mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, politicians are used to waiting in nervous anticipation for certain events, specifically, their own elections and the elections of their friends. but it is an interesting feeling in this town today, in washington, d.c., awaiting with nervous anticipation of the supreme court decision tomorrow. it is a decision which will address the affordable care act. and this affordable health care act, i think, may be one of the most significant measures i've been asked to vote on as a member of congress. tomorrow the united states supreme court will hand down its decision on the affordable care act. it could one of the most consequential decisions handed down by the court in my tenure in congress, and maybe even longer. it's consequential not just because of the politics in washington. the decision will have

consequences which will affect people, the lives of millions of americans across the country. first and basic facts: according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the affordable care act will reduce the deficit over the next ten years by over $200 billion, and then another $1 trillion in the second decade. this is a, an important measure to reduce health care costs, reduce government outlays and reduce the deficit. so the decision of the court will have an impact on that particular element. the law does a number of specific things to reduce health care costs while saving lives. because of the affordable care act, preventive services for many americans are now free. in illinois, my home state, last year 1.3 million people on medicare -- that's about 10% of our population -- and 2.4 million people with private health insurance received preventive care at no cost. this is important because preventive services like

mammograms, cholesterol screening can really help lower costs, prevent illness and save lives. and on the subject of prevention, mr. president, the law provides help with states with their prevention programs. programs, for example, that try to discourage kids from smoking, programs that detect and treat diabetes at an early stage, heart disease, arthritis, so many other areas that can be treated successfully if there are preventive efforts. another reason this law is important, because of lifetime limits. before this law was enacted, insurance companies routinely told families, sorry, you hit your limit. we're not going to pay for any more of your chemotherapy or your premature baby's illness. people didn't know it was a limit until it was too late. the law changed that. because of this law, 4.6 million people in my state, illinois, 4.6 million got the care they needed last year without having to worry about the insurance companies cutting them off saying they reached the limit. in these tough economic times, many young adults are having

trouble finding work. another thing this bill did was to extend the coverage of family health insurance to cover those through the age of 25. because the affordable care act, parents can keep their kids under their policy until the young people reach the age of 26. across the country, 2.5 million young adults, including 102,000 in my state of illinois, have been able to stay on their parents' insurance plan. the law also requires companies to spend more of their money on actual health care. you might think that's obvious, but it turns out it isn't. the law says insurance companies have to spend at least 85% of their premiums on health care rather than spend it on advertising, overhead or executive compensation. $61 million has been returned in my state to over 300,000 people in the form of rebates because of this medical loss ratio, 85%

to be spent on health care. that's money that flows back to families and individuals and businesses. the affordable care has had a profound impact on seniors and those living with disabilities. because of this law, seniors and those living with disabilities in the medicare program in illinois have saved more than $155 million on prescription drugs. and seniors taking their medicine as they're supposed to are likely to stay healthy longer and be less of a cost to the system and lead more independent and stronger lives. we have talked and talked in the senate about how we need to help seniors afford to buy prescription drugs. now we know that this bill that will be considered by the supreme court tomorrow has been closing the doughnut hole that was created by medicare part d. when we pass the -- passed the affordable care act, we did something about it. illinois seniors saved $155 million because the affordable care act was signed into law. by 2020, if the supreme court

does not strike this law or this provision, the doughnut hole will be fully closed and seniors won't have to worry any more about that gap in coverage that eats into their savings. i have been working for years to help small businesses find affordable health care for their employees. i introduced a will in 2009 to help the community and the insurance industry that allowed small businesses to work together in a health care exchange. the affordable care act built on that principle and improved it dramatically. the new health care law provides a tax break for small businesses that are doing the right thing in buying health insurance for their employees. so far in illinois -- pardon me. so far across the country more than 228,000 businesses have taken advantage of this new tax credit and saved $278 million. for those who say the affordable care act really hasn't helped small business, here is proof otherwise. another 30 million people who have no health care coverage today will be covered when the affordable care act is implemented.

by 2019, 15 million of those will be able to participate in medicaid and the states won't be left on the hook. the affordable care act provides help to the states for the first several years. the affordable care act provides much-needed assistance to community health centers, centers like the erie family health center in chicago. in fact, because of the $650,000 grant from the department of health and human services, erie is going to open up a new health center in evanston, one that is desperately needed. mr. president, these are but a few of the reasons why the supreme court i hope will uphold this law to continue to help move us toward a day when the rate of growth and the cost of health care is brought under control. we have a long way to go, but this bill is a step forward. for those who have campaigned from one side of america to the other, saying that they would eliminate the affordable health care act which they derisively call obamacare, let me tell them there are real people in illinois and across the nation who have benefited from this act and will in the future.

now is the time for us to work together to improve the act where it needs improvement but to use it as the basis for building a future of security and quality health care for all americans. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 511. the clerk: senate resolution 511, commending the pacific lutheran university softball team and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. truck: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 512 submitted earlier today. the clerk: senate resolution 512, recognizing the 100th anniversary of rice university.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, june 28. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the majority leader be recognized and that the first hour of debate be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we will continue to debate the flood insurance reauthorization bill tomorrow. we'll also await house action on the transportation bill. we need to consider the student loan extension before the end of the week, and if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will adjourn under the senate will adjourn under the

>> it is a refusal to respond to the will of the people in two-step from power in order to give syria a chance for a better future. it is the result of his choice instead to try to cling onto power at all costs. to try to cling on to power by spilling the blood of the innocent. we are working with our international partners to continue to pressure bashar al-assad. we notice be increasing number of dissections of the bashar al-assad regime and military. we remain committed to a

transition in syria that cannot because of the choices he made, thank you. >> on a meeting on saturday, the high-level meeting -- between syria and the plan about that -- i wonder if you could tell us what the united states hopes to have in there. >> we look forward to the june 30 meeting in geneva that you mentioned. and we look forward to it as an opportunity to press forward with serious political transition. we are working full speed ahead at this critical juncture with our international partners. special envoy has drafted a transition plan that we feel embodies the principles needed any political transition in syria leading to a peaceful, democratic, representative outcome that reflects the will

of the syrian people. the sooner this transition happens from the greater the chance we have of averting a lengthy sectarian civil war. and we will be able to better help assyrians manage the transition to democracy. this is a step toward the transition that has to take place. but i would not speculate about or characterize on a meeting that has not taken place yet. >> thank you. on health care and the court tomorrow. [inaudible question] talking about the individual mandate and the government changes, does the president think that popularity of those individuals -- those areas that he has been talking about -- it is enough to justify the constitutionality of the whole

act? and what should we expect tomorrow in terms of the presidential reaction? will the president make a statement? >> the constitutionality of the affordable care act is not based on public opinion, but on legal precedent. which is well-established. many legal scholars have spoken to come in many prominent jurists have ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the affordable care act because of their view of that precedence. the fact is that the affordable care act is hard-working for middle class families, we are confident that the law is constitutional come in and i think that that is what the president has been referring to. that is why we are focused on implementing the law. we weight the supreme court decision, as does everyone. while we do, we continue to implement the law. i would note that thanks to the

portal tracts, 3.1 million more young adults who otherwise would've been uninsured have health insurance on their parents plan. by .3 million seniors with medicare have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs, and everyone on medicare can get preventative services, and 54 million americans can now receive many preventive services without paying companies and deductibles. since you mention it, the mandate, the individual mandate, it is a product of conservative think tanks. it was adopted by many in the republican partyparty in the 90. while the president opposed it in the campaign, in office he was persuaded by experts in the

