gould, who
might wish to respond in closing or through the historian on
any matter that was brought up during the previous questioning.
Chief Gould.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Thank you, Congressman. I would like to
have our expert from the BAR respond to your question on the
length of the BAR process, assuming that they had all of the
documents immediately.
Mr. Lawson. Well, if there was a consideration to waive the
other active petitioners at this point, there are approximately
27 fully documented petitions before the BAR as of their latest
petition status sheet. There are approximately 15 that are in
various stages of active consideration and about 12 that are on
the waiting list.
So, if you do the math--there's 27 cases that are
unresolved at this point and the historic record has been that
they've been resolving 1.25 cases per year, then--without a
waiver of those other cases--you're looking at approximately 20
years before you'd get a final decision, in my view.
Mr. Knollenberg. That contrasts sharply with what I just
heard from the other gentleman.
Any other comments? Chief Gould?
Mr. Gerald Gould. Congressman Knollenberg, may our allow
our subchief to do our summary for us?
Mr. Knollenberg. Very good.
Mr. Gerald Gould. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. This will be the final witness.
Would you please recognize yourself for the record?
STATEMENT OF HAROLD GOULD, ADMINISTRATIVE SUBCHIEF, SWAN CREEK
BLACK RIVER
Mr. Harold Gould. My name is Harold Gould, Administrative
Subchief of Swan Creek Black River.
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Harold Gould. OK. I'm here--it's very much of a
preponderance to me of what words I put forward to you of our
peoples. We were a separate nation. We've been waiting a long
time. In 1934, we were rejected. In 1855, we were combined.
We just seek justice. We seek justice for our people--for
our old people and our children and children unborn. We've been
waiting a long time. I've been associated with the Saginaw
Chippewa. I dearly love those people, a wonderful people. But,
they are not my people.
Kevin has worked earnestly and hard to bring about change
and he has been successful in some areas and I've been very
supportive of him in this change. I feel that, all in all, we
still need our people who are the leaves in the fall which blow
across a stream, who fill the earth. We just want a small piece
to reside. That is all we ask for; we don't ask for all of
Detroit, we don't ask for anything like that, we just want a
place to raise our children, a place to continue our culture.
That's all we ask for.
We want to work with the Saginaw Chippewas. They're
brothers, just like us. And, we want to help each other, lift
each other up. That's what it's all about. These people have
travelled a long dis-
tance here. Most of them are not members of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe or will never be members of the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe, as the constitution has forbade. And, for them, we
strive. We are willing to give up all for them. That is the
hope of our future. That is true tribalism, as we understand
it; giving to each other, sharing with each other, and
maintaining our culture together.
This, I feel--this striving effort which we must make--we
understand Kevin Gover here is working very diligently for
Indian people but, unfortunately, Congress has chosen
repeatedly in the past to underfund the Bureau. That is the
reason for the bottleneck. If he had had enough money, he could
resolve these issues immediately. But, Congress is the fault,
not Kevin, not the previous Director.
We only ask for our little piece of land. We ask for a
future for our children. That's all we ask for. I ask you to
render a favorable decision for us. Give us a chance for the
future. Give us an opportunity to live as we're meant to live.
We have been pursuing this vision for decades; one generation
after another have been handed this same vision. It is an
effort and a burden upon. We have spend unending hours pursing
it. And, now, we are about to achieve, or we hope to achieve,
with your help and that's all we ask.
Mr. Kildee, you have been strong in supporting Native
people through out history. Your whole life is dedicated to
helping Native people. We ask that you support us. Don't turn
your back. We ask that you bring--vote for it and we hope that,
in the future, our people and the Saginaw Chippewa people will
work together to uplift ourselves, bring out some meaningful
change for the entire Native American community.
Thank you very much for hearing me out. Any questions? I'll
be happy to answer them.
Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions.
I would like to yield back my time. Thank you, thank Mr.
Kildee, thank the entire group that's assembled here today for
your courtesy in allowing this testimony and we very much
appreciate your allowing us that extension of courtesy. Thank
you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Kildee has a quick change in a statement that I know.
The gentleman from American Samoa has a quick closing
statement. I'm attempting to close the hearing up by 3 o'clock
for our commitments.
So, Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. This is primarily for the court reporter but I
meant to say the Huron Band of Potawatomi and I may have said
Huron Band of Pokagon. But, there's a Pokagon Band of
Potawatomi. So, for the record, I was referring to the Huron
Band of the Potawatomi.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman..
Mr. Faleomavaega. For the record, I want to commend
Assistant Secretary Gover with whom I've had the privilege of
working very closely with in developing and streamlining this
proposed legislation that was defeated yesterday by the House
to better improve the procedures on how to federally recognize
a Native American Indian tribe.
I would be the last person sitting here, as a member of
this Committee, to say that I know all about the differences
between the Chippewas and the Ojibwas. And, to suggest that
we're going to make a judgment on this thing--I want to, again,
recall the suggestion by our friend from Michigan, Congressman
Knollenberg.
It is my sincere hope that Congressman Kildee, our
colleague on this side of the aisle, and the members of the
Majority will sit in council again with the leaders of both
groups and hopefully that there will be some common solution to
this problem. I sincerely hope that we will be able to do that
and, again, thank both Chief Gould and Chief Chamberlain,
again. I can't make a judgment. I mean, I'm a chief myself but
a small chief. But, I sincerely hope that we will find a remedy
to this problem before the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman, and, in closing, I
would say as the others have pointed out that hopefully during
the Thanksgiving holiday, everyone gets together and attempts
to work out some remedy to this very complex problem. And, we
thank you for traveling such a great distance to testify at
this hearing today. I'm sure we have not heard the last of this
and look forward to seeing you probably next year, if Mr.
Knollenberg has anything to say about it.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject
to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Kevin Chamberlain, Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of
Michigan
Introduction
Good morning, Congressman Calvert, Congressman Kildee and
Members of the Resources Committee. My name is Kevin
Chamberlain, Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
distinguished body to voice the Tribe's opposition to H.R.
2822.
My testimony will consist of brief remarks on why this
Committee should oppose H.R. 2822. I respectfully request that
this written testimony, including the Tribe's historical
analysis prepared by Dr. McClurken, be entered into the record.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe vehemently opposes H.R. 2822.
Any action on this bill is of utmost concern to the Tribe
because its effect, if passed, would be to separate the
federally recognized and long-standing Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
into two separate federally recognized tribes. It would allow a
splinter group to claim treaty-preserved rights, political
jurisdiction and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. Our position is staunchly set upon our desire
to preserve our Tribe's heritage and sovereign status and to
protect the tribal sovereignty of all Indian nations by
preventing political factions and splinter groups from being
able to secede from their tribes and create sovereign nations
unto themselves.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe opposes H.R. 2822 because (1)
the bill deals with a tribal membership issue; (2) the bill
seeks to circumvent the appropriate administrative process; (3)
because the driving factor behind H.R. 2822 is gaming; and (4)
because the Swan Creek Group cannot meet the criteria necessary
to become a tribe.
This is not a meritorious claim--it is an attempt by
wealthy businessmen to buy a tribe and push a bill through
Congress for the ultimate purpose of establishing a new casino
in Southeastern Michigan.
Membership Issue
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe not only opposes H.R. 2822's
content, but also opposes the holding of this hearing today.
With all due respect, we challenge the Resources Committee's
decision to hold a hearing on this bill. H.R. 2822 deals
strictly with an intra-tribal membership matter. There should
be no Congressional intervention on a matter so fundamental to
a sovereign nation's existence.
As you know, Indian tribes are ``distinct, independent
political communities''\1\ qualified to exercise powers of
self-government, not by virtue of any delegation of powers by
Congress but by reason of their original tribal sovereignty.\2\
The United States' courts have consistently held that one of an
Indian tribe's most basic powers is the authority to determine
questions of its own membership.\3\ The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
has long been recognized by the United States as a sovereign
nation and should be allowed to handle this membership issue as
such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832).
\2\ United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978).
\3\ Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law citing Santa
Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978); Cherokee Intermarriage
Cases, 203 U.S. 76 (1906); Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swan Creek Group, the party pushing this bill, claims
that they are the successor in interest of the Swan Creek and
Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians. Yet, the Swan Creek and
Black River Bands had always been two constituent parts of the
Missisauga Chippewa, the name used before and during the treaty
era when referring to the Chippewa Bands in Southeastern
Michigan. Later, after the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, these bands
combined with the Saginaw band to become the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe. The United States has consistently recognized the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe as the exclusive successor in interest
to the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewa Indians.
These bands are indistinguishable from one another and have no
separate existence as distinct entities. For over 140 years,
the Tribe has accepted the bands within its membership and
provides services to all members in the process, regardless of
band affiliation.
