be fixed, our question has changed. it's become one of who really makes this decision based on what else? to date, we've had no contact with the three people assigned to our petition. we are concerned that active consideration means nothing more than actively looking at ten-year increments of government paper rather than visiting our site with our tribal government to understand how we functioned and survived. we are concerned that an expedited process means criteria a for external identification will be used to expeditiously eliminate us by disregarding state statute's impact on the mandatory evidence that is required. the 1947 land claims gave my great grandfather a vehicle to stand, challenge and change interior's historical attitude that there were no creek indians left in northwest florida. we are still here, and it was not easy. we have petitioned congress for relief because we have no choice.

we can be content to be eliminated in the ofa process based on gaps created by state statutes, or we can come here. we can sit around until another process is created for us to start over in, or we can come to congress. we can be a tribal government whose hands are tied while our impoverished people live in substandard conditions, or we can ask you for immediate relief and honor that comes from a government to government relationship, using the same legislative methods that many tribes east of the mississippi have depended on. when the mechanism used by the agent is broken, as the gao report states, then our only alternative is to place our case at your door. we're the oldest petitioner left. and if we fail in this process, it will be because we are exactly what we claim to be, an indian tribal community and tribal government that lives separate and extinct in a world perverted by jim crow law. i respectfully request this committee approve hr-2591. we have participated in the

process long enough to know that our fate lies in your actions. thank you for allowing us here today. >> thank you, miss tucker. raymond weaver, chief of the mahwah band of choktaw indians. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, committee members and staff. my name is freeman weaver. and i am the elected travel chief of the choctaw indians. today i would like to say a few words about what the process has done to us as a tribe. it is clear that our tribe are the [ inaudible ] for structural failures evident in the federal recognition process. as the only tribe in the nation to have exhausted all three remedies made available for the granting of federal status, or

for a federal lawsuit, congressional bills, we are well aware of the inherent bias, corruption, and how the finance campaigns waged against legitimate historic nonfederal tribes. we are the second longest petition tribe in the nation. only those in north carolina have petitioned longer. our initial attempt at federal recognition began with our mass community attempt to be admitted. we clearly understand that the current process is only open to those with millions of dollars. we have children through this long process no to ally ourselves with numerous suitors. some may call this ignorant. we choose to call it what it is, integrity. the only avenue for defining the

government to government relationship is with the united states congress. the integrity and leadership of this organization is not something that can be fixed. lawsuits are economically prohibitive for petitioning tribes. congress must make determinations based on facts and facts only. no political influence. no back door letters from federal tribes attempting to defend gaming zones from perceived competition. time for congress to act and to solve this problem. there exist numerous keys that legitimate tribal communities but due to extreme time constraints presented, we will discuss only a small number here. tribes who attended indian border schools can clearly document this, attendance should be placed on the federal

register immediately. tribes who live long-standing colonial state recognized indian reservations should be placed under active consideration immediately. the language should be irrefutable proof of tribal existence. it's highly important in determinations. racial bias toward tribal communities in the east and in the south in particular must be abolished and completely eliminated. two examples are cited. and this is is in written testimony. i won't go there. but the evidence should be included. and tribes who petition prior to the gaming era should not have any gaming tribe be able to comment on their petition in any form. congress needs to appoint an independent board of approximately 10 to 20 individuals within an evenly distributed mix of predominantly

federal and historic nonfederal tribal members with expertise in various academic and research areas. after review -- after review of petitioning tribes, the ones who meet one or more of the following criteria should be moved to the front of the line for consideration. all tribes who are firmly denied recognition but can show an association with any of the nine criteria should be evaluated. and these nine criteria all attending indian boarding school, having a state recognized or a mission, reservation or mission lands, language retention. bia or oia funded schooling community during the era. pre-1970 state recognition. prohibition from area black and white schools. like most tribes we attended a

third school session for native americans. we were not allowed to attend the black or the white school. long standing petitions for federal recognition, which could at the beginning of the new process in 1978 prior to this time period, have received ten or more letters of support from federal recognition from other federal tribes and national indian organizations such as nc ncai. and three letters toward the ten letter total may have been received from professionals in the field of anthropology, genealogy. i would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee and for having this opportunity mr. chairman and mr. ranking committee member. we have suffered dearly under this process. it's expensive. it's cost millions of dollars. the funds available to

