Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 31) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1385) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe.

Thank you very much, Chairman Rahall. And I thank my colleagues Mr. Wolf and Mr. Scott. I understand Mr. Wolf's original reluctance to originally agree with the bill, but we have put in language that I understand is now acceptable to Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf genuinely was concerned about the possibility of casino gambling in Virginia. The language in this bill addresses that satisfactorily to Mr. Wolf. So I would hope that others who have previously opposed this legislation would follow Mr. Wolf's leadership and support it. We are having some discussions on a very small piece of land with Mr. Goodlatte, another colleague from Virginia, and I trust we can work that out.

These six Indian tribes have sacrificed a great deal and have undergone quite an amount of demeaning treatment over generations. This is the right thing to do. We don't do this very often in the Congress of the United States, but this is a unique situation. These are the Indian tribes that enabled the first English settlers to survive in the colonies. We have right here in the Dome of the Capitol John Gadsby Chapman's dramatic painting of Pocahontas' baptism. That commemorates a landmark historic event, but it is connected to what happened 400 years ago when these Indians enabled the English settlers to survive, and eventually it led to Virginia being one of the original 13 colonies. We know the situation today, but what we do not know is the history of the Indian tribes that enabled the English settlers to survive on this continent. They have been very badly treated. And, in fact, even though they have a treaty signed with King Charles II in 1677, in the early part of the 20th century, the Commonwealth of Virginia conducted what was called a paper genocide. They made it illegal to be an American Indian in Virginia. They went into the courthouses and destroyed the birth records and everything they could relating to the legitimacy of these Indian tribes, even though everyone knew that they did actually exist. This was a time of severe racism, a time that we are very shamed by. But these Indian tribes never gave up their pride or their stature.

I thank my good friend, Chairman Rahall from West Virginia, who has been tremendous in supporting this legislation.

To go back to the history behind this bill, this is so much a matter of pride and the restoration of justice. They survived even though they were denied employment and were denied educational opportunities. The only people who provided it were Christian missionaries. They oppose gambling. They don't even take advantage of the opportunity to have bingo games, which other nonprofits do in their vicinity, because they don't think it's the right thing. So I don't think that's any kind of a threat. Every other objection that has been raised I think has been adequately and fully addressed.

These are good people, and they have been subjected to a great deal that was unjust. We should have done this by the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, but today we are about to do so two years later.

Now there was a Supreme Court decision just a few months ago in February, and that Supreme Court decision said that the Secretary of the Interior no longer has unilateral discretion to determine what lands can be put in trust. That's why some additional lands and counties were included in this bill in case there is land that would be given to these Indian tribes in the future. They are willing to compromise on this, to give up virtually all of that potential territory. They're left with very little land and very few rights. The laws of Virginia would apply on this land. They are not allowed to engage in gambling like other Indian tribes. This is a part of a list of compromises they have made. They've made all of these compromises because it is important to them that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren recognize that these are Native American people deserving of our utmost respect. They are people who deserve to be able to hold their chins up in pride for what they meant to this country.

I strongly urge support of this legislation. It's overdue.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is against the rules of the House to address anyone but the Speaker.

If it were allowed, I would want to address the 2,500 or so members of the six Virginia tribes seeking Federal recognition.

I would say that I know their quest to assert their identity and their rights has been a long struggle.

Despite centuries of racial hostility and coercion by the Commonwealth of Virginia and others, they have refused to yield their most basic human right and have suffered and lost much.

But, throughout the centuries they have retained their dignity and supported their people.

When it appeared that no one else would, when little was available, when even the doors of public school house were closed to their children, they have never yielded to those who said they didn't exist.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Virginia tribes; win or lose today, you have already won by refusing to yield and by remaining true and faithful to who you are.

I would also say that it has been an honor for me to have helped carry this legislation.

While it is less than ideal, it moves you closer to the day our national government recognizes your existence.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of this chamber know, the crafting of congressional legislation is far from a perfect process. But, when it speaks, it speaks with the people's voice.

Today, I encourage my colleagues to speak and finally affirm that the Virginia tribes exist and deserve Federal recognition.

I thank my good friend and outstanding chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

I know the House leadership and Chairman Rahall are undertaking some risk in having scheduled this legislation because this type of legislation is invariably controversial. But Congress' past reluctance to grant Federal recognition and the demeaning and dysfunctional acknowledgement process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs has served to compound a grave injustice that this legislation will redress.