The Swan Creek Group, however, claims that they are a
separate entity deserving of sovereign nation status. This is
absolutely untrue. Most of the Swan Creek Group's participants
are currently enrolled members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
including Mr. Gerald Gould, the Swan Creek Group's organizer.
In forming his group, Mr. Gould recruited members for his group
by sending membership forms to enrolled members of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. The Swan Creek Group is merely a group of
individuals who wish to split from the Tribe. Individuals who
are members and beneficiaries of one Indian nation should not
be able to simply secede and create their own nation complete
with the rights and privileges of all Indian tribes whether
because of political differences, personal choices to live away
from the reservation, or for any other reason. The existing
sovereign nation to which the individuals belong should resolve
such membership issues internally. Tribal politics is not a
matter for Congress; it is a matter for the members of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and their elected leaders.
For the record, the Saginaw Chippewa's Tribal Council has
exercised due diligence in addressing the Swan Creek Group's
needs. Again, the Tribe serves all its members with health,
education, vocational, housing and other programs without
distinguishing which members may descend from the Saginaw, Swan
Creek or Black River Bands. Indeed, because there has been so
much intermarriage between band members over the generations,
most members of the Tribe descend from more than one band. The
needs of members who live off the reservation are met through
its At-Large Program which provides numerous services and
benefits specifically for them. None of the Swan Creek Group
participants including Mr. Gould have relinquished membership
in the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and they remain eligible for all
tribal benefits and rights, including gaming per capita
payments.
Annually, the Tribe spends approximately $970,000 on At-
Large Programs which include, but are not limited to, health
services; medical services--including transportation to medical
appointments; living expense needs, (food costs; house
payments; rent; land tax payments; utilities) burial grants;
educational seminars; and family services. Further, the Tribe
spends roughly $550,000 per year on cultural enrichment
programs for the At Large residents and $468,000 on medical
coverage.
The programs are freely accessible to all At-Large persons.
Over 1290 At-Large persons live within two-hours of the
reservation and take full advantage of these programs. If the
Swan Creek Group is stating that they get disparate treatment
for not living on the reservation--this is absolutely not the
case. They are free to take advantage of all the programs. It
is not the Tribe's fault if persons live far from the
reservation--it can only provide the services and programs to
the best of its ability. The At-Large Programs funded and
administered by the Tribe generously provide for myriad needs
of the Tribe's At-Large membership.
Also, there is a seat guaranteed on the Council for a
representative from the At Large District so that such
individuals that comprise this District are fully represented
and have a voice in the governing body.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Article IV, The Amended Constitution and By-laws of the Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, approved by the United States
Congress by Public Law 99-346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council has also met many times
with representatives of the Swan Creek Group to better
understand and address its concerns. In most recent meetings
held earlier this year, the Swan Creek Group informed tribal
leaders that no political accommodations or additional benefits
would appease them. They simply want their own Tribe.
Again, it is the sovereign nation of the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe that must resolve this issue, not Congress. Congress'
intervention in this manner is an affront to the Tribe's
sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent for all tribes.
H.R. 2822 Circumvents the Administrative Process
Since Congress has decided to participate in this intra-
tribal issue, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe must voice its opinion
that H.R. 2822 is nothing more than an attempt to politically
circumvent the appropriate process for becoming a federally
recognized Indian tribe--and to do so without first contacting
the Congressmen whose districts would be most affected by such
legislation.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs'(BIA) Bureau of Acknowledgment
(BAR) exercises the United States' authority to determine
Federal recognition of Indian tribes. The BIA's Federal
Acknowledgement Process (FAP), set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 83,
delineates the criteria a group must meet before it can be
deemed a tribe. Since acknowledging a group as a tribe carries
with it many rights and privileges, the FAP process calls for
in-depth historical and cultural analysis and a finding that
the group has existed as a distinct, social and political
entity from the time of the last unambiguous Federal
recognition. This method requires extensive ethnological
scrutiny. With all due respect, Congress is not equipped with
time or expertise to engage in such detailed study and review.
Recognizing a sovereign nation certainly cannot rest on five
minutes of oral testimony from the parties involved.
Nor should it. It is of too great significance. Recognizing
a sovereign nation, must be a deliberative process. It warrants
prudence, examination and expertise. This is exactly why
Congress and the courts have deferred to the BIA which is
specialized to handle the issue.
Legislative recognition and abandonment of the FAP process
is not only heedless of longstanding procedure, but it is
unjust because it allows financially supported and politically
connected groups to ``jump the line'' ahead of legitimate
tribes that have adhered to the administrative process and are
awaiting review of their applications.
True, Congress has legislatively recognized tribes in the
past. Yet, since the FAP process was implemented in 1978, there
have only been seven instances of legislative recognition. The
Swan Creek Group, in the findings section of H.R. 2822,
attempts to liken its situation to that of a few tribes that
recently received legislative recognition. The Swan Creek
Group's situation, however, does not compare to these tribes.
Those tribes had nearly completed the BAR process and were on
active consideration at the BIA,\5\ or otherwise had proved
their long histories of being distinct social and political
organizations that maintained relationships with the United
States from treaty times to the present.\6\ Unlike these tribes
the only action the Swan Creek Group has taken towards the FAP
process was the filing of a letter of intent to petition in
1993. The Swan Creek Group has not yet filed a petition, or any
other documentation to further their pursuit of recognition,
even after the BIA contacted the group and requested additional
information from it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Statement of Deborah Maddox, Acting Director, Office of Tribal
Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Senate
Report No. 103-260, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 1994.
\6\ H.R. Rep. No. 103-631, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1994; 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 1300k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swan Creek Group hopes for the same treatment given the
aforementioned tribes regardless of the differing
circumstances. It urges legislative recognition on the basis
that the FAP process is too long and burdensome. It is the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's contention that it should be. Because
of the significance of becoming a federally recognized Indian
tribe, there should be strict criteria to adhere to and a
specialized team that ensures, without doubt, that the group's
historical background justifies the granting of Federal
recognition.
If the FAP process is too long or burdensome for applicants
to manage, Congress' role should be to rectify the process. The
answer is not to legislatively recognize groups on a piecemeal
basis--especially, groups such as the Swan Creek Group.
According to the BAR's Summary Status of Acknowledgment Cases,
dated June 17, 1998, the Swan Creek Group is listed as #135 on
the list. To grant the Swan Creek Group legislative recognition
would allow it to be recognized before 134 other groups who
have adhered to the administrative standard and played by the
rules. Some of these groups have been waiting since 1978 for
Federal recognition, long before the Swan Creek Group filed its
letter of intent and long before it found money to hire
powerful people to walk the halls of Congress for them. To
allow H.R. 2822 to pass will only encourage other groups to
seek recognition through Congress and the Resources Committee
will be deluged with bills.
We request, too, that Congress give deference to the
Governor of Michigan who has stated that he is strongly opposed
to H.R. 2822 because it circumvents the administrative process
for obtaining recognition as an Indian tribe.
Gaming Interests Fuel H.R. 2822
The motivation behind H.R. 2822 is gaming. The organizers
of the Swan Creek Group have reportedly informed people of
their plans to build a casino on an old racetrack at Hazelpark
in Oakland County, Michigan. It is understood, too, that the
group is financially backed by successful businesspersons from
the Detroit area. This is the simple answer to why the Swan
Creek Group is working so hard to push H.R. 2822 through and
how they can afford the costly resources for the effort.
In response to the question, ``What is it you want,'' posed
by a Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Council Member to the Swan Creek
Group at a recent meeting between the two parties, the Swan
Creek Group answered, ``We want our own tribe.'' Now, we
understand that this is because they wish to pursue their plans
for Hazelpark as expeditiously as possible. They found an
interested financial backer to buy them as a tribe and
legislative recognition is the quickest way to their goal.
Significant, though, is that the suggested gaming site, if
built, would be located in a Congressional district not
represented by either of the bill's sponsors.
Congress should recognize the fundamental problems with the
tactics of the Swan Creek Group. Allowing a group of
individuals to be bought and pushed through Congress as a tribe
to further gaming interests makes a mockery out of tribal
sovereignty. Congress' only role here should be to direct the
Swan Creek Group to comply with the administrative process if
they wish to pursue such endeavors.
The Swan Creek Group Does Not Meet the Criteria for Federal
Recognition.
It is the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's contention that even if
the Swan Creek Group pursued recognition through the
administrative process, it could not meet the necessary
criteria to merit tribal status. As mentioned above, the FAP
process calls for an in-depth analysis of history, culture,
ethnology, social and political status of an applicant. It is
our understanding that the Swan Creek Group, many years ago,
filed a letter of intent to apply for BIA recognition. Yet,
since the group has failed to submit the required historical
documentation to support their claim, the file has remained
dormant. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe believes that the Swan
Creek Group failed to submit additional documentation
demonstrating that the group meets the FAP criteria because
such documents do not exist.
