recognition of indians tribes by the federal government. that will be followed by a hearing on proposals to reform the uk welfare system. then a look at the effectiveness of foreign aid. a little bit later, remarks from tea party activist c.l. bryant. >> this past week with congress on break, we have been featuring some of american history tv's weekend programs in prime time here on c-span 3. tonight, we look at african-americans' resistance to slavery starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the life and escape of former slave robert smalls, who served south carolina in the u.s. house of representatives. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, vanderbilt professor richard blackette details how fugitive slaves planned and executed escapes to canada, mexico and the caribbean. american history tv in prime time tonight here on c-span 3. on c-span 2 we have been featuri

featuring book tv's programs in prime time. tonight, anna quindlen "in depth." >> this is c-span 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. a dispute between napa county, california, and a local indian tribe came to congress recently when both sides testified at a hearing on the recognition of tribes by the federal government. the tribe is suing the government to have its federal recognition restored, which it claimed was illegally stripped in 1959. in the meantime, a napa county supervisor argued that only congress should be able to recognize a tribe. the house indiana faaffairs

subcommittee held this hearing. >> let me welcome mr. lujan and the position he's had. it makes me feel good about that side of the aisle and the people who worked with me over the years. i will miss mr. barnes but i'm confident this young man will fill his shoes. if he doesn't, i'll use the gavel so that will take care of it. welcome. the subcommittee already came to order. the subcommittee on indian and alaska native affairs is meeting to hear testimony on the standards and procedures on whether and how indian tribes should be newly recognized by the federal government. opening statements for the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee so we can hear from the witnesses more quickly. i ask unanimous consent if submitted by the clerk by the close of business today. hearing no objection, so

ordered. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman from california, mr. thompson and florida mr. miller be allowed to join us and participate in the hearing. without objection, so ordered. in today's hearing we will hear the perspective of several groups seeking recognition as indian tribes under federal law. we'll also hear from the county supervisor in california with concerns over federal recognition process. the purpose of the hearing is not to determine the fate of any recognized petition but to gather facts that may inform the committee as to what a reasonable recognition policy for the 21st century should be. tribal recognition is one of the most solemn issues this committee deals with. it has impact on the federal budget, on the trust responsibility and other recognized tribes and on states and the political subdivision. rightly or wrongly, the executive branch has wrested control over any recognition from congress.

the department considers recognition cases an accountable system. i acknowledge the department regulations setting forth seven mandatory criteria for a group to be recognized to make some sense. a few people questioned the motives of the small bededicated staff of the professionals who are tasked with reviewing recognition petitions and making recommendations for them. the basic problem is the decisions are ultimately made by political appointees and not by elected officials like representatives or senators accountable to voters for the decision they make. in fact the department occasionally ignores its own regulations and decides cases outside any transparent administrative or statutory process. this does not increase public confidence in the tribal recognition system. unfortunately the interior department declined my invitation to provide a witness today. the only explanation given to the staff is that every department official capable of

testifying has scheduled conflicts. i cannot accept this as a valid excuse. the failure to appear and answer questions strongly suggests something that the secretary wants to hide and that deeply disturbs me. while we take testimony from the witness who graciously accepted today, several of whom had to fly many miles to be here, i do intend to hold the administration's feet to the fire. we will hold a second hearing at a time to be determined when someone from the department can make available to testify and answer questions. i think it's extremely important, if i may so, to ad lib a little bit. my concern is some tribes are recognized, some are not, and there's no justification for the recognition process. why some were denied and some were accepted. and that's what we're trying to make a standard rule, because as a role of the congress, it's not the role of the secretary to make these decisions. it's the role of the congress, the recognition of tribes to accept or not accept the standards as a tribe. i look forward to hearing our witnesses. now recognize the ranking member

for five minutes for any statement he might make. >> i like to say how much i look forward to working with you through the end of the congress. as ranking member and to thank you for your leadership. my recent appointment to the committee is a great honor and truly a privilege to serve native communities in its leadership role and work toward strengthening the federal trust relationship. empowerment over tribal lands and resources is an important goal of my office and one of this administration. i will work diligently to achieve it by representing the needs of all native communities in my mu role. the administrative acknowledgment process began in 1998 when the department of interior promulgated rules to govern tribal recognition. in the letter to the then secretary on the occasion of the legislative acknowledgment of the tribe, president carter stressed that the new federal acknowledgment regulations reflect high standards by which tribal groups must be evaluated.