The Virginia tribes identified in this legislation, as I mentioned earlier, are the direct descendants of the tribes that greeted and ensured the survival of the first permanent English colony in the New World.

Almost exactly 2 years ago to this day, we marked the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. It was an event important enough to bring Queen Elizabeth across the Atlantic to commemorate.

While the 1607 settlement succeeded and laid the English claim and foundation for the original 13 colonies, history has not been very kind to Virginia's Native Americans of the great Powhatan Confederacy who greeted the English and provided food and assistance to ensure their initial survival.

Few are aware today that the direct descendants of the Native Americans who met these settlers are with us today. And in fact, some are in the Chamber watching. And they are still awaiting their due recognition by our Federal Government. This is the opportunity to correct this grave wrong.

This bill, at long last, is named after Thomasina E. Jordan, who fought in such a committed way to get this recognition once she realized the history of discrimination that necessitated it. It grants recognition to the six Indian tribes in Virginia, and I would like to name them: the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan and the Nansemond. The Commonwealth of Virginia recognized all six tribes in the 1980s. It is now time for the Federal Government, by this act of the U.S. Congress, to do the same.

Like most Native Americans, the Virginia tribes welcomed Western settlers but quickly became subdued. The settlers had guns, and Indians had bows and arrows. They were pushed off their land, and up through much of the 20th century, denied any rights as U.S. citizens.

Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians survived centuries of racial hostility and coercive State and State-sanctioned actions that tried to eradicate their heritage and cultural identity.

The history of Virginia tribes is unique in two important ways that are relevant to why this bill is on the House floor today. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the Federal Government. The second explains why congressional action is absolutely needed. The first circumstance is that unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained Federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the Federal Government, Virginia's tribes signed their peace treaties with the kings of England.

Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles II that is still observed by Virginia every year when the Governor accepts tribute. I was there with Mr. Scott just this year. Governor Kaine accepted a deer that was brought by the tribes. And it is a ceremony that has been observed for 331 years. It is the longest celebrated treaty in the United States today.

Now the second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced in the hands of the State government during the first half of the 20th century that Mr. Hastings has alluded to. It is called a ``paper genocide.'' At a time when the Federal Government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society.

These actions culminated with the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 that targeted Native Americans and sought to deny them their identity. The act empowered zealots, like Dr. Walter Plecker. He was in charge of the Bureau of Records at the State and he destroyed all the State and local courthouse records and reclassified, in Orwellian fashion, all nonwhites in the words of the day as ``colored.''

It targeted Native Americans and sought to deny them their identity. Calling yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia risked a jail sentence of 1 year. For up to 50 years, State officials waged a war to destroy all public and private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. That law remained in effect until it was struck down in the Federal courts in 1967.

All six tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgement seeking Federal recognition. But it is a heavy burden. They have been told it won't happen in their lifetime. The acknowledgement process is expensive. It is subject to unreasonable delays. It lacks dignity. We ought to address that separately. But Virginia's history of this paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for Federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating State and official documents. They can't really prove it because the documents were destroyed.

I thank my good friend. So here they are told to prove their existence, and yet the State government destroyed the proof of their existence, again aggravating an injustice that had already been visited upon these people. The only people who cared about them were Christian missionaries who allowed them to get some education. But they were denied employment for much of their history in the 20th century in Virginia.

We are rectifying this wrong today. And in light of the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, we will bring closure to this national injustice. There is no doubt that these tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first Western European settlers set foot in America, and they are here with us today.

I know there is great resistance from Congress to grant any American tribe Federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimension influence many Members' perspectives in tribal recognition issues.

The Virginia tribes have agreed to forgo gaming. An amendment offered by Congressman Duncan offered last session was approved by the Natural Resources Committee. That is in this bill before us. It prohibits these tribes from gaming under Federal law even if one day the State were to reverse course and set up gambling casinos in the State. The State can have gambling casinos. These Indians cannot. Go figure. But that is the way the legislation reads.

The Virginia tribes, under the bill being considered today, could not engage in gambling on their sovereign lands. The Virginia tribes are also prepared to grant Virginia full civil and criminal jurisdiction over any future reservation lands until such time as the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Attorney General agree that they have developed an acceptable alternative judicial framework that the Federal Government can honor.