Under the FAP process, a group must have been identified as
an Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis from 1900
until the present.\7\ The Swan Creek Group, however, cannot
meet this criteria. It has not been identified as an autonomous
Indian entity. Rather, the Swan Creek and Black River Bands
were considered two constituent parts of the Missisauga
Chippewa until 1855. After the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, which
officially joined them with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, the
United States acknowledged the Swan Creek and Black River Bands
only as part of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The 1864 Treaty,
the Federal annuity rolls, and the Indian Claims Commission
decisions confirm this assertion. None of these documents or
proceedings differentiate the bands; they all treat the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe as one tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 25 C.F.R., Sec. 83.7 (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the 1864 Treaty mentions the three bands in its
preamble, the remainder of the treaty makes it clear that the
treaty is with one Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Further, the Federal
annuity rolls which provide counts of Michigan Indians during
the mid-1800's distinguished between the three bands before the
1855 Treaty but not after it. Also, in the early 1970's, the
Indian Claims Commission, in its efforts to resolve claims
brought by the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, conducted a detailed
review of the circumstances surrounding the signing of treaties
involving the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of
Chippewas. The Commission, on a consistent basis, identified
the Swan Creek and Black River Bands only as part of the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
Further, the Swan Creek Group does not comprise a distinct
community from historical times until the present as called for
in the FAP process.\8\ The Swan Creek and Black River Bands
have long lived with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, so much so
that individual members cannot tell from which band they
descend. If there ever was any meaningful distinction among the
bands, it was fully eroded with the signing of the 1855 Treaty
of Detroit. Also, the Swan Creek Group has not maintained any
political authority over its participants as is required in the
FAP process.\9\ There were no actions taken by an individual
constituent band of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe which displays
any political authority of a particular band after the 1855
Treaty of Detroit. The authority always was in the governing
body of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. It is the Tribal Council
that governs the tribe and deals with the Federal Government.
The Swan Creek Group is nothing more than a splinter group of
the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and should not be recognized as its
own entity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 25 C.F.R. Sec. 83.7 (b).
\9\ 25 C.F.R. Sec. 83.7 (c).
\10\ 25 C.F.R. Sec. 83.7(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swan Creek Group's Arguments
One of the Swan Creek Group's main arguments for Federal
recognition seems to be based upon the interpretation of the
1855 Treaty of Detroit and the circumstances surrounding the
reorganization of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Our historical
analysis, which is attached as a part of this testimony,
explains in detail how a close look at these two events can
only conclude that the Federal Government meant to deal with
one tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, consisting of the Swan
Creek, Black River and Saginaw Bands of Chippewa.
The 1855 Treaty of Detroit joined the three bands as the
one Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the reorganization of the Tribe
included members regardless of from what band they descended.
The constitution the Tribe submitted for reorganization reveals
the intent to reorganize as one tribe when stating, ``We, the
members of the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of the
Chippewa Indians of the State of Michigan, in order to
reestablish our tribal organization . . .''\11\ (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Elmer B. Simonds et al. To Secretary of Interior, received
December 5, 1934, CCF 9069-A-1936 Tomah 068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States supervised the reorganization process,
and, at the insistence of the Tribe, included Tribal members
from all of the scattered Saginaw Chippewa Communities in the
vote or the referendum for reorganization.\12\ The officials
did not intend to limit membership in the tribe only to
descendants of the original Saginaw Chippewa band. They spoke
of what recognition would offer to the people at Bay City,
Saganig, Osoda, Peconing, Clare and Mt. Pleasant--where persons
from the Swan Creek and Black River Bands who did not move to
the Isabella Reservation migrated to in 1856.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ George Blakeslee to J. V. King May 27, 1985. CCF--Great Lakes
9592-1936, 066; Eligible Voters of Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River
Band of Chippewas. June 17, 1935. CCF--Great Lakes 9592-1936, 066.
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1937, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe reorganized under the
statute as an organization of Indians living on one
reservations.\14\ Although this constitution did not
automatically include persons living off the reservation,
including some of the Swan Creek and Black River Band
descendants, the Tribe's constitution allowed for the adoption
of the non-residents of the reservation as members of the
Tribe.\15\ At the recommendations of the BIA, the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe enacted an ordinance for the purpose of adopting
these persons who lived off the reservation. The BIA did not
decline to reorganize the Swan Creek and Black River Bands. On
the contrary, they were reorganized as part of the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe. Therefore, these bands should not be allowed
now to obtain recognition as a separate entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Letter from William Zimmerman, Assistant Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, to Chairman, Constitutional Committee, Saginaw Chippewa
Indians, July 31, 1936. RG 75 CCF No. 9609-A 1936 Tomah 068 Indian
Organization--Saginaw.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe would like to reiterate its
opposition to the holding of this hearing. The Tribe firmly
believes that this is a tribal membership issue in which
Congress should play no role.
Further, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe believes that since the
Swan Creek Group cannot meet the established administrative
criteria for becoming a tribe, it certainly should not gain
recognition from Congress based upon five minutes of testimony.
Federal recognition of a sovereign nation should be granted
only after careful research and deliberative review. It is too
significant a measure to be hastily passed in a bill. The
recognition of new tribes must be left to the established
administrative process. To provide legislative recognition to
the Swan Creek Group would be wholly unjust to the other groups
who followed the FAP process and have patiently waited review.
H.R. 2822, if passed, will only encourage the introduction of
more bills for legislative recognition. Congress should direct
the participants of the Swan Creek Group to resolve their
issues with their tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. In
summary, H.R. 2822 is merely an attempt by self interested
businessmen to buy a tribe. It should absolutely not be passed.
For these reasons, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe respectfully
requests that this Committee vote against H.R. 2822. I have
attached our historical analysis and the relevant documentation
as part of my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
on this issue.
------
Statement of Gerry Son-non-quet Gould, Chief of the Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members, and guests. My name
is Gerry Son-non-quet Gould and I am the Chief of the Swan
Creek Black River Ojibwa Tribe. I would first like to thank
Representatives Knollenberg and Barcia for sponsoring H.R. 2822
and recognizing the issues facing my people. This is an
historic moment in our Tribe's history. I am honored to address
you on behalf of our Tribe, many of whom have traveled all
night by bus in order to witness this historic occasion. We
come to ask that Congress enact promptly H.R. 2822 to reaffirm
the trust relationship promised to our ancestors over one
hundred and ninety years ago.
When I was a young boy, my mother shared with me, as her
mother shared with her, and as my great-grandmother shared with
my grandmother, the rich traditions of our people. My great
grandmother was born in 1848, and lived in the areas beyond the
white settlements. The story my mother told me was of a land of
abundance, and a time of health and simple prosperity in
Southeast Michigan. My people were trappers, fishermen, hunters
and farmers. They were communities of grandfathers and
grandmothers, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, elders
and in-
fants. It was a time before the reservations when our people
lived in harmony with their environment, with nature, and with
each other. This was our proud heritage before the settlers
came.
As my mother explained to me, and her mother to her, the
non-lndians promised that if we would sign the Treaty of
Detroit of 1807, they would take only a small portion of our
lands leaving us the rest upon which to hunt, fish and make our
living. We signed with the belief or hope that our people and
the non-natives would dwell together in peace. As white
settlements grew, we were forced to move, sometimes several
times.
We have awaited this moment with great anticipation and
also with some regret, for there is much to be said, and, yet,
precious few moments that we have to spend together. This
afternoon, I would like to describe how, as a result of Federal
Government action which violated the trust relationship, the
BIA refuses to acknowledge our tribe. As a result, our people
are disenfranchised by the very governmental agency which is
obligated to act in our trust.
We have signed 15 treaties with the United States,
including one where we are the sole tribal signatory. Despite
our extensive treaty relationship with the United States,
Federal actions and policies have resulted in the effective
loss of our Federal recognition. First, the U.S. artificially
combined us with other tribes on the same reservation, solely
for its administrative convenience, pursuant to the Treaty of
1855.
Second, in 1936, the BIA compounded this original error by
rejecting (1) the Swan Creek Black River Chief's request to
organize as a separate IRA Tribe; and (2) the draft
constitution whose preamble listed the Swan Creek Black River
and the Saginaw Bands as separate tribes. Instead, the BIA
organized an IRA tribe on the Isabella reservation, decreeing
that only individuals living on the reservation were eligible
for membership. At that time, the individuals residing there
were Odawa, Potawatomi and Ojibwa--mostly Ojibwa of the Saginaw
Chippewa Band. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the
Swan Creek Black River Tribe lived off the reservation.
