By ROBERT JUMPER
Tutiyi (Snowbird) and Clyde, N.C.
Let me start by saying how much I appreciate the testimony of Ugvwiyuhi (Principal Chief) Michell Hicks at the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing concerning Senator Tillis’ bill S.107. You won’t see me doing that much. My personal ethics are that I keep my personal opinions out of the public area when it comes to our politicians, because I feel a moral obligation to be objective in my coverage of our leadership.
That being said, I do think that Ugvwiyuhi Hicks represented us in a dignified, calm, and calculated manner. It is not easy to keep your cool when passions are high and so much is on the line. And Senate committee hearings are probably one of the most intimidating government-to-government forums in the world. So, I say well done to the Chief and his team in the representation of our tribe.
I have seen many comments on his testimony that amount to armchair quarterbacking and backseat driving. I believe that there was a strategic and coordinated presentation by our Ugvwiyuhi and Shawnee Chief Ben Barnes. Ugvwiyuhi Hicks presented the case from the perspective of the financial impact on all federally recognized tribes, resulting from a potentially haphazard approach by the federal government regarding federal recognition.
Now, our tribe has been criticized by even one of our “blood brothers”, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), for even suggesting potential financial impacts, when the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) has never once said that the Lumbee should be denied recognition based on monetary consideration. But it would be foolish, childish even, to ignore the impact on all federally recognized tribes if the recognition continues to be misused and politicized by allowing the federal legislature, made up almost entirely of those not of indigenous descent, and not using cultural and historical criteria to be the determinants of federal recognition. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) scolded our Ugvwiyuhi for bringing this up, while Senator Schatz’s official webpage celebrated his ability to secure funds for Native Hawaiians to the tune of “hundreds of millions of dollars” for his Native Hawaiian community as a former chairperson of the Indian Affairs Committee.
In the mission statement of the Office of Federal Acknowledgment, it states the following: “By applying anthropological, genealogical, and historical research methods, OFA reviews, verifies, and evaluates groups’ petitions for Federal acknowledgment as Indian Tribes. OFA makes recommendations for proposed findings and final determinations to the AS-IA, consults with petitioners and third parties, provides copies of 25 CFR Part 83 and its guidelines, prepares technical assistance review letters, maintains petitions and administrative correspondence files, and conducts special research projects for the Department. OFA also performs other administrative duties that include maintaining its web page and responding to appeals, litigation, and Freedom of Information Act requests.”
If certain members of the committee were looking for ways to inflame and perpetuate Native hate, they could not have done a better job. For leaders of one nation to address another nation in the manner that Senator Mullin and Senator Schatz addressed Ugvwiyuhi Hicks and Chief Barnes was disrespectful to both men and to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and to the Shawnee Nation.
According to Finbold.com, Senator Mullin’s net worth is between $23,738,148 and $100,151,999, based on a 2023 financial disclosure report. Senator Schatz’s reported worth is between $345,026 and $6,450,998 (the ambiguity is due to lax reporting requirements and the volatile realty market; in Senator Schatz’s case, most of his reported worth is in real estate). It is easy to see how millionaires might forget how to address guest dignitaries in a formal forum. When we see this kind of nastiness and lack of courtesy between the administration and legislators in hearings, it makes us sad. When we see it from United States legislators to tribal heads of state, it is disgusting, and it should be grounds for dismissal from the committee.
Senator Schatz did everything but wave a scepter when he addressed our Ugvwiyuhi. He said, “You cannot say we are not permitted to recognize a tribe. That is a constitutional obligation and authority of the Congress, specifically the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. So, if you want to make the argument that you need to build a historical record and you trust this agency within an agency more than you trust us, that’s fine. But this is still our authority. And we clearly intend to exercise it.”
I got it. Again, when you’re rich and entitled, it is easy to forget that you are a public servant, one charged with truth-telling and courtesy. After a couple of minutes ranting basically that “you’re not the boss of me”, Senator Schatz was corrected by one of his fellow committee members.
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said, “I am sorry, but I am not hearing anybody saying that we don’t have that authority. I think it is very clear that people recognize that there is a dual track here. And the question is…the Lumbee have chosen one path, and they are asking us members of Congress to support that path. And there is another side that is saying that there is an evidence-based path. That is what’s before us. I did not hear from anybody, nor have I heard that somehow, they are preventing us as members of Congress from doing our jobs. Speaking for me, as a member, I do recognize that.”
After Senator Schatz then recanted, sort of, by saying he didn’t think he heard it during the hearing, but he had heard it somewhere, sometime.
As Chief Barnes shared with the committee, “The Shawnee Tribe and other tribal nations exist today because our ancestors endured forced removal, warfare, termination policies, and the boarding school system. We entered into treaties with the United States as a consequence of these policies and actions. Federal acknowledgment of a group cannot create a tribe. Federal recognition does not make a tribe. It acknowledges a tribal sovereign that pre-existed the creation of the United States.”
Ugvwiyuhi Hicks said, “If this Committee and the Congress choose to pass this legislation, the consequences will be dramatic for existing federally recognized tribes. First and foremost, politics will have won a decided victory over sound policy. The notion of ‘taking the politics out of federal recognition’ will have suffered its most severe setback in history”.
It has been said over and over, by my colleagues and by many of you who are part of the One Feather readership family, that this is a difference in ideology, not hatred of people. This is a painful process because there are many personal friendships that exist today between Lumbee people and the Cherokee tribe. Some choose a mentality of hatred on both sides of the argument. The newsfeed is often riddled with name-calling and threats. Others take a clinical approach, looking at it as a sterile scientific problem with a logical outcome. The fact of the matter is that regardless of what decision is made by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs or, alternatively, the Office of Federal Recognition, the Cherokee and the Lumbee will have to figure out how to live in peace. Somewhere between fanatical passion and sterile fact is sensibility and common sense. Hopefully, this journey will end in that place.
Four senators were involved in the discussion: Chairperson Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Vice Chairperson Brian Schatz, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, and Sen. Markwayne Mullin. Seven did not participate. Those senators not speaking were John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). All these senators should hear from you, who care about Indian Country, concerning this issue. Look them up. Their contact info is easy to find.
I’ll leave you with this exchange between Ugvwiyuhi Hicks and Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto: “I understand the two ways to do this. One is to get the votes in Congress, and there is no guarantee you will get that, but there is also an evidence-based approach. I am not in a position to look out into the audience, unlike some of my colleagues, and say who is a member and who isn’t. Just like I don’t think I should be looking out in my community and saying just because you have brown skin, you’re undocumented. So there has to be an evidence-based approach. And that is why it was created in Congress. But if it is not working, I would want to know. Because that is not fair. But we need to hear that conversation. So let me ask, talk to me about this evidence-based approach and why it is so important that the administration has a process like this.”
Ugvwiyuhi Hicks: “The OFA is without question uniquely equipped to critically evaluate all the related criteria. And there are several criteria that come into play based on the claims. Having highly skilled and professional folks to be able to do that, I think, is critical. But I do want to respond to the other question around the OFA process. We have openly supported the expedited approach for this group to go through this process in more than one scenario. And we still feel that there is an opportunity to not extend this for twenty or thirty years. That it is something well short of that. To do this evaluation properly and to get the answer that is being sought in a timely manner.”
Senator Cortez Masto: “So you would support, if they went through that process, you would work with them to say this needs to be expedited by the administration. We want something in a timely fashion.”
Ugvwiyuhi Hicks: “Without question.”