Mr. Chairman, these tribes recognize that the legislative route to recognition is a very imperfect process and that compromise is a necessary ingredient. That compromise and that balance have now been struck. Now is the time to pass this legislation. Failure to do so would unravel the progress we have made and lose this time in history for these tribes to finally gain Federal recognition. It would be a setback and an injustice. They have suffered enough injustices. Let's not add another one.

Congress has the power to recognize these tribes. It has exercised these powers in the past. It should exercise this power again for these six tribes. More than 300 of the 562 federally recognized tribes have been recognized by an act of Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We will be doing our part to bring closure to some tragic and unjust acts that have transpired since Englishmen established their first permanent settlement more than 400 years ago in this New World. This is the right thing to do. I trust that Congress will do it today.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, first of all, this land was the Indians' land. The Monacan tribe owned much of this land. It was taken from them.

Now, in terms of the counties that my friend, Mr. Goodlatte, has included, there is no land currently that would be placed in trust. All they want is the ability to place land in trust because of the recent Supreme Court decision that said that the Secretary of the Interior does not have discretion to do this.

Now, this Supreme Court decision just occurred in February, so it's a brand new context in which these things are dealt with. If it had not been for the Supreme Court decision, these additional counties would not have been added. But they're added in case people in those counties who are understanding of the plight of the Monacan Indians chose to provide land to them. We don't know that that's even going to occur. There is only one very small parcel of land that the Monacan tribe is aware of that it would receive from a current landowner in Rockbridge County.

Now, the Indian tribes have compromised so much for so long, I think that they would compromise again if necessary. But to deny them this one small plot of land that's relatively isolated, it's certainly a long ways from Interstate 81 or any main highway, it doesn't seem to me fair.

So if the gentleman was willing to accommodate that land in Rockbridge County, maybe, once again, the Indian tribes would agree to compromise and preclude the other counties included in Mr. Goodlatte's amendment.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Reserving the right to object, my concern with this modification is only one; not the specificity of the modifying amendment, but it's subject to the approval of Rockbridge County. What does that mean? Does there have to be some formal legislation passed by Rockbridge County? Is it the County Board? Do they have to pass formal legislation and by when?

I would be fine with it up to the approval part, but I don't know what the approval part constitutes.

Would the gentleman accept language that said, ``unless disapproved by the Rockbridge County government''?

In other words, I hate to have it so that the Rockbridge County government can just decide to sit on this indefinitely. But if they specifically, through their County Board, disapproved it, then I guess that would be acceptable. But I don't want to give the kind of leverage where inaction might preclude this from occurring.

By the same token, unless disapproved within 180 days of passage, because your argument applies just as well.

The gentleman makes a legitimate point, and I will withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe in the country. Though the size of the Lumbee Tribe does not disqualify it from consideration for recognition, it does demand, nonetheless, that Congress exercise great caution. And I will point that out later on in my remarks.

Madam Speaker, a fundamental principle of Indian law is that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition. The BIA process might have its problems, but at least it has a clear set of standards that a petitioner must meet.

We in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining that the Lumbee Tribe warrants recognition. Legislative proposals to recognize the Lumbee has surfaced numerous times over the last century, yet none were enacted. No new information has come to light to justify passing that legislation today. Moreover, the committee applied no visible standard for determining why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere.

The lack of transparent standards in H.R. 31 leads to a major issue: the tribe size and the cost of providing services to it. Two years ago when we considered the same legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that recognizing the Lumbees would cost taxpayers $480 million over 5 years based on an enrollment of about 40,000 members. Today, CBO advises that the bill is going to cost $786 million over 5 years based on a tribal enrollment of 54,000.

$786 million, Madam Speaker, is an enormous sum and it could force the BIA and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation.

A recent news article in the North Carolina paper indicates the tribal rolls are closed because of the concerns over the size of the tribe. The implication is that the tribal rolls will be reopened again after Congress passes this bill. As I said earlier, the size of the tribe is not an issue here. What is at issue is the kind of enrollment standards the tribe applies because taxpayers and other tribes want to know what the cost implications will be down the road.

Let me restate a few points that I made when the Committee on Natural Resources marked up this measure, because the objections and the concerns that I raised then have not been resolved today.

First, the Obama administration testified in support of H.R. 31, reversing the stance of the previous administration. In the committee hearing on the

bill, the Department's witness did not explain how the administration came to the conclusion that the Lumbees warrant Federal recognition. When I asked the witness who was at the Department who made the decision, his reply was, The political leadership.