To complicate matters, in 1939 the Department of the
Interior determined to withdraw funding gradually and prohibit
any future tribal organization under the IRA. By ignoring the
Swan Creek Black River's separate tribal existence, the U.S.
breached its trust obligations to our tribal members.
Notwithstanding the Federal Government's unilateral action--
which was legally and morally wrong--the Swan Creek Black River
people continued to function as a tribe. Indeed, we remain a
Tribe since only the Congress can terminate a tribe and it has
never taken this action.
This chart depicts how the U.S. artificially grouped tribes
in Michigan together. In virtually every case, the U.S. has
untangled these artificial groupings, reaffirming the
individual sovereignty of each previously combined tribe.
We appeal to you today to remedy this historic injustice.
The Swan Creek Black River Tribe has never surrendered or
relinquished our sovereignty. We have undertaken extensive
historical, anthropological and genealogical research, all of
which supports our position. This research proves that we have
maintained ourselves as a distinct tribe, with distinct kinship
relationships, distinct annuity rolls, distinct genealogy,
distinct culture, and a distinct geographic area. In addition
to the substantial documentation we have submitted for the
record, we are accompanied by our experts to answer any
questions you might pose.
We do not seek to harm any other tribe; we simply seek to
be treated like the other sovereign Michigan tribes whose
Federal recognition, in recent years, has been reaffirmed by
Acts of Congress.
We sincerely hope that you will support our effort toward
the restoration of our trust relationship with you. In the
Civil War, tribal members fought for the Union to emancipate
other subjugated peoples. The outcome of that great conflict
brought new meaning to the phrase ``we the people.'' Thus, the
concept ``we the people'' holds a special meaning for us. At
this time, ``we the Swan Creek Black River people'' request the
Congress to restore those same rights possessed by all other
sovereign Indian nations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.046
Statement of L. Brooks Patterson, Oakland County Executive
Dear Chairman Calvert and Distinguished Members of the
Committee on Resources:
My name is Brooks Patterson, and I am the elected County
Executive from Oakland County, Michigan.
Permit me to set the stage for my brief remarks by telling
you a little bit about the 910 square miles that makes up
Oakland. It's a naturally beautiful county with rolling hills
and 450 lakes. We are the headwaters for five separate rivers
that wind their way through the county, some ending up in
neighboring Lake St. Clair, others pouring eventually into the
Detroit River. By our very name you can imagine the sturdy oak
trees that crowd the landscape.
Back in the 17th and 18th centuries Indian tribes,
specifically the Swan Creek Black River tribe, roamed this
beautiful territory, fishing its streams and hunting the thick
forests.
Much has changed since those early days in Oakland county.
Nearly 1.2 million residents now enjoy a unique and rich
quality of life in Oakland County. We have 40,400 businesses
thriving there, and we are headquarters to many Fortune 500
companies, not least among them Chrysler Corporation, Kmart and
Meritor.
Oakland was beautiful and rugged in the 17th and 18th
centuries and it combines an urban/rural beauty today. To
preserve as much of what the Swan Creek Black River tribe
enjoyed, we have set aside in our County over 87,000 acres of
park land.
For purposes of identifying Oakland County: we are also
home to Senator Spencer Abraham (Auburn Hills), Senator Carl
Levin (Southfield), Representative Sandy Levin (Royal Oak), and
Representative Joe Knollenberg (Bloomfield).
As Oakland County Executive, among my many
responsibilities, I am broadly charged as the steward of
Oakland County's vast resources. To that extent, I feel a real
connection with those stewards similarly charged 200 years ago.
Out of a deep sense of respect and duty to the ancestors of
Chief Gerald Gould, I am here to acknowledge the past and
rectify a two-century old miscarriage.
My testimony today is small repayment for what the Swan
Creek Black River Indians lost. What they seek today is
recognition of a historical fact; Oakland County was their
aboriginal land, and through the inevitable passage of time and
events, they have been disenfranchised.
Their case for recognition is replete with compelling
evidence of the tribe's existence and territorial claims. Not
least among the evidence are signed treaties with the very
Federal Government before which I appear this afternoon. Some
experts familiar with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and this
whole recognition process have stated that the Swan Creek Black
River tribe has presented as compelling a documented case as
they have ever examined.
I fear some will oppose the rightful restoration of the
tribe's identity and heritage this afternoon for one simple,
albeit, selfish reason: what the tribe might do with its new
found recognition: they will eventually open a casino? Maybe.
Will they build clinics and schools? Probably. Will they bask
in the pride that their heritage has been restored, their
historical role recognized, and the long nightmare in search of
their identity and self-esteem is finally over? Absolutely.
What we are engaged in here this afternoon rises far above
attempting to influence or manipulate a Congressional committee
in hopes of protecting one city or one tribe's avaricious
gaming monopoly. What we are engaged in here is far more noble:
it truly touches upon dignity, self-esteem, morality and
justice.
In conclusion, let me respectfully suggest that the
question before this Committee is not what the tribe may or may
not do if they are granted Federal recognition. The question is
have they proven their case by clear and convincing evidence?
Thank you.
------
Statement of James M. McClurken, Ph.D., regarding H.R. 2822
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Committee members, thank you for allowing
me to submit testimony on behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
I will take this opportunity to summarize my larger and more
detailed historical analysis entitled Historical Identity of
the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas: A Critique
of House Bill 2822. This text is supported by numerous
historical citations that I have appended to the document.
Historical Identity of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black
River Chippewas: A Critique of House Bill 2822 raises the
issues that I think are most critical for understanding the
scope of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes'
claims and their implications for the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
Most importantly, H.R. 2822 will legislatively split a
federally recognized Indian tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
into two distinct federally recognized entities. The bill
attacks Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's political sovereignty. The
bill would also divide the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's treaty-
based rights and properties between the tribe and a second
political entity, another infringement on the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe.
The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribe
speakers justify their bid for Federal acknowledgment and the
division of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in Findings One through
Thirteen of H.R. 2822. I have examined these findings in
detail. My report shows that all of the findings in H.R. 2822
are historically misleading or inaccurate. The report provides
a finding-by-finding analysis and provides references to
historical works or primary documents that are important for
correctly interpreting the findings. The sponsors of H.R. 2822
have given Congress little or no documentary evidence to
support their claims.
Historical Scope of the Claims and the Treaties Cited in H.R.
2822
The scope of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa
Tribes' over reaching claims is evident from the first line of
Finding One. The Swan Creek Ojibwas made two large claims
regarding their sovereignty and properties. The drafters of
H.R. 2822 claim to be ``the [emphasis added] descendant of, and
political successor to, the [emphasis added] signatories of . .
.'' thirteen treaties with the U.S. These treaties cover an
immense territory in the northern half of the Old Northwest
Territory. This language strongly implies that H.R. 2822 will
recognize a Swan Creek Ojibwa claim of sole heirship to the
sovereign powers and properties of numerous ancestors who
signed treaties with the United States. Historical facts show
that that claim this is not true.
The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes claim
to be the sole successors to two treaties that no Saginaw, Swan
Creek or Black River Chippewas attended at all--the 1785 Treaty
of Fort McIntosh and the 1833 Treaty of Chicago. The historic
Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas were two of nearly two
dozen Mississauga Chippewa bands who lived in southeastern
Michigan. While the historic Swan Creek and Black River bands
were parties to all of the treaties the Mississauga Chippewas
made with the United States, they were one small part of the
larger confederacy and cannot claim to be the sole successors
to any single treaty except the 1836 Treaty of Washington.\1\
In this treaty the Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas sold
their last remaining reservations to the United States and
agreed to move to new homes ``west of the Mississippi or
northeast of St. Anthony Falls.'' While the Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes now claim that few of their
people were affected by this treaty and that they remained in
their traditional homeland, historical analysis shows
otherwise. Nearly two thirds of their population left Michigan
for western lands or moved to Canada. After the 1836 treaty,
the Swan Creek and Black River Band Chippewas who remained in
Michigan were a small remnant population with few resources or
means to support themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas made one more with the
United States in 1859. The Swan Creek and Book River Chippewas who made
this treaty were those who moved from Michigan to lands west of the
Mississipi River in the 1830s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1855, the remnant Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas
once again joined the far more numerous Saginaw Chippewas to
make a new treaty with the United States. The Swan Creek and
Black River Chippewas who signed the 1855 Treaty of Detroit did
not intend to function as a distinct band, an autonomous
political unit, after the 1855 treaty. Treaty provisions
stipulated that the remaining Swan Creek and Black River
Chippewas would join the Saginaw Chippewa bands on two
reservations. The remnant Swan Creek and Black River Bands
voluntarily joined with the Saginaw Chippewas. They became part
of a single political organization and were indistinguishable
from the Saginaw Chippewas after 1860.