field but that was the most efficient way to ensure that we can bring large numbers of people into and under coverage, getting insurance coverage. and to allow for -- to ensure that those pre-existing conditions get health care coverage. that was the impulse behind it. again, it is not about public opinion and it is about policy. >> you mentioned the original opposition to the idea of the mandate. is the policy team at the white house prepared to work on a congressional fix is quickly as the canister, depending on what happens? >> well, with just 20 hours letter so overly hear from the supreme court, or before we expect to hear from the supreme court, we await the decision, as everyone else does, and i can simply point you to what the hhs

secretary, terry sebelius has said. we are ready and we will be ready for the decision when it comes down. >> does the president veto a bill that was a sequester until march of next year? >> that is a hypothetical. we have said what the president has put forward, on numerous occasions, most recently in his budget, the kind of balance balanced plan that deals with our medium and long-term fiscal challenges while ensuring that we have innovation, education, research and development. it reflects a consensus of thinking of a broad array of experts and a broad array of republicans and democrats. at least the republicans were

not currently members of congress. that is the right way to go. that is the way to deal with our fiscal challenges, that is the way to ensure that in dealing with our fiscal challenges we do not ask, as the republican plan does, but the burden of meeting those challenges falls solely on middle-class americans, seniors, the parents of children with disabilities in us. it asks that everyone does their fair share and that everyone plays by the same set of rules. that is the president is a sham and has been for a long time. that avenue remains open to congress to take. again, it bears repeating that there is broad consensus on what the outlines of a comprehensive budget deal should look like.

it must include spending cuts, it must include changes to our entitlement programs to make them stronger. it must include this as well. it in the case of a republican plan, it basically doubles down on the policies of a racket of the first decade of this century. the previous administration has said, the solution to our economic problems is simply to get more tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. and to tell wall street and insurance companies and everyone else that they can write their own rules and that everyone will benefit. the problem with that theory is that we tried it and it hasn't worked. in fact, it precipitated the

worst economic crisis in our lives. the president's approach is clear, and he is not alone and a lone voice out there saying this is the approach we need to take. the outliers here are members of the republican party in congress who have refused almost unanimously to acknowledge that we need to include revenues as part of a broader package. >> [inaudible question] urging members of congress to vote and hold the attorney general and contempt for "fast and furious." you have a response to that? >> in many ways, your question reflects the politics of this.

i would only say probably that the idea behind that thinking suggests that there was some grand plan behind the "fast and furious" program. everyone knows of the president not know about this through the media. the attorney general did not know about it, when the attorney general and that he took action to make sure he was no longer used. the premise of the assertion false part on the terrace of inquiry. >> [inaudible question]

does the president agree with is it an attempt to distract with voting [inaudible] >> i can't really speculate that this is not about politics. what underlies the policy -- i think you should ask those who are engaged in the a policy. what we know is that this administration has been very cooperative with legitimate oversight interest of congress. broadly speaking and in regard to this matter. the department of justice provided hours and hours of testimony by the attorney general and other justice department officials. and has made an effort to

accommodate the interest of the chairman and leaders of the republican party on this matter. unfortunately, they have shown very little interest i think those of us who have been around for a while understand -- we recognize this for what it is. >> [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> are you making political points? >> that is how it is. it is not about "fast and furious." the operation itself, all of the documentation relating to the operation itself prior to february 4 of last year has been provided. the administration has endeavored to accommodate the committee and republican leaders

in its request for further information. the assertion of privilege here has to do with the absolutely necessary action that any president, any head of the executive branch, must take in order to preserve the capacity of the executive branch to engage in internal deliberations. both now and in the future for every administration for every president of either party or some party in the future. >> is the president concerned at all about the president this is going to set having the attorney general held in contempt? has he called the speaker of speaker of the house and asked him to reconsider? he has been personally engaged at all? to i think the speaker of the house has been very clear on this, and it is highly political in nature.

i haven't had a conversation about this with this with the president in the way that you framed it. i think he -- he has absolute confidence in the attorney general. what you are hearing from me are the views of the president and the white house administration that this is political theater. it is an unnecessary distraction from the work that congress should be doing for the american people on the economy, on jobs, and i think many americans -- most americans will view it that way. >> one final question on health care. what if the supreme court strikes down the individual mandate but allows protections for pre-existing -- or allows the protection for those who have pre-existing conditions? what then? >> nora, i cannot speculate on all the various permutations

that have been put forward by really smart people and the press and in the health care field and the legal field. i think we just have to wait for the decision and move forward after that. >> "fast and furious", is the contempt vote worth a stand on principle? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> well, last week you said that the reason that all of these documents in question were not being turned over was on principle, not because there was any sensitive material that was being released. the fact is that now you most likely will have this contempt vote. was it worth it? was the stand on principle -- >> it was worth taking a stand opposition beyond -- into the future that will have to be evaluated in the future. it's absolutely worth the assertion of a privilege that's necessary for any president of any party to preside over the

executive branch and allow the executive branch to have the kind of internal deliberations that it needs to have, as a response to congressional inquiries or media inquiries. the cooperation that has been extended to congress on this matter is extensive. everything about the operation itself, who planned, how it was -- how this tactic was employed and why. all of that has been provided to the committee in full. i would point out to the statements of the chairman of the committee said over who said over the weekend that there is no evidence. after all this, he has what we made clear in the beginning. no evidence. because there is no evidence of white house involvement in this. this was a field tactic, it was a bad idea, and everyone recognizes that it was a flawed tactic. beginning with the attorney general and the president. the attorney general, when he learned about it, put an end to

it. its employment in use, and instructed the inspector general of the department of justice to investigate it. again, we have endeavored to cooperate with the legitimate oversight interest of congress and will continue to do so. but this is -- is a leading house republican has described it, it is politics. it is not what the congress should be up to right now. we know that we have challenges still. we have economic challenges that need to be addressed. congress needs to finish work on the transportation bill. it needs to take action to make sure that student loans -- student loan rates on double in a few days. it needs to -- it has the capacity to act very quickly on measures the president has put forward that would put teachers back in the classroom or even more construction workers on the job. it would give homeowners across the country the ability to

refinance their home at these historically low rates. these are things that the american people care about. you know, actions taken by -- for political reasons, by members of the house -- it wins them spots on cable talk shows -- that is not particularly interest the american people. the highly political nature of this has been in evidence just by the actions and rhetoric that you have seen from congress. from republicans in congress on this. >> i think you saw it was reported that several senior white house staff members, as well as staff and the department of justice met with committee staff to try to resolve this. you know, there was an opportunity to resolve this. and i think it was rejected for

political reasons. there remains hope that republicans will change their mind and will reverse their decision, their strategic decision to try to score political points. you remain hopeful that common sense prevails here. although you do have to look at the beginning of the year when republicans announced that one of their chief legislative and strategic priorities was to investigate the administration and damage the president politically. again, that is not the kind of use of congressional time and authority that most americans would support or endorse. they'd rather have their leaders in washington focus on the issues that matter most to them. like economic growth and job creation. >> one quick thing on health care. i know you said you wouldn't talk about the president's schedule tomorrow. what else is taking place tomorrow? is there a war room that is set

up to respond? rapid response to whatever the decision will be tomorrow? anything you can shed in terms of behind-the-scenes that will be taking place? >> most of argumentation's meetings have been in my office, so you can call it a war room if you would like. [laughter] >> i was thinking something more -- something more set up just for this. >> no, we don't have that. we always we have meetings and policy and communications all the time. we will continue to do that. just like you, we are waiting for an opinion, a decision, and we will assess it. >> [inaudible question] >> there so many premature nations that i'm not sure how useful it is to spend at least our time doing that. you know, i would refer you to the hhs for questions.