The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is the top political leader there. I would note since the day he took office, Secretary Salazar has repeatedly stressed that his decisions will be based on the law and sound science. For example, an Interior news release quotes him as saying: ``My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision making, high ethical standards, and respect to scientific integrity.'' Again, this is from a news release that was sent out by the Department.

We are debating a bill about tribal recognition and the Department of the Interior is supposed to base its recognition decisions based on the research of the professional historians, anthropologists, and genealogists employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

So in this new leadership at Interior, how did this new leadership at Interior and the administration arrive at support of H.R. 31? Was it because of the professional opinion of those career social scientists? Was there openness in this decisionmaking? I think the answer is no. The Department has not provided the committee with any data supporting its conclusion that the Lumbee met the same basic criteria as other tribes the Secretary has recognized.

While there are a number of other concerns with H.R. 31, let me highlight one more which is extremely important. While the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority to recognize a tribe, the Congress must respect some reasonable limits on the exercise of this authority. To do otherwise undermines the whole notion of tribal recognition and thereby dishonors all validly recognized tribes. With this in mind, the House today should, at a minimum, ensure that a tribe being formally recognized descends from a known historic tribe.

H.R. 31 fails this test. The legislation limits the Secretary to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the Tribe's constitution.''

The tribe has testified that its members are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. At a minimum, the Secretary should verify that every member of the tribe descends from such historic tribes. Such verification has not been done, and it is not required under H.R. 31. It could have been done if the amendment filed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) were made in order by the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee chose not to make his amendment in order.

His amendment would have required the Secretary to evaluate the Lumbee recognition petition using the Bureau of Indian Affairs' seven mandatory criteria. One of the criteria requires a petitioner to show that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe.

H.R. 31, again, Madam Speaker, does not impose a reasonable standard that justifies the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit amends the bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the Cheraw and coastal North Carolina tribes. I don't believe this is unreasonable, and I say that because the preamble contained in H.R. 31 states that, ``the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw.''

At the same time, section 3 of the legislation limits the Secretary's role in verifying the Lumbee tribal rolls only to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the tribe's constitution.''

Thus, Madam Speaker, nothing in H.R. 31 requires the Secretary or any third party to verify that individuals enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe are descendants of the historic Cheraw and coastal North Carolina Indians.

Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations, as has been mentioned several times today, one of the seven mandatory requirements that must be met to be recognized by the Secretary as a tribe is that: ``The petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity.'' These regulations list a wide variety of evidence that can be used to meet this requirement.

The Rules Committee, as I have mentioned and as Mr. McHenry mentioned, would not make Mr. Shuler of North Carolina's amendment in order that would have required the Lumbees to meet all seven of the BIA criteria, including the one quoted above, to obtain Federal recognition.

This motion requires the Secretary to verify that members of the Lumbee Tribe meet the equivalent of just one of the seven criteria that are applied to the other petitioners seeking recognition through the BIA process.

I believe, Madam Speaker, this is reasonable because there have been some concerns about the tribe's enrollment.

Today, the tribe claims 54,000 members, and the CBO says the cost would be $786 million over 5 years. This is an increase from just 2 years ago when they were told that there were 40,000 tribal members. Moreover, it appears the tribe is keeping its rolls closed until Congress passes this bill.

It is fair to have the Secretary verify the base rolls the tribe uses to establish membership. This verification requirement does not cancel the tribe's recognition; it merely provides a means of verifying the base rolls, something the BIA should do if the Lumbees had gone through the regulatory process.

Thus, a motion to recommit merely ensures the House has taken extra care to ensure the decision to extend recognition to the Lumbee is appropriate, because a wrong decision, a wrong decision, Madam Speaker, could have an adverse impact on all tribes.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1385, but not for the reason for which this legislation is intended to point out or to create but, rather, for reasons that I will outline in my remarks here this morning.

In the last Congress, a nearly identical bill passed the House by voice vote. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, and I believe that the results will probably be the same as the last vote we had in the last Congress, but I must highlight serious shortcomings with this bill that should cause Members to reconsider their positions.

First, the House has not acquired sufficient evidence to justify extending Federal recognition to the six Virginia tribes identified in this bill. In the committee hearing on H.R. 1385, we heard a lot of testimony from witnesses for the six tribes, from the Governor of Virginia, from a historian, and from the Department of the Interior. All provided interesting and often passionate statements.