The merging of the distinct Chippewa bands into a single
political unit is reflected in Federal annuity payrolls. While
annuity payrolls before 1855 listed Saginaw, Swan Creek, and
Black River Chippewas as distinct bands those rolls created
after 1855 make no such distinction. The failure of United
States officials to distinguish between the bands was not
simply a matter of convenience or oversight. The same officials
created similar rolls for the neighboring Ottawa and Chippewa
bands and continued to denote band distinctions and regional
confederacies among those people. The Saginaw, Swan Creek, and
Black River Chippewas had become one people.
The Indian Claims Commission agreed with the historical
fact that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe was the descendant of and
political successor to the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River
Chippewas who made treaties with the United States. Dock-
et 13-H, Finding One, which deals with claims under the 1855
and 1864 treaties, reads:
The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, comprising the
Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of Chippewa Indians .
. . maintain this action under provisions of the Indian Claims
Commission Act.
The Claims Commission found that the modern-day Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe is the exclusive political successor to the formerly distinct
bands of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas. This
finding contradicts the findings of H.R. 2822, which attempts to make
the Swan Creek Ojibwas the sole political successors to this treaty.
The three historic bands were all successors to these treaties and the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is the modern successor.
1855 Treaty of Detroit
Another serious flaw in H.R. 2822 is found in Finding Six. The Swan
Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have claimed that the 1855
treaty grouped the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas as a
matter of administrative convenience and that the ``dissolution''
language of that treaty anticipated a time when the fictitious coupling
of these bands would end. Finding Six then compares the 1855 treaty
language to that of the 1855 treaty made with the neighboring Ottawas
and Chippewas of Michigan. The language and implementation of the two
treaties are not comparable.
The ``dissolution'' language of the 1855 Saginaw, Swan Creek, and
Black River treaty was drawn directly from the treaty that the Ottawas
and Chippewas negotiated with the United States only days before the
Saginaw Chippewas made their treaty. The history of the Ottawas and
Chippewas and the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas is not
comparable. Court decisions and subsequent legislation regarding the
Ottawas and Chippewas are specific to these tribes and cannot apply to
the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas.
The history of the ``dissolution'' clause in the 1855 Ottawa and
Chippewa Treaty is this, Michigan Indian Agent Henry Schoolcraft in
1836 administratively combined the Ottawas and Chippewas, two
historically distinct tribes. They were not administratively joined in
1855 as H.R. 2822, Finding Six, indicates. Schoolcraft created the
fictitious Ottawa and Chippewa Nation to compel Ottawa leaders to sell
their western Michigan lands against their will. The Ottawas resented
this tactic that robbed them of their property and weakened their
political status. When the constituent tribes of the fictitious Ottawa
and Chippewa Nation came together to make a new treaty in 1855, the
Ottawas demanded that the U.S. end the fiction of an Ottawa and
Chippewa Nation. The Ottawas wanted each tribe restored to its rightful
political autonomy. The U.S. did see some ``administrative
convenience'' in ``dissolving'' the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation. Doing
so would allow the U.S. to call future councils with one or the other
tribe without involving all of the widely scattered bands who comprised
these tribes. This would save time and expense and help justify the
dissolution language.
No historical documentation before, during or immediately after the
1855 negotiations with the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River
Chippewas, directly comments on the negotiators' reasons for inserting
dissolution language in their 1855 treaty. Indeed, the historical
situation that treaty negotiators intended to remedy for the Ottawas
and Chippewas has no parallel in the relations of the Saginaw, Swan
Creek, and the Black River Bands. The Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black
River Chippewas had never been linked in a fictitious political unit
like that of the Ottawa and Chippewa Nation. The 1855 treaty
legislatively joined, not separated, these joint political successors
to the treaties listed in H.R. 2822, Finding One, as a single political
unit for the first time.
The ``dissolution'' language argument is also discredited by the
fact that the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black River Chippewas negotiated
their final treaty with the United States in 1864 as a single tribe.
The dissolution clause of the Saginaw Chippewas' 1855 treaty was not
mentioned before, during or after the 1864 negotiation. The first
discussion of the dissolution of the Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black
River Chippewas does not appear in Federal records until 1870. That
year, Michigan Indian Agent James Long questioned the meaning of the
language for the first time. How could a ``dissolved'' tribe make a
legally binding treaty with the United States? Commissioner of Indian
Affairs Eli Parker affirmed the validity of the 1864 treaty and the
right of the confederated Saginaw Swan Creek and Black River Chippewas
to make it.
Implementation of the 1855 and 1864 treaties facilitated the
physical and demographic commingling of the once distinct Saginaw, Swan
Creek, and Black River Bands. In 1855 Swan Creek and Black River bands
numbered, at most, 150 people, while more than 1,500 Saginaw Chippewas
lived in Michigan. These 150 lived at one mission station, Nippising
Mission, in 1855. Methodist Church records show that when the Nippising
Mission closed in 1856, the Swan Creek and Black River Bands' members
who lived there divided and moved to several new locations. Some
relocated to the Isabella Reserve, others to Saganing, some to Oscoda,
and others to Pinconning, all places where the Methodists operated
missions. It is highly unlikely that these widely scattered handfuls of
families maintained political relationships distinct from those of the
communities where they lived 1855.
The Indian Reorganization Act
The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have claimed
that they attempted to reorganize their separate government under
provisions of the Wheeler-Howard or Indian Reorganization Act in the
1930s. They have described two letters proving this point without
offering citations for these documents. I have examined hundreds of
documents generated by United States officials and by Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe members about this issue. I have never seen the letters that the
Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes have called attention
to. I have not seen any evidence that they attempted to reorganize an
independent tribe or that the United States ever sanctioned Swan Creek
reorganization efforts. To the contrary, documents cited in my larger
report and the supporting documentation show that United States
officials intended to reorganize all of the scattered Saginaw Chippewa
communities as the reorganized Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. They did so at
the insistence of the leaders of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe who were
drawn from many of these off-reservation communities. The constitution
of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe included provisions that extended
membership to all of the Saginaw Chippewa communities
Conclusion
The conclusions and findings in this testimony and in my written
report are based on twenty years of extensive study of Michigan Indian
history. I have never discovered any documents that would support the
Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes' claim to have
maintained a distinct identity from that of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
after the closing of the Nippising Mission in the mid-1850s. No
document that I have ever read clearly and legitimately raises the
claim. I strongly urge this Committee to judge the claims of H.R. 2822
on their historical merit. The claims are spurious and do not merit
legislation by the United States House of Representatives.
______
Statement of Deborah Davis Jackson, Ph.D.
Introduction
This statement is in strong support of H.R. 2822 to reaffirm the
tribal sovereignty of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa
Tribes of Michigan. I hold a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University
of Michigan; I am presently continuing my anthropological research
under a multidisciplinary postdoctoral fellowship at the University of
Michigan. Over the past seven years, I have carried out extensive
historical and ethnographic research on the American Indian peoples of
the Great Lakes region, with particular focus on the Ojibwa Tribes of
Southeast Michigan. This work has brought me into collaboration with
several Native American groups, including the Swan Creek Black River
Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, with whom I conducted an oral
history project documenting the social, cultural and political
continuity of tribal settlements throughout the twentieth century. This
study, funded by the Kellogg Foundation, resulted in a collection of
transcripts and audio tapes of individual and focus group interviews
with three generations of several extended Swan Creek Black River
families, as well as a report summarizing the findings. These
materials, in addition to serving as the beginnings of a more complete
oral history for the Tribe, have also been deposited by the Tribe in
several Michigan libraries so that Native community leaders, scholars
specializing in American Indians of Michigan, and other interested
members of the public might benefit from this valuable resource.
The picture of community life that emerges from the inter-
generational oral history project, in conjunction with my general
knowledge of Michigan Indian culture and history, has convinced me that
the Swan Creek Black River people have maintained their tribal identity
and cohesion from the time of earliest sustained contact with non-
Natives up until the present. Since they were first described in the
official documents of non-Natives during the early years of the treaty
era over 200 years ago, Swan Creek Black River communities have
retained their distinctive identity in contrast both to nearby non-
Native towns and cities (and the dominant society more generally), and
to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe with whom they were combined, for
administrative convenience, by the Federal Government in the Treaty of
1855. Despite constant challenges to their unique way of life, and even
at times to their very survival, the Swan Creek Black River Tribe has
persevered. They seek now to be reaffirmed as the Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan, thereby acknowledging,
for the Federal Government's purposes, the cultural, social and
political cohesion they have maintained for so long, against such
formidable odds. They have entered into treaties with the Federal
Government repeatedly, and have been ``acknowledged'' in the form of
their being a separately-named component of the combined ``Chippewas of
Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River'' (as stated in the title and
preamble of their final treaty with the U.S. Government, made on
October 18, 1864). In my considered opinion, there is no doubt that the
Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan does
constitute a tribal political entity, and has since its first sustained
contact with non-Natives. I strongly urge favorable action on H.R. 2822
to reaffirm the Tribe's Federal recognition as a sovereign tribal
entity.
