Learn how to sponsor info on this page.
Logged-in users can hide comments and words in comments they do not
want to see. Click here to register for
your free account. If you already have an account,
log in here.
You are about to report the following comment as abusive:
Opponents of the bill cite testimony from hearings on the 1956 Lumbee Act in which Congressman Aspinall asks the bill's sponsor, Congressman Frank Carlyle, what the Lumbee expect to get from the bill's passage, since nothing in the bill calls for any upkeep or expenditure. Carlyle states that "no one has ever mentioned to me any interest in that, that they had any interest in becoming a part of the reservation or asking the federal government for anything. Their purpose in this legislation is to have a name that they think is appropriate for their group" (approx. p. 7 of part 2). Then Congressman Aspinall asked Rev. Lowry if members of the tribe anticipated that, after receiving the designation Lumbee, they would come to Congress and ask for any benefits that otherwise go to Indian tribes. Lowry replied “No.” According to the current Lumbee Act's opponents, this testimony belies the committee majority's contention that the Lumbee understood the 1956 Act's intent to be recognition.
Please state (in 200 characters or less) why you think this comment is abusive (required):
email newsletter |
tell a friend |
home | privacy |
© 2006–2013 WashingtonWatch.com