Although the Department provided no position on the bill, the Department's witnesses did remark that all six groups have petitioned for recognition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but none of the six tribes have completed the process within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

If the Department lacks completely documented petitions, then how can we be sure that we in Congress have enough information about these six tribes?

None of the witnesses explained why the six Virginia tribes should be recognized before all of the other tribes whose recognition petitions are within and are lingering within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. About nine of these groups have completed their petitions. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, they are more prepared for a final determination than the Virginia tribes with which this bill deals.

H.R. 1385 contains ample lists of congressional findings about the history of these six groups, but there is no requirement to verify that members of these tribes can trace descendants to historic Virginia tribes. This is a basic standard that the House must observe if it wants to ensure the integrity of tribal recognition. If the House is not prepared to take additional time to study this, then we should ask the Secretary to study it and to provide us with the answers.

The committee held no field hearings in Virginia to learn more about the tribes on their home turf. It has relatively little information from county officials and from private individuals who might be interested in tribal recognition and what it means to them. This is a State without a history of recognized tribes, unless you reach back to the colonial era, and Virginia presently has no Indian trust lands. We simply do not know if there are any counties or private individuals in affected areas who fully understand that placing land in trust removes property from the tax rolls and from State and municipal jurisdictions.

On this note, the Rules Committee made in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to remove some counties from the bill. This suggests to me the majority is beginning to understand that counties in Virginia are just now becoming more informed on what this bill means.

So, Mr. Chairman, prudence dictates that we put this bill on hold until these issues are vetted. If the House recognizes new tribes and acquires lands in trust for them without thoroughly examining the views of the jurisdiction where the lands are located, we potentially risk creating local problems. This is going to hamper our efforts to resolve land-in-trust controversies occurring elsewhere in the United States.

Such controversies, Mr. Chairman, do occur. We have a huge one to deal with right now. In February, the Supreme Court, in Carcieri v. Salazar, held the Department of the Interior has no authority to acquire lands in trust for any tribe recognized after 1934 unless there is a specific act of Congress authorizing it. This is a major decision that has, frankly, Mr. Chairman, shaken Indian Country, and it is a case that has caught the attention of Governors, attorneys general, and county leaders around the country. The committee has held one hearing on the subject, and I am hopeful that there will be more.

Virginia's tribes are directly affected by this decision because they were not recognized in 1934. Thus, anything done with H.R. 1385 could set a precedent for resolving the Carcieri issue. Under H.R. 1385, lands placed in trust for the Virginia tribes will be secure. Meanwhile, lands held in trust or proposed for trust status for others may not be secure. This kind of inconsistency in Federal Indian policy helped fuel the controversy that led to the Supreme Court's Carcieri in the first place.

If the solution to Carcieri is to deal with each and every post-1934 tribe's trust land application separately in Congress, then H.R. 1385 might be appropriate. If the solution is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with the appropriate authority to acquire lands in trust, then H.R. 1385 is not appropriate.

So, while the committee has held a hearing on Carcieri, there seems to be no consensus on how to resolve it. We have received no testimony from the Department, and none of the tribes, States or other concerned interests have had an opportunity to testify in the committee as of the time the report for H.R. 1385 was filed. It would be wise then, Mr. Chairman, to postpone floor action on any recognition bills until the committee acquires a better understanding of the impacts of Carcieri and what to do about it.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran) made an observation about the paper genocide issue, and I have to say that every member at the committee hearing that attended that hearing and heard the testimony on H.R. 1385 were, frankly, shocked and saddened and dismayed that, in fact, this sort of action went on in Virginia, how they treated the Indian people in the 20th century. I think that goes without saying. But I do want to point out, Mr. Chairman, for the record that there was a career employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who heads up the Office of Federal Acknowledgement that had a different view, and I just at least want to put that on the record as we debate this issue.

He said, ``Records in Virginia do exist, and they were not destroyed. The vital records of birth, marriage, divorce, death and probate, they are in the record. Not only are they in the hands of the individuals to whom they pertain, but they are available at the local registrar level and State registrar level.'' He went on, continuing to quote, ``In preparation for this hearing, I wanted to reach into what evidence was submitted on behalf of the Virginia groups, and in 2001 this was the material that we received. And one of the group's materials were copies of vital records that were not destroyed.''