Community Life: Early 1800s through Early 1900s
The very early history of the Swan Creek Black River people is
beyond the scope of this statement. Here I will simply say that as
Great Lakes area Indian bands came to be designated by their ancestral
territories, the terms ``Swan Creek'' and ``Black River'' came into
usage to refer to the Ojibwa (another term for ``Chippewa'') people of
Southeast Michigan. These were one people, with a common hunting and
fishing territory, whose multiple primary villages were originally
clustered along Swan Creek and the Black River. By the early nineteenth
century, however, land cessions (primarily as a result of the Treaty of
Detroit in 1807) and settlement by non-Natives had pushed many Swan
Creek Black River people out of their traditional homelands. At first
several small reservations were established expressly for Swan Creek
Black River people, but these were later extinguished (in the Treaty of
1836), leaving Swan Creek Black River people essentially landless. One
small group went to Kansas when land was set aside there specifically
for Swan Creek Black River people (many subsequently returned), some
stayed in and around the original small reservations, others moved into
adjacent areas of Canada (e.g., Sarnia, Walpole Island), and still
others established settlements in various locations around Southeast
Michigan. Later, during the 10 years between 1855 and 1865, a series of
treaties resulted in land being set aside at Mount Pleasant (later
named the ``Isabella'' reservation) specifically for Swan Creek Black
River, as well as the Saginaw, bands of Ojibwa. A fair number of Swan
Creek Black River families relocated there; but of those, many
eventually returned to their home settlements to the southeast.
The nineteenth century as a whole, then, is characterized by
disruptions, dislocations, dispersions, and migrations; at the same
time, however, a strong social and political cohesion kept Swan Creek
Black River people for the most part in their own communities. These
small communities--settlements scattered throughout Southeast
Michigan--retained a strong sense of their identity as a single,
distinct group of Ojibwa, not only within communities, but among
communities, as well. The nature of these bonds among tribal members,
and the way of life they shared, has been especially well illuminated
by the recollections of older Swan Creek Black River tribal members as
recorded for the Tribe's oral history project. While these tribal
members are recalling the early twentieth century, other sources
(archaeological digs; archival records; written accounts by government
agents, missionaries and other non-Natives; and long-deceased tribal
members' correspondence, photographs, and other documents) corroborate
that the same general conditions held throughout the nineteenth
century. The social, cultural and political life that sustained Swan
Creek Black River people throughout the nineteenth century and into the
first few decades of the twentieth are summarized below.
As the nineteenth century progressed, the Swan Creek Black River
Ojibwa people of Southeast Michigan found their options drastically
restricted by the actions of the Federal Government (confining them to
reservations, then extinguishing those reservations, then physically
lumping them together with the Saginaw Chippewas on a reservation far
from their homeland), the encroachment of non-Native settlers, and the
destruction of the habitats from which they had traditionally made
their living. Still, these people managed to maintain their traditional
life ways and social/political organization in the face of all the
pressures and changes, preserving their identity as a distinct Ojibwa
people while at the same time making the adjustments necessary to
contend with changing circumstances.
Though their settlements remained geographically dispersed
throughout Southeast Michigan, Swan Creek Black River people kept in
close touch with one another. The distances between settlements were
not any greater than those between the villages and campgrounds of
aboriginal times, and the marriages that regularly occurred between
Swan Creek Black River families of different settlements (documented in
census records and genealogies) served to keep the scattered
communities bound together in an intricate network of kinship ties.
While some Swan Creek Black River families in some of the
settlements turned to farming, most, especially during the second half
of the nineteenth century, did not have enough suitable land to do so.
Far more common was a traditional subsistence mix of hunting, fishing
and trapping, small-scale gardening, the making of black-ash baskets
and other traditional craft items for sale to non-Natives, migrant farm
work (such as traveling to northwest Lower Michigan in the summer for
cherry picking), and other forms of wage-work for non-Native farmers,
lumbering concerns, and local businesses and homes (where Native women
sometimes worked as ``domestics''). Another form of work, usually
provided by women during this period, was to provide midwifery and
other such medical services to non-Natives in nearby towns, using
traditional Ojibwa practices and remedies. (While charging fees to non-
Natives, these traditional healers treated their own tribal community
members on the basis of the reciprocity, not fees, that characterized
all social interactions among Swan Creek Black River people.)
These various activities allowed Swan Creek Black River families to
``get by,'' but there were many difficult times. People often went
without basic necessities, and some times went hungry during winters
when game animals--even such small game as rabbits and muskrats--were
scarce, and wage work was scarcer. Anti-Indian prejudice on the part of
local white authorities resulted in zealous enforcement of hunting and
fishing restrictions (this was long before the time when Native rights
to hunting and fishing in ceded territories was re-established in
Michigan) and even in false accusations of ``poaching,'' with no regard
to the fact that Native families needed the animals they hunted and
trapped simply to stay alive. Similarly, the only employment
opportunities open to Swan Creek Black River people were low-paying
farm work and other labor jobs, and Indians were often paid even less
than non-Natives for equal work. Yet, there was little if any recourse,
legal or otherwise, and families simply pooled their resources and
survived as best they could.
Despite these economic hardships, Swan Creek Black River people in
the scattered settlements of Southeast Michigan maintained a good
quality of life socialed with one another, helped each other out in
times of need, attended church together (many of the settlements had
Methodist churches which became key community institutions, to the
point that they were considered ``Indian churches'' by their members),
communally maintained their local ``Indian cemeteries,'' traveled to
other Swan Creek Black River settlements for weddings, funerals, and
other such occasions, and held periodic large scale gatherings
patterned after aboriginal ceremonial meetings held throughout the
warmer months of the year. In former times, these kinds of gatherings
had revolved around maple sugar camps in the spring, fishing villages
in the summer, and during the fall, the ``feasts for the dead'' that
were held by various families, bringing visitors from near and far.
Thus, people who had been separated in smaller hunting camps during the
winter had ample opportunity during the warmer months to reconnect,
conduct their business, carry out courtships, get married, and enact
ceremonial rituals. As the nineteenth century progressed, larger-scale
gatherings were more likely to revolve around wage work (lumber camps,
cherry-picking camps), tourist areas where baskets and other native
crafts could be sold, and religious (Methodist) ``camp meetings.'' But
the underlying purpose was still the same--for families in far-flung
settlements to keep in touch with one another and keep their social and
political ties strong--and the flavor remained very much ``Indian''
even as such European institutions as wage labor and Christianity came
to influence the structure and timing of the gatherings.
In addition to the social cohesion and cultural continuity that was
maintained and strengthened at these larger gatherings, political
leadership was also exercised. Leadership was, for the most part, loose
and informal, as was the case in earlier times before sustained contact
with non-Natives. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the
twentieth century, some degree of political cohesion was achieved
within the larger Swan Creek Black River polity by a number of
individuals who, on behalf of their communities: (1) kept people
informed of issues affecting their people; (2) represented their people
in interactions with government officials and other outsiders (e.g.,
those who participated in negotiations with the government, signed
treaties, and sent letters to government officials seeking redress of
unacceptable circumstances); and, (3) kept their people informed of
decisions. The large social gatherings discussed above provided good
opportunities for political discussions to occur. In addition, there
was constant communication among Swan Creek Black River people on a
smaller scale, both within and between settlements, as people visiting
one another invariably discussed the latest news with regard to
government Indian policy, the local political climate, and news from
Mt. Pleasant. Furthermore, as literacy increased among Swan Creek Black
River people (mainly due to ``Indian schools,'' both in the form of
local day schools and the residential boarding schools at various
locations), people began supplementing their face-to-face contacts
through regular correspondences, building and strengthening both social
and political alliances and keeping up with news of all kinds on topics
of interest to local Swan Creek Black River communities.
Life remained surprisingly stable in Swan Creek Black River
settlements throughout the first few decades of the twentieth century.
Though families continued to struggle economically, communities drew on
the strengths of their traditional cultural and social bonds, and
leaders continued to try to improve the conditions of their people.