questions about the implementation of the affordable care act and the actions they have taken and the fact that they are ready for a decision when it comes. >> can i follow? >> yes. >> house leaders are that's two questions, the first on health care. house leaders have said in the press conference that they were already two -- if the rules are unconstitutional -- they would push for a single-payer method. you think that pair president would favor a single-payer method? >> the president favors the affordable care act. it was the right thing to do to provide insurance coverage to 30 million americans to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions could not be denied insurance coverage, children with pre-existing conditions could not be denied with health insurance. it was the right thing to do so that young americans could remain on their parents health-insurance policies, rather than go without

insurance. it was the right thing to do so that important, preventative services, like mammograms, could be provided to millions of americans for free. it was the right thing to do to ensure that seniors who faced significant costs through the prescription drug program were helped and alleviated that cost. these are policy prescriptions. the president, as you are waiting the decision, he is, to come, and we will assess that when it comes. >> [inaudible question] date have argued come out of this. >> i have heard every opinion imaginable express what the decision will be. it does not surprise me that some hold different opinions.

>> on "fast and furious." i was struck by what you told nora that he wouldn't comment on something that may not happen. you seem to indicate that to dan as well. >> congenital optimist. >> congenital optimist. and i don't want to selectively listen to that. i have heard a hope that something could be worked out. to answer the question, you didn't say whether or not their meetings yesterday, but other meetings going on today or phone calls? to well, i don't have any meetings to reach out to you. the fact that the meeting was held yesterday has been reported on is not because we let you know in advance what was happening. we're trying to -- that reflect in our good-faith effort to try to accommodate the committee and leaders on this matter to avoid what is wholly unnecessary vote is scheduled for tomorrow. i don't have any meetings. no new meetings to preview for you or read aloud to you.

but i do think -- >> would be better for for the president -- >> we have been doing everything we can, which is ridiculous given that the attorney general asked for a meeting with the chairman, and he got one an effort to resolve this. senior white house officials as well as justice department officials met with committee staffers yesterday in an effort to resolve this. at the time, as you recall, last tuesday the department of justice made offer to accommodation. at the time, republicans rejected the offer because they claimed to be uncomfortable, making a deal without seeing the documents that the justice department officials suggested could be shown. in response, yesterday, we in the administration, the justice and white house, reached out and show them a representative sample of the documents that they suck so they could see first-hand the types of communication in contention. ..

.. so in the effort has been made on a number of occasions. it's consistent with an effort to try to be responsive and cooperated to legitimate oversight interest throughout this episode. and hopefully you know one can hope that republicans will at the last minute change their

mind about deciding that, to try to score political points out of this, you know there is always room for hope. >> your comment about after about after-the-fact is that a couple of times as well as last thursday in a briefing that all of the documents, you said every page related to the operation itself, not after-the-fact has been turned over to congress. after you made that statement thursday republican senator chuck grassley came out and said no they are aware of a lot of documents related to the operation itself that has not been turned over to the justice department so you are contradicting that? >> yes and i'm saying the privilege clearly begins with the period after february 4, which is when the letter -- >> you are saying on the operation itself a abass brother documents in the justice department has not turned them over?

>> details on the 7600 documents that have been turned over but it's simply a matter of chronological observational fact that documents created prior to that time that had to do with the actual operation, who designed it, who approved it, how it's employed in those operations "fast and furious" and operation wide receiver have been provided because they created that period. the assertion of privilege is only on documents posted february 4 in those documents have to do with the internal deliberations within the administrative over how to appropriate league respond to congressional and media inquiries and those celebrations then need to be privileged and protected because of the separation of powers and enshrined in our constitution and that is a principle that has been asserted by administrations going back 30 years. >> you said the colorado wildfires have been getting more and more dangerous and the last couple of days of phonecalls of the president calling on the

governor, what kind of updates is he getting it seems the situation is getting pretty desperate. has he spoken to officials there? >> i think the president did speak with the colorado governor a while ago. the presidents being updated regularly and i will read out further communications he has on this matter. through the national inter-agency fire center which coordinates resources from the u.s. force service and other federal agencies, firefighters incident management teams air tankers fire engines and other resources are being provided to supplement local resources that teams continue to respond to let you appropriately described as a very serious fire across the west. more than 8400 personnel, 578 fire engines and 79 helicopters are operating on wildfires around the united states. more than half of federal wildfire fighting resources are currently staged in colorado. federal partners continue to work closely with first

responders and local state and tribal agencies to combat out large wildfires that the country. fema has authorized three management assistance grants, fire management assistance grants since june 9 to help cover the state and local costs cost for fighting the fires. 75% of the costs assessed after the fire is picked up by fema. >> fema has deployed in imap to the colorado emergency to work side-by-side with the division of management to support firefighting efforts and his representatives in the rocky mountain area and coordination center which is coronate in the federal wildfires in colorado and wyoming. in answer to your question well, though i had. >> the phonecall was on june 12, that's 15 days ago and it has been getting worse and worse. i was just wondering why the president has another phonecall.

>> the president has been updated regularly on these wildfires and i had further education i will provide them. >> jay thanks. >> ashington group will meet in ramp lamenting the p. 10 coming up with guidelines for the political transition, why should the syrian administration have confidence that it's actually going to work a given that a non-'s former peace plan didn't? >> i think anything depends on bashar al-assad's agreement and the promise that the actions have to be viewed with skepticism so i take your point but the fact is that the transition plan that kofi annan has drafted embodies the principles needed for any political transition in syria to lead to a peaceful democratic representative outcome.

you know, international community coalescing around a transition plan is an important step in the process of further pressuring, further isolating and hopefully helping to bring about a transition that we believe needs to, or cannot take place without assad stepping aside from power. >> secretary of state hillary clinton reiterates today russia and china could play, or will play, a key role in this. is there any indication that they're shifting their positions that they may be getting on the same page? >> i don't have any updates for you and i certainly won't speak for those countries. i can tell you that -- as i have in the past, been in regular consultations with the russians as well as the chinese and in particular the russians on this matter. it has been discussed by you and by us the fact that we have had

differences with russia on syria. and we are continuing to work with the russians to help bring about a goal that we both share, which is an end to the violence in syria and a transition in syria, a transition that we believe cannot take place, cannot take place with a side in power so we continue to work with the russians and are international partners and others who have had discussions with the russians on this matter. i don't have any update on where those conversations stand. >> has anything changed to make this more than just talking about a plan or submitting a plan? >> they are leading up towards building a consensus around a transition that is essential for the syrian people is a step forward. i don't want to overstate that. the fact is assad is still in power and the fact is he continues to brutalized his own people and the situation is extremely volatile and as we have said in the past, there is

not a great deal of time here for the international communities to come together and act before the situation there potentially dissolves into a broader sectarian civil war, with implications for the region. we are working with our partners urgently to try to avoid that outcome. >> can i have one more on health care, jay clacks according to our latest nbc news "wall street journal" poll 37% of american said they would he pleased if the health care law were found unconstitutional. y. on the eve of the supreme court announcing its ruling on this has the administrative failed to convince the american people this is a good thing? >> i think we have discussed this on a number of occasions over the months and years. there was an excellent reporting recently i think on the sheer volume of the millions and lien said billions of dollars spent and effort to discredit the affordable care act.