today these standards are based on historical indian records, genealogy, anthropology, and other scientific methods for evaluating tribal acknowledgment petitions, recognizing the need for methodical and detailed acknowledgment process in addition to and where appropriate, in lieu of the legislative recognition, president carter's message still resonates today. a tribal group should be able to account for its continuous existence in its petition for recognition and standards for evaluating that account must be in place. federal acknowledgment establishes a government-to-government relationship between the tribe and the united states. and makes such a tribe eligible to receive certain federal protection services and benefits by virtue of the unique status as indian tribes. federal recognition is therefore extremely important and valuable to a tribe's economic and social condition but that's not to say that the administrative processes and standards should remain static or ignorant to logistical realities. the current acknowledgment regulations have been updated

once and it is my understanding they are currently undergoing review for further changes. while i believe the regulations should require a tribe group to provide historical materials to support its petition for acknowledgment, i also believe these requirements must evolve to respect conditions and circumstances of the day. for instance, if a tribal group can't produce a particular set of historical documents as a consequence of war, as is the case in the virginia indian tribes, the tribe should be able to provide equal value documents that are available to them that produce the same result. proof of their continual existence as a political entity eligible for federal status. in my view, high standards can and should be taken into consideration. any and all compelling evidence to support a tribal group's claim on a case-by-case basis. i'm a strong supporter of tribal federal recognition, whether through legislation or administrative acknowledgment. we'll learn through the witnesses today that each path

has the drawbacks, but all should be available to seek to restore the government-to-government relationship with the united states. to do so is quite simply a matter of respect for the tribal groups whose lands were taken, cultural identities maligned and nearly extinct, native languages lost as a consequence of the establishment of our great nation. i look forward to hearing from the tribal witnesses today, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we will call our witnesses up before the table. chief steven adkins, speaking on behalf of the six virginia tribes. chairman scott gabaldon, who is accompanied by his attorney chairman ann tucker, chief freeman weaver of the choctaw indians and supervisor dillon, supervisor of napa county

district three. i do thank all my witnesses. your written testimony will appear in the hearing record. i ask you to keep your statement to five minutes as outlined in the invitation letter to you, rule 4a. our microphones are not automatic. please press the button when you're ready to begin. i also want to explain how our timing lights work. when you begin to speak, the clerk will start the timer and a green light will appear. after four minutes, the yellow light will appear. in that time you will begin to conclude your statement. at five minutes the red light will come on. you may complete your sentence, but at that time i will ask you to stop. one thing, keep in mind, that all of you at the table, i'm very strict about procedures. if the dignity of the house of representatives is preserved, not to assume the house conducts its business -- make sure the house conducts its business in an orderly fashion but to permit members to properly understand

and participate in business of the house. therefore, i want to remind our witness that house rules require they not engage in personalities towards a member or a senator. i wouldn't mind if they did it to a senator, but a house member is a no-no. this behavior includes the question of personal motives, referring to a member or another one of those people in a derogatory fashion or accusing a member or senator of a falsehood or deception. any witness who breaches that decorum, this committee will be called to order and i will actually remove you. so keep that in mind. the witnesses have been placed. i will begin with steven adkins, chief of the crickahominy tribe. you're up. >> thank you, chairman young and other distinguished members of this house subcommittee for inviting me here today to speak to this very important subject which looms large across all of indian country. i seek to provide a voice for

those tribes seeking federal acknowledgment as sovereign nations regardless of the process they are pursuing. however, in some specific areas i'm speaking on behalf of the other tribes, the six tribes named in hr-783. chairman young, the virginia indian tribes are honored to represent the very essence of democracy and freedom as we participated in events both in the commonwealth of virginia and the united kingdom, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the first permanent english settlement in america. we took pride in representing commonwealth of virginia and the united states of america descendents of those tribes who welcomed the first permanent english settlement to virginia, to this place called america. however, when the festivities were over, we remained unrecognized as sovereign nations by the united states of america. virginia indians lived under the

treaty, ironically called the articles of peace, under the english crown until the formation of the united states. signatories are sovereign subjects of the crown. as recently as the 21st decade, this treaty was applied to a court case involving the virginia indians. while we are now recognized by the commonwealth of virginia, federal recognition continues to elude us. please allow me to cite a painful example of why the current administrative process falls short in embracing the realities the virginia indians face. in 1912 a man naked -- named flecker was head of the first bureau of arts and statistics in virginia. he was a white separatist. to give you an idea of the motives surrounding this companion bill was a sterilization act that called

for the forced sterilization of feeble-minded inmates. from 1934 official records of the commonwealth of virginia did not allow virginian tribes to list native american or any other tribal affiliation on their birth records. this act served as the official policy of virginia for five decades remaining in effect until 1967. sadly, there was one exception to this rule. many of the so-called first families of virginia, and i find that ironic, since the natives had been there for 10,000 years. but many first families in virginia claimed to be descendents of pocahontas. this allowed the white families in virginia to list them as white. despite the one drop rule, while still claiming to be descendents of pocahontas.