With regard to this last point, it is of special significance that
specific leaders emerged during the early twentieth century, thus
bringing to an end a time during which political leadership must be
inferred. That is, during the first two-thirds of the nineteenth
century, historical documents such as treaties, the correspondence of
Indian agents, and the records of missionaries in the area name certain
individuals as ``chiefs'' of their local communities and as men who had
influence over Swan Creek Black River people more generally. But during
the last few decades of the nineteenth century, such documentation is
rare. However, we can reasonably assume that such leadership continued,
because as archival evidence becomes available again in the early
twentieth century, supplemented now by oral historical accounts, it is
clear that certain individuals were respected leaders not only within
their local settlements, but among the larger Swan Creek Black River
community as well. Such Swan Creek Black River men as George Wheaton,
``Doc'' Chatfield, Art Henry, and an unnamed individual at Peonegowink
(referred to in a 1909 document) are among those mentioned as
``chiefs'' who were responsible for keeping their people informed of
matters that were of concern to them (both in terms of Federal Indian
policy and developments at Mt. Pleasant), and whose opinions people
respected when it came to making decisions to improve their
circumstances.
With regard to this last issue, it is of particular significance
that during the Reorganization Era of the 1930s, the Swan Creek Black
River people sought to have their status as a separate Tribe, distinct
from the Saginaw Chippewas, reaffirmed through the provisions on the
Reorganization Act. Elliot Collins, designated as ``Chief of the Swan
Creek Black River'' in official documents, wrote a letter informing
Federal Government officials that his people were ``anxious to
organize'' under the Act to become recognized as a Tribe.
Unfortunately, no correspondence has been located that indicates what
became of Chief Collins's inquiry; furthermore, correspondence between
the Tribe at Mount Pleasant and the office of the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs shows that while the Tribe was willing to be designated
``the members of the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Bands of
Chippewa Indians of the State of Michigan,'' the Commissioner's office
insisted on the wording ``Indians residing on the Isabella Reservation
of the State of Michigan.'' Thus, the constitution that was approved in
1936, while retaining the official name ``Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black
River Bands,'' in fact excluded off-reservation Swan Creek Black River
tribal members--that is to say, the majority of Swan Creek Black River
people and their traditional settlement communities. This simply
perpetuated the fiction that the Swan Creek Black River people were
truly a part of the Tribe at Mount Pleasant, while at the same time
they were denied significant participation in the political and
economic life of the Tribe.
Mid-Twentieth Century: Urban Migrations
As mid-century approached, changes occurred that led to the
dispersal of some of the long-standing Swan Creek Black River
settlements. On the one hand, resources that the Ojibwa people had
relied on for traditional subsistence became even more scarce, and in
some cases, communities that had managed to buy up land in their
settlements began losing it again to tax fraud, loan sharking, and
other such schemes on the part of local non-Natives. At the same time,
factories sprang up in Southeast Michigan cities such as Bay City,
Saginaw, Flint and Detroit as the auto industry gained momentum, and
jobs became available to Native Americans and others with little
education and few conventional job skills. Some Swan Creek Black River
people found ways to remain living in their traditional settlements
while commuting to factory jobs in nearby towns and cities. Others
found it necessary to move to cities for work. As urban migrations
peaked at mid-century, Swan Creek Black River Ojibwa and other Native
Americans joined together to form urban Indian organizations as a means
of maintaining their social and cultural life in the city and
facilitating political action.
These urban associations--most of which had many Swan Creek Black
River people among their membership as well as in key leadership
positions--provided much needed social services to indigent urban
Indians. They also reinvigorated the social and cultural life of the
Native community by offering culture and language classes, sponsoring
informal potluck suppers throughout the year, and organizing annual
harvest dinners, Christmas parties, and summer powwows. These programs
and events drew Swan Creek Black River people from outlying rural and
small-town areas, as well as serving the needs of those who had moved
to the cities, and thus provided new settings in which widely-dispersed
tribal members could congregate. At the same time, opportunities began
emerging at that state level for American Indian people to organize and
receive much-needed services. Swan Creek Black River leaders utilized
these avenues, as well, in their on-going efforts to represent the
interests and meet the needs of their people.
Relations with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe: Recent History
Since the Swan Creek Black River people had been unsuccessful in
their attempt to gain Federal recognition during the Reorganization Era
of the 1930s, as a practical matter, to help the Swan Creek Black River
people, several tribal members chose to work through thee tribal
government at Mt. Pleasant when dealing with the Federal Government.
Some of the Swan Creek Black River families who had originally
relocated to the reservation at Mt. Pleasant during the 1860s had
remained there. These families lived for the most part in a particular
region of the reservation and maintained an identity separate from the
Saginaw Chippewa Band. Off-reservation Swan Creek Black River people
possessed these social and familial ties to the reservation community.
However, it has always been on-reservation Saginaw Chippewa people who
controlled the Saginaw Chippewa tribal government. Given the scarce
resources of those times, the needs of Swan Creek Black River people
who lived off the reservation--either in traditional Swan Creek Black
River settlements, or in urban areas--usually went unaddressed and
unmet.
In the context of these circumstances, a number of Swan Creek Black
River leaders arose during the sixties, seventies and eighties who
sought to work within the structure of the tribal government at Mt.
Pleasant--the only venue open to the Swan Creek Black River Tribe at
that time--to improve the lot of their people. One of the most
prominent was George Cook, also known as Chief Whitebird, a direct
descendant of one of the nineteenth-century treaty signatories for the
Swan Creek Black River Tribe. Throughout the sixties and seventies,
Chief Whitebird worked tirelessly to encourage his people to register
as tribal members (of the combined Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River
Tribe--the only recognized tribal entity that existed at the time)
specifically so that they would be eligible for land-claims money that
would soon become available. He established and maintained contacts in
each of the scattered settlements, as well as with Swan Creek Black
River people in urban centers, so as to disseminate information
effectively and keep himself up to date on the wishes of the people.
Community leader Juanita Spencer, mother of Robert Spencer (sub-chief
of the Swan Creek Black River Tribe) was a key organizer for Chief
Whitebird in the Caro area and beyond. Other men and women took the
lead in other locales, all keeping Chief Whitebird informed of the
sentiments and opinions in their communities. In turn, they were being
apprised by Chief Whitebird of developments in Mt. Pleasant and in
Washington. It was largely due to this leader's efforts that many Swan
Creek Black River people who had become disenchanted with the tribal
government at Mt. Pleasant did end up signing on as members, not with
the intent of changing their tribal affiliation from Swan Creek Black
River Ojibwa to Saginaw Chippewa, but rather as the only means open to
them of receiving their rightful share of land-claims money and other
benefits.
Another political leader who attempted to help his people through
the Saginaw Chippewa tribal structure at Mt. Pleasant was Gerry Son-
Non-Quet Gould, also the direct descendant of a nineteenth-century Swan
Creek Black River signatory chief. Chief Gould served as At-Large
Representative on the tribal council at Mt. Pleasant throughout the
latter half of the 1980s. Though he tried to serve his people as best
he could through this position, the obstacles were great and he
eventually concluded that this was not a realistic means through which
he might meet the needs of the Swan Creek Black River tribal members,
including many who never became eligible to join the Saginaw Tribe. In
traveling around to meet with people in various locations throughout
the region, Chief Gould learned first hand of the widespread
dissatisfaction and frustration felt by Swan Creek Black River people
who wanted to maintain their separate tribal identity and make their
own decisions--decisions that would reflect their own unique
background, experience and perspective developed over their long
history of maintaining social, cultural and political institutions
separate from both non-Native society and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
The Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan
It was for these reasons that Chief Son-Non-Quet, together with
other Swan Creek Black River leaders, incorporated the Swan Creek Black
River Confederated Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan in the State of Michigan
on December 26, 1991. They become recognized by the State of Michigan
as a tribe in February of 1992. The Swan Creek Black River Tribe held,
and continues to hold, regular monthly meetings and to sponsor events
to benefit Swan Creek Black River and other off-reservation Indian
people throughout Southeast Michigan. They have carefully researched
and documented their tribal history through both archival and oral
historical means, and have established specific genealogies for tribal
members that show lines of descent all the way back to original treaty-
signers in the nineteenth century. The Tribe provides a venue within
which the Swan Creek Black River people of the scattered traditional
settlements and urban Indian communities around Southeast Michigan can
maintain their social cohesion, revitalize their cultural traditions,
and address the political issues unique to the Tribe.
The history of Swan Creek Black River people is rife with
dislocation, dispossession, forced migration, discrimination, and
oppression. Yet, it also reveals strong communities that united around
a common culture and shared institutions, maintained a group identity
distinct from the surrounding non-Native society, and formed larger
networks with other Swan Creek Black River communities through bonds of
marriage, ceremonial gatherings, and over-arching political leadership.