the differential there in money spent was i think eye-opening but it reflects the challenge that we have faced. again the president's focus here has been from the beginning on crafting a policy that builds on our existing private insurance system that is most effective and efficient in expanding coverage that in sure is that those preexisting conditions cannot denied coverage or thrown off of their health insurance plans and provides all the other benefits that i have mentioned. that was his aim. and i think we have been focused on implementing the law and as that implementation continues it has increased the number of americans who directly benefit from the affordable care act. >> if part or all of the law is upheld do you need to shift your strategy to get that message -- >> i've think i'm very safe, on safe ground here when i say i

will not speculate on a decision that is relatively eminent. >> jay, to questions. thank you. will the attorney general be at the congressional picnic tonight? >> i don't have -- [laughter] i haven't seen the rsvp list. we will get back to you. >> and then you might be able to answer this. do you know where the president will be when he finds out about the supreme court decision tomorrow? now generally he has to find out like everybody else does, through wsj.com. >> he will be in the war room in my office. [laughter] >> jay, can i follow up on that? >> follow up on that? >> a lot of americans seem surprised or even skeptical that

the president of the united states would learn about something that is this important the same way that everybody else does and they are curious about the process. can you comment on the mechanics of how the president of the united states or its representatives learn just like everybody else of the supreme court's rulings? >> as people don't believe it. >> well we turn on the television and radios and computers and watch scotus blog. [laughter] >> is so skeptical. >> anybody who covers the supreme court knows that it's pretty airtight and it is perhaps anachronistic or not, but that's a fact. and so we all will await the decision and learn of it at the same time that you do. >> thank you, jay.

i just want to go back to one more thing you mentioned earlier on that mandate. you said that it was the product of a conservative think-tank in the president was persuaded to include it, in part because he thought covering 30 million americans was the right thing to do and including preventative care was the right thing to do. at this point in hindsight, does he think the mandate was the right thing to do? >> he continues to believe that was the most efficient and effective way to build on our private insurance system, to provide coverage to the most people in the most efficient way and provide benefits that i have described. you know, i'm not just making this claim about its origins. it's been well-documented. for those of us who were reporters in the 1990s during the health care debate then, we keenly remember the fact that there was a bill put forward by a republican member of the senate endorsed by the republican leader of the senate and numerous other republicans in the senate that contain within it this individual

mandate. and that is just a fact. and it is something that has enjoyed the support of republicans and democrats for a number of years. there was a great piece in "the new yorker" the other day about that remarkable transformation and decisions made about group affiliation trumping policy. and i think that maybe what we have here, is a case of concerted decision to abandon what was considered very mainstream conservative thinking on an issue like health care policy, once it had been adopted by the other party. >> the transportation bill seems to be coming together up on the hill right now. what is you guys assessment of that as you know it now? >> congressional negotiators are still working on it and we look forward to seeing the final product.

we are encouraged by the progress they have made. it's absolutely essential that congress act so that thousands of construction projects around the country did not come to a hault and that we keep those many, many, many construction workers on the job. this is the kind of work that congress should have been and should be focusing on, rather than some of the purely political issues that we were discussing earlier. we are cautiously optimistic that this will come together, but again, we await the outcome of negotiations in congress. it is our understanding, as i think it is yours, that the package would include action on ensuring that student loan rates do not double. that would be a welcome thing. again, i think it is important to note that the only reason why that is in this bill, the only reason why it will get acted on, hopefully in time, before the

rates double, is because the president made a federal case out of it. the president pointed out that republicans were prepared to allow interest rates to double on 7.4 million students. the only reason why any of us had this discussion over these past several weeks is because the president insisted that congress take action. and in sort of a pattern that we have come to see where there are these stages of denial and then acknowledgment and acceptance, you know, it was a phony issue, it was in the distraction from the economy when in fact education is very much part of the economy and the presidents do in most peoples view. then there was an attempt to try to get a political scalp in the so-called pay-fors and that was not a serious attempt to deal with this matter. and gradually we have come to a point where hopefully we will

reach an agreement that everyone finds acceptable and that most importantly, allows 7.4 million students in this country to continue to pay their student loans at the current rate as opposed to double the rate. and that is purely a result of the leadership of president has shown on this matter. >> so you don't have any objections to the way things are so far that you know of? >> again as i've said we are awaiting a final product from congressional negotiators. >> and you have any details on the bus trip next week? >> none beyond what's been provided. i actually don't have anything additional for you. >> there's another round of talks in san diego next week. i know a lot of democrats on the hill have written a letter asking for more consultation and out congressman issa is asking to be included in the talks as an observer. how much congressional input does the administration see room for at this stage collects. >> i will have to take that question.

i have not locust on it today. speak you haven't focused on tpp? >> speaking of acronyms the president regularly bashes congress. they're going to hold his attorney general in contempt. things aren't going so well. why bother with the congressional picnic clacks. >> it's a great american tradition and the president looks forward to it, as do i. look, i think there are six different kinds of barbecue. [laughter] i am told. >> what else is their? >> there? >> i'll give you an after action report. >> thanks j.. >> for the first time since 1990 the united states will host next month d.c. the international aids conference. until the president was invited to speak at this event but he hasn't yet confirmed if he will make an appearance. >> i appreciate the question but i don't have an update on the

scheduling update for you. >> the presidents president's fy13 budget request or 13% from the president's emergency plan for aids relief or pepfar. is a hesitation to accept the invitation over a concern that the president may not the well received in the efforts to address the global aids epidemic? >> again, you're connecting things. i just don't have an update for you on the president scheduled. but thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> john graham lech joins us from "congressional quarterly." the house is set to take a bow thursday to hold attorney general holder and contempt of congress. what's this about? >> well this stems from the so-called "fast and furious" gun tracking operation which the justice department knowingly allowed hundreds of weapons and firearms to go into mexico in an attempt to trace them back to mexican drug cartels. this was a very controversial operation and it's been a flashpoint on capitol hill for a long time, and now the house is weighing in on whether to hold the attorney general and

contempt over what they see as his stonewalling of information related to this operation. >> operation. >> on that vote is a true this would be the first-ever vote of its kind? >> a would be. the previous attorney general janet reno had to testify on a congressional committee but it never reached the floor of the house of representatives involving an attorney general so this would be unprecedented. >> house republicans and the justice department tried several times to reach a compromise to avoid the contempt vote. what exactly does each side want the other two to do? >> the house republicans led by house oversight and government city chairman darrell isa has demanded the long list of documents and it turned general and that is justice department have offered some of those documents, not all of those documents, and just last week the night before the committee voted to hold the attorney general and contempt, mr. holder offered a briefing rather than a document that the republicans

were seeking that mr. issa and the republicans on the house oversight committee found that. >> one democrat announced he is likely to join republicans in favor of content. who is he and how many others could effect from the party on this vote and on top of that would there be any republicans republicans -- republicans crossing party lines? >> there may be a few republicans who crossed party lines and vote no on the contempt resolution but i think much more likely democrats will vote yes on the resolution. i've heard that up to two dozen if not more democrats may join on the contempt resolution and there is pressure on them from the conservative national rifle association which is scoring this vote and has made sure that there would be repercussions from that organization if democrats would vote against the contempt resolution. >> if the votes are there to hold attorney general and contempt what is likely to

happen then? >> well that is a little bit less clear. there are theoretically three options for the house to verse 2. the first is considered very unlikely. that would be to use authority and pursue a process known as an inherent contempt whereby the house could ask the sergeant at arms of its chamber to go and physically arrest in the attorney general. that hasn't happened either chamber since 1935 and people don't consider that very likely. the second more reasonable option is for the house to ask the justice department to formally charge mr. holder with contempt or find him in violation of a criminal statute that carries a misdemeanor conviction, a fine of up to $3000 imprisonment up to 12 months. but that is also unlikely since the justice department is run by mr. holder. the most likely outcome is that the house will ask the federal judge to enforce the subpoenas that it has already issued against the attorney general and therefore get the courts

involved and try to have him comply with their demands for the information that way. >> will this resolution need approval from the senate to go into effect? >> it will not. it goes into effect on its own. each chamber is capable of holding someone contempt on its own party. >> be on the specifics of this case what right the ripple effect be on a successful contempt vote and huge disagreements between the legislative branch is? >> it's a very big conflict between the two branches and it sure to sour relations that were all ready pretty sour during the last few months. this is an election year of course and no doubt conservatives will point to this on the campaign trail in the months ahead, whereas the justice department and the president are likely to portrayed as a purely political event. that argument could need made a little bit or complicated if a sizable number of democrats

joined with republicans. >> john graham lech for "congressional quarterly." we will talk with you again soon. >> thanks.

>> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have. what role should the government play in housing finance? >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country, and they want to talk about it and the populace agrees that is something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear, and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. but when you deliberately enter third priority enterprises freddie mayanne fenning, when you deliver subsidies with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of

subsidizing homeownership. i think we have seen that ended end of the movie in 2008. >> july 7 and 8th booktv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of missouri state capitol, jefferson city was c-span's local content vehicles and booktv on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous. this is the one we like to show the visitors when they calm into the archives here at the library. this is a book about harriet tubman. is called harriet, the moses of her people, and the special thing about this is, this was written in 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on their and that is really the most famous autograph

if you want to call it that, of what we have here in page library. obviously she could not read or write so she left the sign of the cross. >> watch for booktv and american history tv and jefferson city missouri july 7 and 8th on c-span2 and three. >> i could have told you at the beginning of this year that here is how we would run the vituperate of republican primary and the republicans would look in feeble that there would be a nominee and that the republicans within rally round that nominee and the true nature of the race would reveal itself which is that it was going to be close. i would have told you that the media would eat that up and then say romney is surging, obama's flagging, this is a race. that is, and i will tell you what the next phase is going to be. the next phase is going to be the media's going to become more alert to the fact that governor romney has been completely

evasive about his positions, has been all over the lot on many of them and has tried to play a game of hide and seek with the american people are go and i think there will be challenges to challenge him. to be more forthcoming and then the story is going to be that for a while. this is the nature of this business. >> a dispute between napa county and local indian tribe came to congress early today when both sides testified at a hearing on the recognition of tribes by the federal government. the california tribe is suing the government to have its federal recognition restored, which it claims was illegal strip in 1959. held by a house indian affairs subcommittee, this lasts an hour and 35 minutes.

>> the committee will come to order. first let me welcome the new ranking member, mr. lujan. it makes me feel good about that side of the aisle and the people who have worked with me over the years. i'm going to miss mr. bourne but i'm confident this young man will fill his shoes. if he doesn't i will use the gavel so that will take care of it. welcome. >> thank you. >> the subcommittee has already come to honor. the subcommittee on alaska native affairs is meeting to hear testimony on the standards and procedures on whether and how and when any tribe should be newly recognized by the federal government. on committee rule for fmat opening statements in the subcommittee -- however i ask unanimous consent to include any other members opening statements in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business today.

hearing no objections so order. ask as denounce consent the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman from california, mr. thompson and florida's mr. miller be allowed to join us on the dais and participate in the hearing. without objection, so order. in today's hearing we will hear the perspectives of several troops seeking recognition as indian tribes under federal law. we will also hear from a county supervisor in california with concerns over federal recognition process. the purpose of the hearing is not determine the fate of any particularly recognized edition but to gather facts and may inform the committee as what a reasonable recognition policy for the 21st century should be. tribal recognition as one of his most solemn recognitions this committee deals with. it has impacts on the trust responsibility and other recognized tribes and on states and their political subdivisions. rightly or wrongly visit a branch in the department of interior has wrestled control over indian recognitions from its rightful constituents authority, the congress. rather than establish the recognition policy authorized by

statute the department close unaccountable system. ike knowledge that the apartment regulation setting for seven mandatory criteria for a group to be recognized to make some sense. a few people question them motive of the small but dedicated staff of the professionals who are tasked with reviewing recognition petitions and making recommendations for it. the basic problem though with tribal recognition is the decision charles milley made by political appointees and not by elected officials like representatives and senators who accountable to the voters with the decision they make. that the department occasionally ignores its own regulations and decides recognition cases outside of administrative or statutory process. this is not to increase public confidence in the current tribal recognition system. the interior department today declined my written invitation to provide a witness today. they the only expiration given to my staff is every department official capable of testifying

in recognition had schedule complex. i cannot accept this as a valid excuse. the department's failure to appear and answer questions wrongly suggest that something like the secondary -- and that deeply disturbs me. while we will take customers from the wind is who has graciously accepted several of whom had to fly many miles to beer i do intend to hold the see to the fire. we will hold a second hearing at a time to be determined, when someone from this department can make available to testify and answer questions. i think it's extremely important if i may add up a little bit. my concern is some tribes are recognized and some are not in there is no justification of the nissen process. why are some denied in some accepted and that is why we are trying to back a standard rule because it's the role of the congress. is not the role of subcommittee to make these decisions. is the role of the congress to accept or not except their standards as they tried. i look forward to hearing our witnesses and i now recognize

the ranking member for five minutes for any statement he might make. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to say how much i look forward to working with you in this congress. i thank you for your leadership. my recent appointment to this position by natural resources committee ranking member markey is a great honor it's truly a privilege to serve native communities in this leadership role and to work toward strengthening the trust relationship. the empowerment of the sovereignty of a 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 new role. the administrative acknowledgment process as we know today began in 1978 when the department of interior promulgate rules to govern trevor recognition. in a letter to then secretary of interior andrus on vacation of 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 the standards are based on historical indian records, genealogy, anthropology and other scientific methods for evaluating tribal acknowledge him and petitions. recognizing the need for a methodical knowledge and process in addition to and where appropriate in lieu of the legislative recognition, president carter's message to residents today. the tribal group should be able to account for its continuous his continuous existence and his petition for recognition and evaluated that account must be in place. federal acknowledge ment establishes the government to government relationship between the tribes and the united states and make such a tribe eligible to receive federal protection services and benefits by virtue of the unique status as indian tribes. federal recognition is there for jim important and valuable for social conditions. but that is not to say the administrative process and standard should remain static or ignorant to logistical realities.

the current acknowledgment regulations have been updated once and it is my understanding they're currently undergoing review for further changes. i mention this because i believe the federal college relationship require a tribe to provide at no historical materials to support his petition for knowledge meant i also believe these requirements must evolve through conditions and circumstances of the date. for instance a tribal group can produce a historical document of a consequence of war as is in the case of virginia indian tribes a tribe should be able to produce equal value documents available to them that produce the same results. proving their continual existence and the political eligible status. my view high standards can and should be taken into consideration. and the end all compelling evidence to support a tribal groups claim on a case-by-case basis. i am a stalwart serb -- administrative acknowledgment and we will learn from each pass

has its drawbacks but all pack should be available travel group seeking to restore their 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 and cultural identity aligned and ed native language lost as a consequence to the establishment. i look forward to hearing from our tribal witnesses today and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and now we will call our witnesses up before the table. chief stephen adkins speaking on behalf of the six virginia tribes, chairman scott gabaldon who is accompanied by his attorney, chairman and go tucker, must be nation chief raymond weaver, the tribe of the choctaw indian and supervisor

diane dillon napa county district attorney. i do thank all of my witnesses. all our witnesses your written testimony will appear in the hearing record so we ask you keep your statements to five minutes. microphones are not automatic so please press the button when you are ready to begin and i also want you to explain how her timing lights work. ..