plecker even went so far as to rets actively change the vital records ever many of our ancestors so that only white and colored were listed. the united states government officials contacted the commonwealth of virginia regarding its indian positivepu. the state registrar will advise no indian tribes in virginia. despite the response, federal government officials visited tribes and conducted interviews and photographed people, places and things substantiating their existence. they supported the fact that indian tribes endured over time. they provided funding for transportation to attend high school in oklahoma. in addition to oklahoma, the commonwealth paid for indians to

attend schools in other states. additionally the government provided funding for indians to attend school. at one hand, we were acknowledged by both the federal and state government. the most telling testimony of the current system, in 1999, the head of the bia, the indian tribal delegation, many of those people assembled on that day would not live long enough to get federal recognition through the administrative process. that proved prophetic. we have buried many chiefs since then. the administrative process for people in the southeast has been very low. several factors contribute to the low success rate. lack of resources needed to ferret out the information needed for the process receive low value in regard to tribal history in favor of administrative process to

recognize that one size does not fit all. in many cases it takes several years, over 20 years, to go through the administrative process. it takes a lot of money, a lot of cost. a lot of tribes cannot afford the cost. criteria appear to be geared toward those tribes encountered following the formation of the united states and i will skip over to my closing remarks. regarding when indian tribes should be newly recognized by the federal government, let me put it this way. tribes who have been able to maintain their identity over hundreds of years, who have faced abuse and insult because of their heritage, who have witnessed continued shrinking and sometimes complete loss of their tribal lands, who have seen their ranks decimated to the point where they comprise 4% of the population, they have lost more fighting for the united states of america than any other group in the union, and who resolutely salute

old glory and display pride and love for their country. the answer to when to recognize newly recognized tribes, that answer is now. that answer is today. again, i want to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. my testimony would be incomplete if i did not cite a common thread that exists among atlantic coast tribes and even some gulf coast tribes. this is the respective ties to colonial governments. from colonial times forward there was a concerted effort to eliminate these tribes through deed and through documentation. the history of virginia indian tribes predates 1607. the first sustained -- >> you have run out of time. >> okay. >> thank you. >> you did well. >> thank you for your time. >> by the way, i have to remind you that we did pass and

recognize you out of this congress last year. we're going to do it again. that dark hole over there, we call it, i don't know what you say, you got to go over and jerk them around a little bit, too. >> thank you so much for your time. when i heard that you were going to be on this committee, i have good friends in alaska and i just, my confidence soared. >> i appreciate that. next witness is mr. scott gabaldon. from alexander valley. you're up. >> good afternoon, chairman young and members of the subcommittee. my name is scott gabaldon. i am an indian. i'm the elected chairman of the tribe of alexander valley. i would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to represent my people. let me be crystal clear. our tribe was wrongly terminated and deserves its status restored. that is a fact and only focus

right now. our history, the napa valley was inhabited solely by the indians until 1823 with 10,000 years of ancestry. we lived peacefully utilizing the resources from the abundant land, rivers and streams. the name, napa valley itself is derived from our language, meaning land of plenty. although the county of napa boasts the indians as part of its cultural heritage, there are those who do not want us to be more than a memory. people like dan dillon who had our district since 1983. the inconvenient truth of opposition to what is clearly an injustice done to our people is that those who oppose us are rich, wine propheteering politicos of napa and sonoma counties. there are no vineyard workers lining up to oppose us. minimum wage earners do not oppose us. nor the local tribes in our area. it is the wealthy that bear the

political agendas to stand to lose a tiny bit of their stronghold of power in the counties when our tribe is restored. today i saw to you and those who would rather profit than see justice -- and to those who misstated the facts to the press and to garner your support through deception, i say --. we are not a true tribe. we were here before the nixon-peabodys of the world. we are not new to the area. we were here before napa and sonoma county or even the state of california. the lies told by an agency desperate to satisfy a political agenda in 1958 are nothing compared to the lies being told to the court, the press and the citizens of the counties and now the subcommittee. why have we sued in federal

court? litigation was not our first attempt to get federal recognition to correct this mistake. the record shows we tried many avenues bringing this lawsuit, including trying congressional support in 2000, 2003 and 2004. litigation is an unavoidable method of restoring our tribal status. we want the government to acknowledge its mistakes and terminating our people as well as many other tribes who were affected by the injustice and restore our tribal status, benefits and land rights. two facts dictate that justice must be served. fact one, we're unlawfully terminated in 1961 after the request of a nonwappo indian who ultimately received two-thirds of our tribal lands. fact two, after many attempts of tribal restoration, we decided to sue the federal government. therefore, with all other options exhausted or unavailable, in 2009 the lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in open public forum with a neutral party deciding the outcome. since 2009, at first we tried to