So this BIA witness went on to describe how these documents identified the persons and Indians. So it appears that there are records in Virginia, notwithstanding the fact that the State of Virginia went through this process in the last century.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out that in the committee hearing we did hear testimony that at least in part disputed the issue of paper genocide. I wanted to make that observation in the debate today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I advised my friend, I have no further speakers. But I just want to take a moment here to close beforehand.

So with that I yield myself the balance of the time.

I think what has been demonstrated on the floor here is the passion surrounding this issue. And I can certainly understand that passion, especially with the history, particularly here in the eastern part of the United States. And I don't expect that my opposition or my arguments are going to change the outcome of the votes, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, because of the Carcieri decision, I think it is important for us to set at least some guidelines as to what process we in Congress, who have the constitutional right, by the way, to recognize tribes, at least to have a set of criteria that we should look at. And one of them ought to be at least some verification at the minimal.

I know that at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and admittedly this is regulatory, there are seven or eight steps that certainly make sense. A lot of tribes have gone through that process. So I understand the passion. I respect the passion and the work that has been done on this. But for the reasons I outlined, more of a process reason than anything else, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

And with that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman and thank Mr. Moran for the language that explicitly prohibits gambling. I appreciate that very much. I think the chairman and Mr. Moran have to get the credit for doing this because, in previous cases, we have seen major, major expansions. So, as people talk about this, this is Earth- shattering in some respects, and so I want to again thank the chairman and thank Mr. Moran.

The Virginia tribes have consistently indicated that they oppose gambling, and I believe them. Yet, during the consideration of this measure in the last Congress, we heard rumors about an interest in challenging this gambling limitation in court. We have not heard those rumors today.

The Virginia Indian tribes were the first to greet the settlers at Jamestown when they arrived 400 years ago. Without the Indians' friendship, the Jamestown settlement very likely would not have survived. The Americans owe the Virginia tribes a huge debt of gratitude.

I also want to recognize the gentleman from Virginia for including language that explicitly forbids the establishment of tribal casinos. Current tribal leadership has consistently stated they do not want to pursue gambling. I believe them. However, I remain concerned that future leadership of the tribes will pursue establishing tribal casinos.

Virginia does not have casino gambling, and because we do not, we have avoided the crime, corruption and scandal that sometimes comes with gambling. As the author of the legislation which created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that released its 2-year study in 1999, we know firsthand of the devastating social and financial costs of gambling: crime, prostitution, corruption, suicide, destroyed families, child and spousal abuse, and bankruptcy.

In moving forward with this, I want to ensure that Congress continues this, and I want to ensure that this language does not change when it goes to the Senate.

Under this bill, Congress intends that no Virginia Indian tribe or tribal member, if granted Federal recognition, would have any greater rights to gamble or to conduct gambling operations under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia than would any other citizen of Virginia.

Further, it is Congress' expectation that the provision limiting the tribes' ability to engage in gambling conforms with the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. The State of Texas case. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a law prohibiting gaming by the tribe. In supporting H.R. 1385, Congress and the Virginia delegation, in particular, expect that the language restricting gambling operations by Indian tribes will be upheld if it is ever challenged.

I would like to enter into the Record a letter I received from the Virginia tribal leadership, acknowledging the anti-gambling language in this bill and reaffirming the view of tribal leadership that the language prohibits gambling.

Virginia Indian Tribal

Alliance for Life (Vital),

New Kent, VA, May 18, 2009.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Member of Congress: Corn, or in the Virginia

Algonquian tongue, hominy, represents the sustenance of the

early American cultures. When the English came to

Tsenacomoco, now called Virginia, our tribes traded corn,

sometimes unwillingly, to the men of the Virginia Company. As

historians will tell you, corn saved the colony in these

early years. But corn also represents participatory

government. Our elders tell us that corn was used when voting

on matters of importance in the early years. Each eligible

member was given a kernel of corn and a pea. Corn signified a

``yes'' vote and the pea, a ``no'' vote.

Soon you will be given an opportunity to vote on HR 1385,

the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal

Recognition Act of 2009, which extends federal recognition to

the six Virginia Tribes comprising the Virginia Indian Tribal

Alliance for Life (VITAL): (1) the Chickahominy Tribe; (2)

the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division; (3) the

Upper Mattaponi Tribe; (4) the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc.; (5)

the Monacan Indian Nation; and (6) the Nansemond Indian

Tribe.

On behalf of our Tribes, we ask that you use your kernel of

corn to vote YES on HR 1385 when it comes to the floor of the

House of Representatives for a vote.