or accusing in member or senator. any witness who brings to the decorum of this committee will be called to order and i will actually remove use to keep that in mind. i will begin with steven adkins, chief of the tribe. you're up. >> the subject which looms large across all of the indian country

i think to provide for those trips seeking acknowledgment in sovereign nations the process they are pursuing. however in some specific areas i speaking on behalf of the monacans and h.r. 783. chairman young of the virginian in the hands to represent the very essence of democracy and freedom as we participated in the fence both in the commonwealth of virginia and the united kingdom commemorated the anniversary of the english settlement in america. we took pride in representing the commonwealth of virginia and the united states of america descendants of both tribes who welcome the first settlement to virginia to this place that is now called america. however when all of the hoopla festivities were over, we remained unrecognized as sovereign nations by the united states of america. virginian indians lived under the treaty of 60 which

ironically was called oracles of peace with the english crown until the formation of the united states. signatories of the treaty were deemed a sovereign subjects of the crown as recently as the first decade of the 21st century the treaty was applied to a court case involving virginia indians. and while we are recognized by the commonwealth of virginia, federal recognition continues to elude us. please allow me to sign a painful example for the current administrative process falls short in embracing the realities of a virginian indians face in 1912 and a man named walter became the head of the fairest bureau of statistics in virginia. he was a rabid white separatist who supported and enforced their racial integrity act which became law in 1924. to give you an idea surrounding this legislation as a companion bill was a stabilization act called for the forced

sterilization of feeble mind and mates. the racial integrity class in the commonwealth of virginia is either white or colored. from 1924 the officials of the commonwealth of virginia did not allow the native american tribes to a list indian or native americans or other affiliations on their birth records. this act served as the official for five decades remaining until 1967. suddenly there was one exception to this rule. the so-called first families of virginia coming and i find a lot of natives have been there for 10,000 years but many first families and va claim to be the descendants of pocahontas. this contained a pocahontas exception allowed the land of white families in virginia to be listed as white despite the drop rule while they were still planning to be descendants of pocahontas.

the virginia bureau of statistics went so far to retroactively change the records of many of our ancestors so that only white or colored were listed. as part of the act of 1944 the united states government officials contacted the commonwealth of virginia regarding its indian population. the state registrar also in virginia despite the response federal government officials visited the tribes conducted and photographed people and things substantiating in existence. the state and federal level support of the fact that virginia and indian tribes have endured over time in the 20th century the commonwealth supplied funding for transportation and the tuition in the high school in oklahoma. in addition oklahoma to attend schools in other states

additionally in the federal government provided funding for indians to attend a government schools so on the one hand we byrd acknowledged the fact i would suspect by both the federal and state government. the most telling testimony in the current system is the fact that 1999 the head of the assistant secretary devised the tribe of the obligations that 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 many 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 for information to be complied with the process of europe more to words post 1795 trouble histories receive low value for tribal history and dillinger of the ministry of process to recognize that one size does not

fit all. other compelling reasons are times in many cases it takes several years over 20 years to go through the administrative process and it takes a lot of money and cost and tribes cannot afford the cost. the criteria appears to be geared towards the tribes infil when the formation of the united states. and i will skip over to my closing remarks regarding when the tribe should be new to recognize by the federal government. let me put it this way. tribes have been able to maintain identity over hundreds of years who have faced abuse and insults because of their heritage who've witnessed continued shrinking and sometimes complete loss of their tribal lands and see them decimated to the point that nado american comprise less than 1.4% of the total united states population. folks of lost more per capita fighting for the armed forces of the united states of america than any other group in the union and to salute old glory

and display products and of love for their country. the answer to when to recognize the newly recognized tribes, the answer is now, the answer is today, and again, i want to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. i would say my testimony would be incomplete if i did not say that the common thread that exists among the atlantic coast tribes and gulf coast tribes the three that i am speaking of is the respective tied to the colonial governments. by those in the authority there's been a concerted effort to eliminate these tribes through the bead and documentation. the history of the tribes predates 1607. the first sustained -- >> you ran out of time. >> thank you. >> you did well. i have to remind you that we did

pass and recognize you out of this congress last year and we are going to do it again. the door coal over there we call it i don't know what to say, you've got to go over and took them around a little bit. >> thank you for your time. when i heard you were going to be here i had good friends in alaska and i just -- my confidence soared. >> i appreciate that. the next witness is mr. space from the tribe of the alexander valley. >> good afternoon chairman young and members of the subcommittee my name is scott and i am a paabo indian. i am the elected chairman of the tribe of alexander valley. i would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to represent my people on the onset let me be crystal clear. our tribe was wrongfully terminated and the status restored. that is a fact and is only focused right now.

our history was inhabited certainly until 1823 with 10,000 years of ancestry. when it peacefully utilize the the resources from the abandoned land, rivers and streams the name of the napa valley itself is derived from the language meaning the land of plenty although the county boasts them as part of the cultural heritage, there are those that do not want us to be more than a memory. people like dan dillon that had the district since 2003 and representative mike that had the first congressional district since 1998. the inconvenient to the opposition to what is clearly in in just done to the wappo people are politicos of the county's. there are indian workers lining up to oppose us that minimum wage earners do not oppose us nor any of the local tribes in the area, and there are six of them. it is the wealthy that bear the

political agenda to stand to lose a tiny bit of their stronghold of power in the counties when the tribe is restored. today mr. young i say to you and to those the would rather profit fancy justice and to those that have believed misstated the facts to the press and to garner your support through deception. we are not a new tribe. we are here before the peabody of the world. we are not new to the area. we were here before napa or even the state of california. the lives ran through by an agency desperate to satisfy the political agenda in 1958 or nothing compared to the law is being told the court, the press and the citizens of the county, and now the subcommittee. why have we sued in federal court?

litigation wasn't our first attempt to get federal recognition to correct this mistake to read the record shows we tried many avenues bringing bill lawsuit including chongging the congressional support into those of, 2003 and 2004. litigation is an unavoidable that of preserving the status. we want the government to acknowledge its mistakes and terminate our people as well as many other tribes affected by this injustice and restore the charles tavis, benefits and land rights. the facts dictate justice must be served. we are all unlawfully terminated in 1961 at the request of diman wappo indian that received two-thirds of the tribal land. after many attempts of the restoration, we decided to sue the federal government. therefore with all other options, exhausted or unavailable in 2009 the lawsuit was high and the federal district court and open public forum with the party deciding

the outcome and we tried to build a relationship with three intervenors meeting all of them before they intervened the lawsuit with the federal government. and all of those meetings they expressed one concern, land. since then, they've worked hard to prevent the very existence to acquire land. they are more concerned with the economy disrupting the way of life and they are concerned with four generations of native americans being deprived of what they should rightfully have. the counties are concerned with the casino and with education. counties are concerned about land use and housing for elders. the counties are concerned about environmental impact and tribal health care. it seems since we filed a lawsuit we are winning everyone wants to attack us including not only the counties in the local coalition that even you, mr. young wrote a letter objecting the restoration.

