SECTION 1.

 The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Over 300 current tribal members are documented as “Gabrielino Indians” by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Based upon legislation adopted by Congress in 1928 and 1946, the BIA published rolls of California Native Americans to settle land claims. While avoiding recognition of the tribe, the BIA published official rolls in 1928 and 1950 and 1972 listing individual “Gabrielino Indians.” Since 1972, tribal members have received BIA “blood quantum certificates” as “Gabrielino Indians.”

(b) (1) The Gabrielino/Tongva tribe is indigenous to the Los Angeles Basin and its tribal history is well-documented through 2,800 archaeological sites, in state historical records and federal archives, and Catholic Church records at the San Gabriel Mission and the San Fernando Mission. In 2000, Loyola Marymount University dedicated a garden to the history of the Tongva in Westchester. The Loyola Marymount University Library exhibits artifacts from two Tongva village sites unearthed during construction of the Leavy campus. Archaeology delineating the historical lands of the Tongva was substantially complete by 1930, when over 100 sites had been excavated. The number of archaeological sites has grown to 2,800 locations and largely confirms the earlier work done.

(2) The Tongva occupied villages to the north up to Topanga Canyon in Malibu, where they clashed with the Chumash tribe. Tongva villages extended south to at least the estuary at Newport Beach, where they bordered on land occupied by the state-recognized Juaneno Tribe. Tongva village sites extend inland to the San Bernardino Mountains, where they spawned the younger, independent Cahuilla culture. Both the Morongo and Agua Caliente bands are Cahuilla.

(3) The Tongva were enslaved to build the San Gabriel Mission in the City of San Gabriel and the San Fernando Mission in the City of Los Angeles. Other Gabrielino village sites have been uncovered at California State University at Long Beach, the Sheldon Reservoir in Pasadena, and the Los Encinos State Historical Park in Encino.

(4) One major Tongva site lies on the southern border of the modern City of Compton. The Amupunga site is a seasonal village on Compton Creek. Compton Creek played an important role in the life of many local Tongva villages for thousands of years. Compton was originally part of Rancho San Pedro, a 1794 Spanish land grant that used the Gabrielino village populations as labor.

(c) (1) The BIA rolls for the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe were published as part of the federal attempt to settle the tribe’s land claims without recognizing tribal rights under the 18 “lost treaties” dating from 1851 to 1853.

(2) The Mexican-American War was settled by the Treaty of Guadalupe, which ceded California to the United States. Section 1 of the protocol attached to the Treaty of Guadalupe required the United States to maintain and protect California Indians, including the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe, which was recognized as inhabiting the geographic area of the Los Angeles Basin, in the free enjoyment of tribal members’ liberty, property and religion.

(3) From 1851 to 1853, three federal treaty commissioners appointed by President Fillmore signed the 18 “lost treaties,” setting aside 8.5 million acres in California for Indian reservations in return for the Indians’ quitclaim to 75 million acres of California land. After lobbying by California business interests, the United States Senate refused to ratify any of the treaties, instead placing an “injunction of secrecy” on the documents for 50 years. They were discovered in a locked desk drawer in the Senate Archives in 1905.

(4) The approximately 1.2 million acres promised to the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe and other Mission Indians included 50,000 acres on the San Sebastian Reserve at the Tejon Pass at the edge of Los Angeles County, a temporary reservation to which a number of Gabrielino families had been relocated. This 50,000-acre reserve was never officially taken into trust, but instead ended up as the private property of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Edward Beale, who incorporated it into his newly named “Tejon Ranch.”

(5) Based upon the discovery of the 18 “lost treaties” in 1905, a series of efforts were made to address the issue of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe’s lack of a treaty, or at least to compromise its claims to land in Los Angeles County. The California Jurisdiction Act of 1922 authorized the Attorney General of California to represent the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe, among others, and to bring their land claims before the United States Court of Claims. The Court of Claims, in Indians of California v. United States (1942) 98 Ct. Cl. 583, recognized the arguments of Earl Warren, the young Attorney General of California, that, “There was a promise made to these tribes and bands of Indians and accepted by them but the treaties were never ratified so the promise was never fulfilled.”