We are sure you have questions about this bill which is of

such vital importance to us.

If these Tribes have been in existence since first contact

with the Europeans, why haven't they already been recognized

by the United States?

Quite simply, because our Tribes never waged war on the

United States of America. The hostilities between our Tribes

and the Europeans who came here in 1607 effectively ended

with the Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677. This Treaty was

signed between England and our Tribes. Predating the creation

of the United States of America by just short of 100 years,

our Treaty was never recognized by the founding fathers of

the United States because it was not negotiated with them.

Our Treaty of 1677 is still commemorated annually on the

steps of the Governor's Mansion in Virginia but has yet to be

recognized by the United States of America.

If these Tribes have been here since first contact with the

Europeans, has there ever been any federal recognition of

these Tribes?

Not officially by the entity called the United States and

that is why we seek this federal acknowledgement now.

However, hundreds of our sons and daughters have fought on

behalf of the United States of America in many wars over the

years. The ``dog tags'' of our military people, who have

fought alongside Americans from across the country, have

stated our race as ``American Indian.''

If these Tribes deserve recognition, why don't they utilize

the administrative route created by Congress instead of

seeking legislation?

For five decades the official policy of Virginia, enforced

through the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, stated that there

were only two races, white and colored. Over the years our

Tribes were subjected to paper genocide. Not only were we

denied our race in the everyday requests for birth and

marriage certificates, but the Commonwealth of Virginia went

into its records and changed the race of our documented

ancestors. This law was continually upheld by Virginia Courts

until the final vestiges of the law were struck down in 1971.

In addition, five of the six courthouses that held the vast

majority of the records that our Tribes would need to

document our history to the degree required by the Bureau of

Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement were

destroyed in the Civil War. As much as our Tribes would like

to comply with the administrative rules to gain recognition,

the combination of the official laws of the Commonwealth, the

bureaucracy implementing those laws and the loss of our

records create an insurmountable burden. We believe that

since it was an act of government (Virginia) that denied us

our heritage, it should be an act of government that restores

it.

But still there is a process that has been established; why

should Congress be asked to make this decision?

Of the 562 Tribes recognized by the United States of

America, 140 were recognized by

Treaties and other negotiations and only 16 were recognized

by the administrative process (which has been in effect since

1978). Acts of Congress recognized the remaining 406 Tribes.

We are not asking for your vote to do the extraordinary. We

ask for your vote to recognize our heritage and our place in

history.

What about gaming? Won't this allow gaming by the Indian

Tribes?

Our goal is not now, nor has it ever been, to establish or

utilize gaming. Our heritage is such that our affiliation

with churches has been strong, having embraced collectively

(and individually) the faith, beliefs and sacraments of

several Christian denominations. Gaming is, however, an issue

that concerns many of you. As such, HR 1385 has strong anti-

gaming language. In fact, the language prohibits our Tribes

from gaming even if it is allowed in the Commonwealth of

Virginia for its citizens generally!

With our deepest respect and admiration, we ask you to use

this kernel of corn to vote YES on HR 1385.

Sincerely,

Wayne Adkins,

President.

Enclosure.

Again, my concern is not with the Federal recognition of Virginia Indian tribes but with the explosive spread of gambling and with the potential for casino gambling to come to the State of Virginia.

I also continue to have concerns about the broader Indian recognition process. Quite frankly, this Congress has not done enough to help Indian tribes. The process is broken. We have seen that in the past; but today, I'm supporting this bill because I believe it ensures that the State of Virginia's interests are safeguarded while still providing full recognition.

Again, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank Mr. Moran. This is really significant. If only we had had this language in previous recognitions; I think a lot of the problems we have in this country with gambling and with corruption and crime would not have taken place.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 490, I call up the bill (H.R. 31) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let me begin by saying that this measure, which would extend Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, is more than a century overdue. When 240 of us voted for Federal recognition during the 102nd Congress, that should have resolved the question of Lumbee status. When we voted again in favor of similar legislation in the 103rd Congress, that certainly should have meant that the United States had finally taken a stand and done the right

thing by acknowledging a trust relationship with the Lumbee Tribe, but it was not to be. Last Congress, the Lumbee Tribe Recognition Act passed the House of Representatives with 256 votes but, unfortunately, this legislation stalled in the Senate.

So here we are again today, over 115 years after the Lumbee first sought Federal recognition, still attempting to clarify their status.