build a relationship with three. interveners, meeting all of them in private before they intervened in the lawsuit with the federal government. at all of those meetings, they all expressed one concern, land. since then, they have worked hard to prevent our very existence to acquire land. the counties are more concerned with the region's economy disrupting the way of life than they are concerned with four generations of native americans being deprived of what they should rightfully have. the counties are concerned with the casino. we are concerned with education. counties are concerned about land use. we are concerned about housing for our elders. counties are concerned about environment impacts. we're concerned about our tribal's health care. it seems since we have filed this lawsuit it appears we are winning -- and we are winning, everyone wants to attack us. including not only the counties and a local coalition of vitners but even you, mr. young, wrote a letter objecting our

restoration. in conclusion, i'm not here today to explain the laws of the position. we will fight to have our rights restored, and that includes litigation. although, i do feel it would be in the best interest of the united states to admit the errors and settle with my tribe. therefore, i truly hope this committee takes what i say here close to heart and take action, setting policies. not only for my tribe and the newly recognized tribes but for the unlawfully terminated tribes. we have suffered enough injustice from this nation long enough. thank you. >> next witness will be -- i don't know how to pronounce that name. will you introduce the next witness, please? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ranking member, congratulations. members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to join you today to

introduce ann denson tucker of florida. the florida tribe of eastern creek indian. chairwoman tucker has served her tribe for over 30 years. she has in-depth knowledge of the history, the genealogy and federal tribal issues unique to northwest florida, and you'll find her testimony to be a telling one. i've had the opportunity to meet with the chairwoman on several occasions and have seen firsthand her tribe's great work and the impact that they've had on the local community. i know of no better person than ann to join you here today to share with you the many hardships that her tribe has faced under the current federal recognition process. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing and appreciate the opportunity to join you today, mr. chairman, and the ranking member, to listen to chairwoman tucker, the people of the muskogee nation of florida and their continued efforts that i hope will lead

ultimately, although this is not what this hearing is about, but the proper federal recognition which they have long awaited. with that i introduce chairwoman, ann tucker. >> miss tucker, thank you. if you've been doing this for 30 years you must have started in elementary school. you're welcome to speak. >> chairman young, ranking member lujan, honorable committee members. i'm chairwoman ann tucker of the muskogee nation of florida, the florida tribe of eastern creek indians. i want to thank congressman miller for being here and for his continued support of this tribe's recognition. we are the people known as petitioner 32 to the office of federal acknowledgment. in 1978, when part 83.7 was created for tribal recognition, there were 40 tribes with evidence already filed in the bia. we were one of those tribes. our people have lived on the same homelands in florida since

1861. we are creek indian people who have lived together, worked together, married one another, buried one another and kept our traditions through the harshest of circumstance. in florida there's no commission to keep records on indian people. no treaties and no state reservations. we did not have a federal indian tribe until 1957, when seminole tribe of florida was recognized by congressional action. the same year the elders of our tribe received notice that they would share in land claim settlement from the treaty of fort jackson. we have struggled for 34 years in the current process. the bia does not grandfather in petitioners. our papers were returned in 1978 with new guidelines and a letter telling us to start over. we have started over many times. and we have seen many things. we are a poor tribe that can no longer adjust our petitioning document from the procedural changes caused by court cases, interior findings or new in-house directives on how criteria are evaluated.

what we know about this process is that a lack of the select standardized documentation for every decade from 1900 to present, from river swamps in northwest florida, does not mean that we did not continuously exist as an indian tribe. what it means is that the types of evidence required for external identification will not reflect who we are because in 1852, it became illegal under penalty of death to be an indian living freely in the state of florida. that's a law that stayed on our books until the 1964 civil rights act. we were racially terminated. we moved to active consideration status on december 5th last year. we are grateful for a grant from the administration from native americans that enabled staff to fiscal means to send 14 more boxes of revised data and cds. after 34 years, we know we're too fiscally challenged to compete in what we've watched this process become over the

last 20 years. my testimony must address why our tribe has hr-2591 introduced for federal recognition. we did not petition congress to circumvent the administrative process. people that only support tribal recognition through the singular process are people who support a process your general accounting office determined to be broken 11 years ago. there have been many hearings, but today i find my people are in the same process with the same issues, in the same offices. the only difference is this time the broken process will be used to determine this tribe's sovereign future. even if we receive a positive finding from the ofa, that does not mean we'll be federally recognized. the last tribe with a positive finding was turned down by interior. after generations who lived through andrew jackson's removal policies, racial eradication, litigation for reidentification,