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

introduce the chairwoman of the tribal council of the muskogee nation of florida, for the tribe of eastern creek indian. the chairwoman serve her triumph for over 30 years. she has in-depth knowledge of the history, the tradition, the genie of russian and federal tribal issues unique to northwest florida and you will find her testimony to be a telling one. i've had the opportunity to meet with a chairwoman on several occasions and have seen firsthand her tribes great work that they have had from a local community. i know of no better person than her than to leave could 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 hearing and appreciate the opportunity to join you today, mr. sherman, and the ranking member to listen to the chairwoman's tucker, the people of muskogee nation of florida and the continued efforts i hope will lead ultimately all the

wino that is not with a hearing is about the proper federal recognition for which they have long awaited. with that i introduced the chairwoman ann tucker. >> if you've been doing this for 30 years you must started in the elementary school. you're welcome to speak. >> mr. chairman, remember, honorable committee members, i am the chairman of muskogee nation of florida of eastern creek indians. i want to thank the congressmen for being here today and for his continued support of the tribal recognition. we are the people known as petitioner 32 to the office of federal acknowledgement. the 19781 courts 83.7 was created for the tribal recognition there were 40 try this with the evidence already felt. we were one of those tribes. our people have lived on the same homeland in florida since

1861. we are creek indian people who've lived together, work together, married one another, buried one another and kept our traditions through the harsh circumstance. in florida there is no commission to keep records on indian people. no treaties and no state reservations. we didn't have a federal indian tribe until 1957 when the seminal tribal florida was recognized by congressional action. the same year the elders of our tribe received notice that they would share the land claim settlement from the treaty of fort jackson. we struggle for 43 years in the current process. they don't 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 just the petitioning document from the procedural changes caused by court cases come interior findings the detectives on how criteria are

evaluated. but we know about this process is that lot of the select standardized documentation for every decade from 1900 to the present from the slums in northwest florida doesn't mean that we did not continuously exist as an indian tribe. what it means is that the type of evidence required for externals identification would 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 the 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 for native americans that enabled the staff the fiscal means to send 14 more banker boxes of revised data. after 43 years we know we're fiscal we changed to compete in what we watched the process become of the last 20 years.

my testimony must address why the tribe has h.r. 2591 introduced for federal recognition. we did not petition congress to circumvent the administrative process. people put on the support tribal recognition for the cingular process our people to support the process through the 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 the source for future. even if we receive a positive finding from the asa that doesn't mean we will be recognized. the last positive finding was turned down by interior. after generations who've lived through a andrew jackson's removal policies of racial eradication, litigation for the identification and a broken

process that cannot be fixed our question has changed. has become one of who makes the decision based on what else? today we have had no contact with the people assigned to the petition. we are concerned that active consideration means nothing more than actively looking at the increments of the paper rather than visiting on site with our tribal government to understand how we function and survive. we are concerned about an expedited process means the criterium aid for the identification will be used to expeditiously eliminate us by disregarding state statute impact on the mandatory step is required. the land claim gave my great-grandfather a vehicle to stand, challenge and change interior historical attitude. we are still here and there was not easy. we have petitioned the congress work release because we have the choice.

we are eliminated in the process based on the gaps created by the state statute to come here. we consider 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 by all our impoverished people live in the 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 the wood when the mechanism used by the agent is broken as the gao report states now our only alternative is to place at the door. we are the oldest petition are left and if we stay on this process it will be because we are exactly what we claim to be. an indian tribal community and government that live separate and distinct and will perverted by jim crow law to read h.r. 35 number one we've participated in

the process rolling us to know that our state lines in your actions. thank you for allowing us here today. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member mr. lujan and committee members and staff. i'm -- today i would like to say a few words about the process has done in the tribe. they are for the structural failure evident in the recognition process as the only tribe of the nation to have exhausted all three made available for the grant the federal status over the federal lawsuit, congressional bills we are in weare.

we are the second longest petition drive in the nation to petition longer. the federal recognition began in the area of 1900 without the attempt to be admitted to the appeal to offer 12 congressional bills and the federal lost thrown out on the statute of limitation we clearly understand the current process is only open to those millions of dollars we have chosen through the process not to ally ourselves in numerous suitors. some of the call this to the reality of the process we choose to call it what it is come integrity. we need to align compromise the very aspect of the process that

takes a completely illegitimate. the only avenue for defining the relationship is the united states congress. they have no peace in the process and the integrity of the leadership of the westernization is not something that can be fixed. lawsuits like the process they are economically prohibitive for petitioning tribes. congress must make determinations based on facts only. no political influence, no backdoor letters from attempting to the gaming zone to the competition. >> the legitimate tribal communities lead to extreme we will discuss only a small number here. the border schools can document this attention should be faced and the federal register

immediately. tribes will live in long colonials to recognizing the reservations should be distracted consideration immediately. languages the irrefutable proof of troubled existence. unique history it's highly important in the determinations. the historical community in the east and the south particular must be completely eliminated. the examples are cited in this written testimony. the tribes will position prior to the area to begin an era should not have any tribe be able to perform reconnaissance to appoint an independent board of the ten to 20 individuals for the distributed mix of predominantly historic

montr tribal members of expertise in various economics and research areas. the petition of the triers meet one or more of the criteria should be moved to the front of the line for consideration. all tribes will deny the recognition that can zhou ping association can be evaluated and these criteria are in an indian border school. having a state recognized or mission reservation land rage retention. the 1970's state recognition provision from the area but black and white schools most we attended on a third school

americans in the black or the white schools the tribes and others long standing petition for the federal recognition which could at the beginning of the new process prior to this time period. we received ten letters support the recognition for federal tribes and the position such as the ten letter total may of been received from the field and genealogy. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for having this attendee mr. chairman and ranking committee member. we have suffered under this process. it's expensive and it's costing millions of dollars and by the funds available to the

non-federally recognized tribes to 5,000-dollar year grant you need secretary to get it. it's competitive so you may or may not get it. thank you very much. >> thank you. the honorable dan dillon, supervisor in district three. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. i am one of five elected supervisors and the county of napa. we are both the legislative and the executive authority in the napa county and our executive role we approve budgets. we supervise the conduct of county officers and employees and most relevant to you today in our legislative capacity we make land-use decisions. this hearing is about whether, when and how tribes should be recognized. our issue is in barack whether a child should be recognized, our issue is about how tribes are

recognized. i am very grateful to be here on behalf of both napa county and our neighbor on this issue that we believe is of course of interest to the subcommittee. the focus is on the process and the issue of congressional authority coming and we submitted approximately nine pages of written testimony. in short we believe that the lawsuit by congratulate terminated california indian tribes in which the plant of tribes asked the federal district court to restore the governor relationship and in which court cases the department of interior acquiesces those requests and represents a constitutionally impermissible congressional authority. under the constitution, the congress alone has the authority to reestablish a government to government relationships with

tribes following the termination by congress. congress specifically exempted the tribal restoration power when a delegated other powers to the department of interior. but despite this to be clear separation of power, the department of interior facilitates restoration by infighting that terminated tribes to sue the department. and then the department stipulates to a settlement restoring the try this. in this way the department of interior achieves through orchestrated and unopposed litigation what you have not been given them permission to do administratively. it is the defective 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 delivered at time intensive expert assessment of tribal recognition by the bureau of indian affairs. we are talking about here is what happened when an entity claiming to be a successor and interest to a tried terminated by congress turns around and sue is 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 troubled life of legal claims are substituted for the bureau of indian affairs established tribal recognitions legislation. amici is a surprise to many of you that the troubles applicants that sue often find a friend in the federal defendant the department of interior and a 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 and that is a violation of constitutional dimensions. it violates the separation of powers. our views on this derive from our experience in litigation and the northern district court of california involving the the mishewal wappo tribe. the federal government has not advanced any of the defenses that a normal defendant would advance. there are the procedural stuff haven't been advanced. there is 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 when he said to them in a letter in 2009 that he could not restore the tribal status. he was correct when he asserted the didn't have the authority to the tribal status. he was incorrect when he told them to go to court. he is trying to get them to do something that the congress has not given the authority to do. so there are many issues here today with which you are presented but we would ask that you do not see the authority to the bureau of indian affairs or to the court the 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 that i am