(6) Acting to recognize the equitable claims of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe and all the Indians of California, the Court of Claims awarded seven cents ($0.07) an acre as compensation for the 8.5 million acres of land that was never set up as reservations under the 18 “lost treaties.” From this sum the cost of administration of the claims was deducted. In 1850, 94 years earlier, no public lands had been purchased for less than one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per acre. The United States Court of Claims awarded no interest for the 94-year period between the signature of the 1851 to 1853 treaties and payment of the moneys in 1944.

(7) After World War II reminded the public of the sacrifices of Native American soldiers, and the 1944 payments were viewed as woefully inadequate, a second effort to settle land claims was initiated under new legislation in 1946. The Indian Claims Commission addressed the claims of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe in Docket 80. Although the federal government treated the Indians as a tribe, only its individual members were named as plaintiffs.

(8) In 1959, the United States Court of Claims entered a final order recognizing the aboriginal title of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe and other California tribes to 64 million acres west of the Sierra Nevada Range. The Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe’s title was recognized and six hundred thirty-three dollars ($633) was paid to each Gabrielino/Tongva tribal member in 1972. As part of the efforts to adjudicate the two land claim payments in 1944 and 1972, hundreds of Gabrielino tribal members were recognized as “Gabrielino Indians” on each of the BIA California Indian Rolls of 1928, 1950, and 1972.

(9) The lands claim settlement effort of 1946 was incorporated into the “assimilation policy” of the Eisenhower Administration, known as House Concurrent Resolution 108 of 1953. Under this policy, the United States Government decided to pay cash to individual Gabrielino/Tongva members, in lieu of granting a land base to the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe. This “assimilation policy” also led to the termination of 53 Indian rancherias, some of which were eventually restored by a federal judge in Hardwick v. United States in 1983. The Eisenhower policy of “assimilation” also lead to the adoption of over 50,000 Native American children into white, often suburban households until the practice was ended by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The land claims settlement and the “assimilation” of Gabrielino/Tongva Indians was administered by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Dillon S. Meyer, who had previously distinguished himself as chief administrator of the Japanese internment camps in California.

(10) This history of de facto recognition, while conspicuously avoiding official recognition, began to crumble in 1994, when the State of California officially recognized the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe.

(d) (1) In 1994, the State of California recognized the Tongva in Assembly Joint Resolution Number 96, Chapter 146 of the Statutes of 1994. The Joint Resolution states that the State of California recognizes the Gabrielinos as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles Basin and takes great pride in recognizing the Indian habitation in the Los Angeles Basin and the continued existence of the Indian community.

(2) A state historical site at University High School in West Los Angeles preserves the holy springs where the Portola Expedition, which founded the City of Los Angeles in the late 1700s, replenished their water.

(3) California has a savage history against docile Native Americans. The 18 “lost treaties,” enslavement by missionaries and early settlers, the government-sponsored genocides against tribal groups, and the 1851 Indian laws, allowing Indian child theft and slavery, are examples of the savagery exercised, sponsored, or condoned by the State of California. Even California’s judiciary participated in an apartheid-like history of racism. For example, the case of People v. Hall (1854) 4 Cal. 399, enforced and expanded Section 394 of the Civil Practice Act to provide that, “No Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action in which a White person is a party.” Our Supreme Court reasoned, “The evident intention of the Act was to throw around the citizen a protection for life and property, which could only be secured by removing him above the corrupting influences of degraded castes.”

(4) Past California governmental intrusions all argue for fairness toward the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe now. Yet in 2000, when the Governor of California proclaimed that he was ending the abusive chapters of the state’s history towards Indian tribes, by dealing with federally recognized tribal sovereigns, he was only half right. There are over 50 well-documented Indian tribes that have not been officially recognized by the federal government and have received no assistance from the state. The Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe is one of two state recognized tribes and the best documented tribe in the state without federal recognition.

(5) State recognition accompanied by substantial rights is appropriate for the same reasons that California has, without federal approval, undertaken separate pollution-control standards and other statewide initiatives.

(e) Other states have recognized tribes that are not federally recognized. Their legislation, including the creation of state Indian reservations for their own state recognized tribes, provides a model for this legislation. New York, Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee all have state recognized tribes and many have state Indian reservations.