Swan Creek Black River people, throughout their long history in
Michigan, have been referred to by name in numerous documents by many
different non-Native outsiders (such as government officials, military
personnel, missionaries, and local politicians), and have been
recognized as Indians by surrounding non-Native communities.
The Federal Government attempted to right its past wrongs against
the Swan Creek Black River people in the mid-1800s by giving them land
at Mt. Pleasant, and again in the 1930s by creating an combined
Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River Tribe. Ironically, however, these
moves excluded most Swan Creek Black River tribal members, thereby, in
fact, perpetuating the injustice to a people who have simply wanted to
remain in their homelands and be recognized as what they are: a
separate and distinct Ojibwa people with a unique identity and history.
It is my strongest recommendation and hope that H.R. 2822 will be
enacted promptly to reaffirm this Tribe's Federal recognition. By that
act, the present-day Federal Government would reverse the wrongs of the
past, and allow the people of the Swan Creek Black River Confederated
Ojibwa Tribes of Michigan to take charge of their own destiny, as a
fully sovereign people again.
______
Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island
Mr. Chairman, on November 5, 1997, my friend and colleague, Mr.
Knollenberg, introduced H.R. 2822, a bill that would recognize a group
of individuals self-named the Swan Creek Black River Confederated
Ojibwe as a distinct recognized Indian tribe. I have reviewed the bill
in detail and have concluded that it reduces to two concepts:
sovereignty and process. It is this bill's affect on these two concepts
that convinces me that I must oppose this legislation. I encourage my
fellow Representatives to oppose it as well.
Congress has been discussing sovereignty in relation to Indian
tribes since the first instance a European settler set foot on this
continent. It is time we learned to respect tribal sovereignty and
uphold it to its fullest extent. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan is a sovereign nation. It has exercised and retained its
sovereignty throughout history and throughout its many encounters with
the Federal Government. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty is not
something that Congress granted to it. Rather, it is something the
Tribe has retained. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe is a nation unto
itself--with the sovereign authority, power, and right to manage its
own affairs and govern its own members. Congress must respect this and
must not become involved in internal tribal political affairs--which
H.R. 2822 asks us to do.
H.R. 2822 proposes to federally recognize a group that calls itself
the Swan Creek Black River Confederated Ojibwe Tribes. This group
claims to be the successor in interest to the Swan Creek and Black
River Bands of Chippewa Indians. It is my understanding that although
these bands were once considered parts of the larger Chippewa group in
southeastern Michigan before and during the treaty process, that these
bands, by virtue of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit, were affirmatively
merged with the Saginaw Band to become the one sovereign nation of the
Saginaw Chip-
pewa Tribe. For over 140 years the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has
functioned as one tribe without regard to any band distinctions and has
been treated as such by the Federal Government.
Further, I also understand that most of the participants of the
Swan Creek Group pushing the bill, including its organizer, are
currently members of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and that most tribal
members, because of more than a century of intermarriage among the
three component bands of the Tribe, find it difficult to determine from
which band they descend. Of course, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has and
continues to serve all of these members equally regardless of their
band affiliation.
In reviewing the history and the circumstances surrounding this
bill, I can only conclude that H.R. 2822 addresses nothing more than a
tribal membership issue of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, and that
Congress should not interfere in this matter. It is an issue for the
sovereign Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and its governing body. Congress must
respect this.
If Congress were to do otherwise and pass H.R. 2822, its effect
would be to mandate that a splinter group of a well established and
long recognized tribe break off and form its own nation, complete with
the rights and privileges of all legitimate Indian tribes. It would
allow the Swan Creek Group to claim the treaty-preserved rights,
jurisdiction and sovereignty currently held by the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe. This is an affront to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty--
and to the sovereignty of all Indian nations. If Congress were to split
the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe with H.R. 2822, nothing will stop it from
unilaterally splitting other federally recognized tribes when splinter
groups come forward. This cannot be the precedent Congress sets--
especially when, as in this case, gaming and the establishment of a
casino are the motivating factors for recognition. H.R. 2822 would set
this dangerous precedent--and I cannot allow that to happen.
Process. The second argument against H.R. 2822 boils down to
process. Since 1978, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), through its
Bureau of Acknowledgement and Research (BAR), has been the appropriate
forum for determining whether groups merit Federal recognition as
Indian tribes. The BAR process calls for extensive research and
analysis. The BAR staff has the expertise and the experience to conduct
such study and review. With all due respect to my fellow
Representatives, Congress does not. Congress cannot play the role of
the BIA.
Of course, I realize that Congress has granted legislative
recognition to tribes in the past. Yet, the circumstances of those were
quite different from what we see before us today with the Swan Creek
Group. The Swan Creek Group has not even attempted the administrative
process. It is my understanding that they filed a letter of intent with
the BIA in 1993. This merely opens a file in anticipation of a petition
for recognition. As of yet, however, the Group has failed to provide
any documentation or to even pursue this process in any way. The
Group's file lays dormant in line behind over 100 groups awaiting
recognition.
It is my contention that the Swan Creek Group, if it is to pursue
Federal recognition, should be directed back to the BIA. It would be
wholly unfair for Congress to allow this Group that has provided no
documentation whatsoever for recognition to be recognized ahead of all
the other groups who have abided by the process simply because the Swan
Creek Group and its representatives have walked the halls of Congress
pushing legislation.
Congress is not equipped to decipher the Group's history and
genealogy to determine whether it merits recognition. This, along with
the simple fact that many of the Group's participants remain members of
the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and receive the benefits and privileges as
such, convinces me that Congress should not pass this bill. Congress
must not interfere with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's sovereignty. If we
are to take any action at all on H.R. 2822, it should be to oppose it
to allow the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, the appropriate governing body for
this issue, to resolve the matter. Beyond that, the Group is welcome to
pursue the established administrative process for recognition. In
efforts to uphold tribal sovereignty and established process, I cannot
condone any other action by Congress on this issue.
______
State of Washington,
Office of the Governor,
August 20, 1998.
The Honorable Joseph Knollenberg,
11th District,
1511 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC
Dear Congressman Knollenberg:
It has recently come to my attention that yet another group of
Native Americans in Michigan is poised to seek federal recognition via
an act of Congress. This is in addition to the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa Indians, which is now seeking recognition through H.R. 948
and which unsuccessfully sought recognition in the last Congress
through H.R. 377. I am writing to reiterate my strong opposition to the
recognition of additional Indian tribes in Michigan via congressional
action, which I expressed in a December 6, 1995, letter to Congressman
Donald Young (attached) regarding my opposition to H.R. 377.
I fully stated the reasons for my opposition to congressional
acknowledgement of additional Indian tribes in my letter to Congressman
Young. While some of the facts have changed since I wrote that letter,
notably with respect to the legality of casino gaming in Michigan, the
fundamental reasons for my opposition remain the same.
First, recognizing tribes in this manner circumvents and undermines
the established process for federal acknowledgment that exists in the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BlA''). This
process requires that tribes make a detailed showing of their
entitlement to federal recognition that involves extensive examination
of the historical record of the tribe in question. This is a function
that congress is simply not equipped to carry out. If, as some claim,
the BIA process has broken down, I would suggest that congress direct
in energies toward fixing that process rather than assuming the BIA's
duties unto itself. It is my understanding that the tribe that recently
surfaced has taken no action to further its application for
acknowledgement since filing its original ``letter of intent'' with the
BIA in 1993. In this case, the federal acknowledgement process has not
even been permitted to work.
Second, recognition of Indian tribes by act of congress sets a bad
precedent that other tribes are likely to follow fact. In fact,
Michigan is a prime example of this trend. The Michigan tribes that are
now seeking federal acknowledgement from congress are merely following
the lead of three tribes that gained acknowledgement in the same manner
in 1994. The tribes are lobbying congress rather than marshalling the
historical evidence that the BIA properly demands that tribes seeking
federal acknowledgement produce. This is a trend that should not be
allowed to continue.
Third, recognition of an additional Indian tribe in Michigan will
serve to undermine state sovereignty and will inevitably lead to
increased litigation on a variety of fronts where state and tribal
policies conflict. Finally, acknowledgement of additional tribes could
lead to a proliferation of casino gaming in Michigan, which I oppose.
The tribes should, therefore, only be recognized following the
searching inquiry that the BIA performs, not as a result of the
political process.
Thank you for taking my concern into consideration. I urge you to
oppose efforts to acknowledge additional Indian tribes via
congressional action.
Sincerely,
John Engler,
Governor.
JE/mg/jp
Enclosure
cc: Michigan Delegation
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1984.045