nonfederally recognized tribes are about $65,000 a year rent from a&a, if you meet the criteria to get it. it's competitive. so you may or may not get it. so thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. foreman. the honorable diane dilon, supervisor in napa county district three. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and members of the subcommittee. i'm one of five elected supervisors in the county of napa. we are the legislative and executive authority in the county. in the executive role, we approve budgets and supervise the county officers and employees and most relevant to you today in the legislative capacity, we make land use decisions. this hearing is about whether, how and when tribes should be recognized. our issue is not about whether a tribe should be recognized. our issue is about how tribes are recognized.

i'm very grateful to be able to be here on behalf of both napa county and our neighbor, sonoma county, on this issue we believe is of course of interest to this subcommittee. the focus is on the the process and the issue of congressional authority. we submitted approximately nine pages of written testimony. in short, we believe that the lawsuits, lawsuits by congressionally terminated california indian tribes in which the tribes asked the federal district courts to restore their government-to-government relationship and in which court cases, the department of interior acquiesces to those requests represent a constitutionally impermissible usurpation of congressional authority. under the constitution congress alone has the authority to reestablish a government to

government relationship with triedz following their termination by congress. congress exempted the tribal restoration power when it delegated other powers to the department of interior. but despite this very clear separation of powers, the department of interior facilitates restoration by inviting terminated tribes to sue the department. and then the department stipulates to a settlement, restoring the tribe. in this way, the department of interior achieves through orchestrated and unopposed litigation what you have not given them permission to do administratively. it is de facto a violation of the separation of powers. we understand that there are tribal representatives here to register complaints about how long it takes the bureau of indian affairs to decide whether or not to grant an applicant's request to be acknowledged or recognized as an indian tribe and we understand those frustrations.

but our situation does not have to do with that orderly, deliberate time-intensive expert assessment of tribal recognition by the bureau of indiana affairs. what we're talking about here is what happens when an entity claiming to be a successor in interest to a tribe terminated by congress turns around and sues the united states to have that terminated status overturned. in that litigation, the federal district court replaces the indian expert bureau of indian affairs and the plaintiff tribe's legal claims are substituted for the bureau of indian affairs established tribal recognition relations. it may come as a surprise to many of you that the tribal applicants who sue often find a friend in the federal defendant, the department of interior and senior government officials. they are partners who are prepared to stipulate to restoration without advancing

available legal defenses or even testing the alleged successor in interest relationship to the terminated tribe. we believe that such stipulated settlements show the department of interior abandoning its role as a defendant and acting in concert with plaintiffs to accomplish through litigation what they cannot accomplish through administrative action. that's a violation of constitutional dimensions. it violates the separation of powers. our reviews on this derive from our experience in litigation in the northern district court of california. the federal government has not advanced any of the defenses that a normal defendant would advance. there are procedural defenses that have not been advanced. there's a claim for land involved in the lawsuit which is not related to the recognition.

the tribe was directed to go to court by assistant secretary larry echohawk, when he said to them in a letter in 2009 that he could not -- the bia could not restore their tribal status. he was correct when he asserted they didn't have the authority to restore their tribal status. he was incorrect when he told them to go to court. he is trying to get them to do something that congress has not given the authority to do. so you have many issues here today with which you are presented. we would ask that you do not cede authority to the bureau of indiana fa affairs or cede authy to the courts, an authority that you have alone, which is to restore tribes that have been previously terminated by this congress. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony. one of the reasons i'm having

this hearing is that i do believe that we have been neglectful as a congress. if you read the trust relationship, it's with the congress, not with the executive branch, to do action or not to do action. and that's something that concerns me. my own case, there was some tribes declared tribes without any consultation or any activity by anyone but the department. so i have a great interest in this. as customary, i will recognize the ranking member for questions first. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. chairwoman tucker, you stated in your testimony that the administrative acknowledgment process is broken, yet your tribe continues to pursue the path to recognition, while also seeking legislative action that would establish tribal federal status. is this parallel track necessary, and in also listening to your testimony have you been discouraged or admonished for