The history and struggle of the Lumbee Tribe to obtain Federal acknowledgment has been well documented. When Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956, it simultaneously recognized and terminated the Lumbee Tribe by acknowledging their status as an Indian tribe by denying them Federal service. That act was passed during the era of Federal Indian policy known as the Termination Era. If you examine the results of the Termination Acts of the 1950s, you would see how detrimental that misguided policy was to the terminated tribes. Through it all, the Lumbee Tribe has managed to maintain their sense of community and provide some services to their citizens.

This is a testament to the fact that the Lumbees have a functioning government worthy of Federal acknowledgment. Yet the Lumbee people still do not have the government-to-government relationship they deserve. At no time has the Department of the Interior ever opposed Federal recognition for this tribe based on the belief that the Lumbees are not entitled to such status. Indeed, the Department has repeatedly concluded that the Lumbee Tribe descends from similar speaking tribes.

Several studies undertaken by the Department have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community which has been historically located on the Lumbee River in North Carolina.

During President Obama's campaign, he pledged his full support for recognition of the Lumbee people. At the Natural Resources hearing this year, the administration testified in support of H.R. 31 stating: ``There are rare circumstances when Congress should intervene and recognize a tribal group. And the case of Lumbee Indians is one such case.''

During this debate, we may hear a number of canards against Lumbee recognition but not one will be a legitimate reason to deny recognition. One such relates to the different names given the Lumbee Tribe. Although the State of North Carolina has recognized the tribe for over 100 years, it has done so under various names. Other than the Lumbee Tribe, North Carolina is responsible for the various names that it imposed upon the tribe. It was not until the tribe pressured the State that the tribe was authorized to conduct a referendum to choose their own name. When it did so in 1951, it chose the name Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. This is the only name ever selected by the tribe, and it is this name by which Congress, in 1956, recognized the Lumbees.

Some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill, and I want to note that the cost of this bill is for discretionary programs only. There is no mandatory spending. Any actual costs to this bill are subject to appropriations.

To address claims that the tribe was only interested in Federal recognition so that they may conduct gaming, the tribe supported an outright gaming prohibition which has been included in this bill. The gaming prohibition precludes the Lumbee Tribe from engaging in, licensing, or regulating gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any other Federal law.

Finally, some may argue that the Lumbees should not be allowed to bypass administrative process established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and should be allowed to go through the administrative process. I can assure you extending Federal recognition to a tribe at this time is not something new, nor does it bypass administrative process. If a tribe has been terminated by the Federal Government, they are ineligible for the administrative process.

Because we, the Congress, terminated the Lumbees in 1956, it is solely our responsibility to restore their status.

In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mike McIntyre, for his dedication to this issue. Over the years, he has acted in a professional and respectful manner in his tireless efforts, his superb leadership. This bill has garnered 185 cosponsors. Mr. McIntyre's dedication to the Lumbee people is most admirable, and I'm sure they recognize and salute him for that dedication.

I would also like to commend the Lumbee Tribe for being extremely patient with Congress as we have failed to clarify their status for far too long.

In the face of adversity, their determination and sheer stamina has served as testament to their belief in who they are as a people. They have endured rejection by Congress, hostility by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and have even been snubbed in their quest by neighboring Indian tribes unwilling to have the Lumbee recognized the Congress as they were.

All the Lumbee want is the respect of being acknowledged for who they are--an American Indian tribe.

Let us join this effort to grant the Lumbee the recognition they have so long deserved. It is up to us to do the right thing by extending Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 31.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm most delighted to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), lead sponsor of this legislation, and, again, commend him for his tremendous leadership.

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Wow. Madam Speaker, it certainly has been a torturous and long path for the Lumbee Indian Tribe. This is but yet another stake that is attempted to be driven in their heart.

It is long established policy in this country for Indian tribes to determine their own membership, their own roll. This motion to recommit would single out the Lumbee Tribe as the only tribe in America that would be subject to this new requirement. It's discriminatory. It's ugly. It deserves to be defeated.

I want to make something very clear before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina. This is not something new that we're doing today, granting Federal recognition to an Indian tribe. There are 561 federally recognized Indian tribes according to the GAO. Of those, 530 were recognized by the Congress of the United States. That would be this body. That's 530 of 561. And none were recognized under the criteria that's being offered in this motion to recommit.

I yield the balance of my time in opposition to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Madam Speaker, if I have time left, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.