seeking administrative relief as well? if you could touch on that. >> we have tried since we started to work administratively because you hate to admit that your government's system is broken. we were notified by the bureau of indian affairs that the process had changed. we had been sitting in how original tribes were recognized and when we were notified, it basically said we've developed a set of guidelines now and we want you to start over and the rules that came in were about this thick. we weren't really dissuaded about coming here. it just seemed like people wanted an administrative recognition. and now, that is impossible. in 2001 when the report came out from the gao, my tribal government met, and we determined at that time that we

would begin the work to petition congress for the recognition. florida is a big state, and we've had a lot of support from our senator and especially from congressman miller, who is from northwest florida. we tried to stay in this process until it just became apparent that we could not fiscally do this, nor if guidelines have now become mandatory criteria, we can't meet what a state didn't allow us to be. so that's why we're here. >> thank you. i appreciate that very much. >> turn your mike on. >> chief adkins, in your written testimony you state that in the administrative process fails to recognize that one size does not necessarily fit all in the acknowledgment process. can you explain in what ways you believe that it fails to do so?

>> the administrative process asks for documentation that we just can't produce because of the destroyed courthouses that had our vital statistics, because of a state that went through and sought to destroy all vital statistics that referred to us as indian people. even when the indian reorganization act was put in play as it was called, the -- the head of the bureau of vital statistics said there's no indians in virginia. despite that, government officials came to virginia. they interviewed people. they photographed places and things, and they said these folks are indians, even at that. the bureaucracy that had been created in the state precluded us from being part of that, so -- so as you look at those seven criteria that have kind of become iron-clad, we don't fit

into it, and that's why i say one size doesn't fit all. our situation is essentially like the one described by ann tucker, the chairwoman of the muskogee nation. we're fighting that behemoth that just doesn't want to move because of those situations that we find ourselves in. >> you certainly are owed an apology as miss tucker is when we talk about laws when people were arrested for simply saying they were native american, what a travesty and a shame that we need to find a way to correct. >> my parents had to come to washington, d.c. in 1935 to be married as indians. they faced jail time had they done it in virginia. >> i read that in your testimony. i appreciate you telling us that as well. supervisor dillon, if a tribe is not terminated, should they be allowed to pursue administrative relief? >> i believe that is what the law already states. >> i appreciate that. mr. gabaldon, is it your

assertion that you feel that your tribe was never terminated? >> no. we believe we were terminated in 1959, but it was by a non-wappo indian. >> i appreciate that very much. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointing to see that secretary salazar and the bureau of indian affairs has not engaged this committee on this important issue. this is -- i mean, this is and always has been an act of congress under the constitution, but without the administration working with congress, it makes it tremendously difficult to create an even playing field and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i -- i would continue to press the bia and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to resolution on some of these issues. first, chairman gabaldon, i want to understand your issue of termination.

more specifically, you were -- you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california ranch act as 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the tillie hardwick decision? >> no, sir. we were part of that case, and we were dropped off that case in 1987 with no prejudices. >> why? why wasn't -- >> well, we believe the tillie hardwick case was based on land allotments and the people that hand land allotments were part of that, because a non-wappo indian owned the land we were supposed to have, we didn't have any land allotments to proceed with that case. >> and so you hope to seek recognition to eventually get land into trust? >> well, the benefits -- yes, to -- land into trust and get the benefits of other federal

recognized tribes around the nation. >> and have you asked your congressman to introduce legislation so that you can get that -- that federal recognition? >> we have, and actually we've done multiple times, and over the years we've seen -- i'll give you a brief background. 2000, our leadership was working hard. actually we were on the bill with graton in 2000 and we were dropped off. again, the bill was passed, and we weren't on it. why? i don't know, but our leadership in 2000 was working hard on a bill similar and challenges in the political realm. part because lynn woolsey wouldn't take our bill because she felt she was double crossed by graton. mike thompson stated we need local support before we take a bill to congress and we can see with all the local -- >> don't bring members into this right now, and you can get that testimony later on because we'll

say he said, she said and i said. >> well, i have paper. >> you can submit that, if you wish to do, for the record. >> no worries. let's just say we tried to go through congress. >> you tried to do it. >> okay. >> and so why did you decide to seek litigation rather than going through congress? >> well, we didn't only try to seek going through congress. we also tried the -- the ofa process, but according to 25 cfr-83g makes a california rancheria act terminated tribes ineligible to go through the petition process. we've also asked for administration restoration like the island ban was, and -- and so, like i said, we also tried through congress in 2000 with a bill. i mean, we went through the courts because we felt it was the last option. in our area there is a tribe,

and i believe it was no fault of theirs, it put a sour taste in congress for other tribes, and we are the last tribe to be recognized, and this is a quote from the accip report which congress paid for, approved, and the -- the quote says this. the wilton niwak indian community, the federated of great rancheria and the tribe of alexandria meet the criteria for restoration and should be immediately restored. both wilton and graton have been restored. graton was restored in 2000 by an act of congress and wilton in 2009 using the same unavoidable process we're going through now. >> and you've engaged the administration on this? again, i wish that the secretary felt that it was important to be here today to address this issue, but it's my understanding that you did address the b.i.a. and attempted to go that route as well?

>> we have a letter here that says although we disagree with him not having administration power to restore us, because it has been done in the past, he recommended congress or courts, and we've seen the results of trying to go through congress to be restored, and i was going to mention some names. we won't do that. >> thank you. >> but we -- there was no other option left for us except the courts which, as i mentioned before, as a neutral party, that will determine what the law says for an illegal termination. >> thank you, and i'm about out of time, but let me just ask you if you could briefly respond. if you were able to get federal recognition and put land into trust, what would your plans be for that land? >> our plans would be to build housing. we'd do economic development of many sorts. i don't truly believe that the only way for economic development for a tribe is through a casino, although it's

the most economical way and the fastest way to do it. i believe my tribe has the knowledge and business background to improve the quality of life for the tribal members, not only through a casino or whatever but through many different economic development opportunities. >> thank you. >> mr. kildee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. for 48 years now i've been involved in trying to bring justice to the sovereign tribes, indians of this country, and they are sovereign. i have two citizenships. i'm a citizen of the state of michigan, and i'm a citizen of the united states. you have three real sovereign citizenships. you are citizens of the united states. you've shown that certainly during our wars, in numbers. many of you fought.

you're a citizen of the state in which you live, and you're a citizen of your sovereign tribe. you have three citizenships, so those are real citizenships. those aren't just fancy get well cards. they are in the constitution of the united states. says the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations in among the several states and with the indian tribes. they put you on the same level as france or germany. you're sovereign, and they recognize that congress has the power to regulate commerce with these three types of governments, sovereign governments, and also the constitution says this constitution and the laws of the united states shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be

made under the authority of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding. so virginia could not use its power to set aside that federal power of recognizing your sovereignty, and it's extremely important. you have to keep fighting for it. john marshall upheld this. that famous decision with andrew jackson, unfortunately, didn't follow. john marshall says the indian nations had always been considered as distinct,

independent, political communities retaining their original natural rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial. retaining. it's not a granted sovereignty. it's not something we gave you. you had it before we ever landed it. it's a retained sovereignty, and that word retained is extremely important. you're not asking for something you don't already have and recognized by the constitution of the united states and john marshall's decision. so you have a moral obligation, a legal obligation to fight for your sovereignty, and sometime it's been an awful bitter fight, but it can be done, and the state legislature, people told me this could be done. i introduced a bill about 48 years ago when i was in the state legislature. i read the treaty of detroit. the treaty. sovereign land, you'll remember, that treaty and it said that indians who were deprived of

their land would be given in turn education in perpetuity. i and jackie vaughn wrote legislation following that, and that law is still the law of michigan. any michigan indian can attend a public college in michigan and the state pays the tuition because of that treaty. those treaties are real. so i just want to commend you for what you're doing. this is retained sovereignty, and you have an obligation to your people, to yourself, both morally and legally, to fight for that. and we -- if the supreme court does something we don't like, which is a terrible mistake they make, we should undo that. we can undo that. we ultimately have to uphold this constitution. i commend the member mr. lujan, the ranking member and my