having this hearing is that i do believe that we have been neglecting as the congress but the feed the relationship with the congress, not the executive branch to do action or not to do action, and that's something that concerns me. in my own case there were tribes declared 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 read >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. chairwoman tucker, you said in your testimony that the administrative process is broken come yet the trial continues to pursue the path to recognition while also seeking legislative action that was established tribal federal status. is this a parallel track necessary, and also in listening to your testimony, have you been

discouraged from 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 system is broken. we were notified by the bureau of indian affairs that the process changed. we have been saying how the original tribes were recognized and we were notified that basically said we devotees of sightlines and the rules that came in were about this. we were not 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 for it is a big state, and we've had a lot of support from our senator and especially from congressman miller from northwest florida. we tried to stay in this process until the became apparent that we could not fiscally do this, nor what guidelines have become. the had minister this process fails to recognize one size doesn't fit all in the acknowledgement process. can you explain in what ways he believed that it feels to do so the evidence to the process acts

for documentation that we just can't produce because of the district court houses that had a vital statistics because of a state that went through and has sought to destroy all vital statistics as indian people the indian organizations act was put in place with of the statistics said know there are no in begins in virginia. despite that government officials came to virginia with places and things and they said these folks are in the hands. the bureaucracy had been created in the state and precluded us from being part of that. as you look at those sovereign criteria as that have kind of become ironclad we don't fit

into it. th situation is targeted at the chairwoman muscogee nation and it just doesn't want to move because of the situations that we found ourselves. they were the american with a travesty and a shame that we need to find a way to correct. >> our parents had to come to washington, d.c. in 1935. they face jail time had they done it in virginia. >> i read that in your testimony and appreciate that as well. supervisor dillinger, if the trial isn't terminated should we be allowed to pursue administrative relief? >> i believe that is what the wall already states. >> i appreciate that.

your tribe was never terminated? >> we believe we were terminated in 1959 but it was by a non-wappo indian. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me start by saying that it is very disappointing to see secretary salazar and the bureau of indian affairs has not engaged through this committee on this important issue under the constitution but without the added ministration working with congress, it makes it a tremendously difficult to create an even playing field and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i would continue to press secretary salazar to engage the committee so we can come to a resolution on these issues. first, german gabaldon i want to

understand your issue of termination, morse was of ackley , you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the act as 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the decision? >> nope. we were part of that case and drop off that case in 1987, no prejudice. >> why wasn't that? >> we believed the case was based on land allotment and they were part of that because the non-wappo indianan owned the land we were supposed to have the didn't have any to proceed with that case. >> i hope to seek recognition to eventually get land into a trust. >> the benefits coming yes to read to seek land and to trust and get the benefits of other

tribes around the nation. >> have you asked the congressman to introduce legislation since you can get the federal recognition. every background and 2,000 of the leadership was working hard. actually on the bill in 2000. our leadership in 2000 was working hard on a bill and they're which alleges in the political realm. one because one will see wouldn't take our bill because she felt she was double crossed. we need local support before we take the bill to congress and we can see with all the local -- >> don't bring members into this right now. you can get that testimony

leader on because we will say he said she said and i said. >> i have papers. >> you can submit that if you wish to do so. >> it tried to go through congress. >> thank you. >> why did you say to seek litigation rather than congress. espinel we didn't only try to seek going through congress. we also tried the process but according to the 25 csrl eda 3g, it makes a california at terminated on the tribes and eligible to go through the process. we've also asked for administration restoration, so like i said we also tried through congress in 2000 with a bill. we went through the court because we felt it was the last option in our area there is a

tribe. it but a sour taste for other tribes and we are the last tried to be recognized, and this is a quote from the assip report congress paid for, approved and the court says this the federated indian and the mishewal wappo tribe me to the current criteria for the restoration and should be immediately restored they have been restored in 2000 by an act of congress and wilton in 2009 these are the same unaffordable processes we are going on now. estimate you engaged the administration on this. i wish that the secretary felt that it was important to be here today to address this issue and you did address.

>> we have a letter here that says they disagree not having an administration power to restore us because it has been done in the past congress reports 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. but there was no other option as i mentioned before as a neutral party that would determine what law says for the legal determination. if you could briefly respond if you were able to get the federal recognition and put land into trust what would your plans be? >> to build housing. we will do economic development of many sorts. i don't truly believe that the only way for economic development for the triad is through the casino although it is the most economical and fastest way to do that i believe

my tribe has the knowledge and business background to improve the quality-of-life of the members not only through a casino but through many different economic development opportunities. thank you. >> thank you very much. 48 years now i've been involved in trying to bring justice to the sovereign tribes in this country and they are sovereign i have to citizenships. i'm a citizen and the state of michigan and a citizen of the united states. the of three real sovereign citizenships who are citizens of the united states. you've shown that certainly in the numbers many of you have fought.

you are a citizen of the state which you live, and you are a citizen of the sovereign tried. three citizenships and those are real citizenships, those are just fancy get well cards. they are in the constitution of the united states. the congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among several states and with the indian tribes. they put you on the same loveless france or germany or your sovereign and they recognize that congress has the power to regulate commerce with these three types of governments, sovereign governments. the constitution says this constitution and the law of the united states should be made in pursuance thereof all treaties shall be made under the

authority of the united states shown to be a supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. anything in the constitution or the law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. so virginia could not use its power to set aside federal power recognizing your sovereignty. and it's extremely important. you have to keep fighting for it john marshall little dispute the famous decision of andrew jackson didn't follow. john marshall says the indian nations have always been considered as distinct from independent political entities retaining their original natural rights as professors for time and memorial retaining its not a

granted sovereignty. it is a retain sovereignty and that word is extremely important. we are not asking for something we don't already have and recognize by the constitution of the united states and john marshall's decision. so you have a moral obligation and legal obligation to fight for your sovereignty and it's been an awful better fight. but it can be done. in the state's 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 in detroit that is the sovereign land treaty and said that indians who were deprived of their land would be given education in

perpetuity. jackie roel legislation following that and that is still law of michigan. any michigan indian can attend a public college in michigan and the state pays the tuition because of the treaty. those treaties are real. so i just want to commend you for what you are doing. this is a retain sovereignty. 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 like a troubled mistake they made we should undo that. we can can one do that. we ultimately have to uphold the constitution, and i commend mr. lujan, the ranking member and my friend mr. yondah from

alaska for having recognized the justice and the obligation that we have to fight for the justice and i'm going to leave congress this year after serving 36 years here. not going to fight for any injustice and i just want to commend you for what you're doing. you really are in the right path that you must continue to pursue. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. alterman. i appreciate mr. kildee's comments as well. i want to thank the members of the team for testifying today. i represent michigan's first district. it's my first term, and we have 15 federally recognized tribes in michigan, and it's been my pleasure to work with both recognized tribes and with both tribes seeking recognition.

along with mr. kildee i introduced a bill, and i really anxious to learn more about these issues. i'm disappointed that the department of interior chose not to pursue the today, but i think that it's very important that we as a committee explore this issue. it seems difficult to me and i remain committed to helping each group like to do so in a transparent fashion. i don't like to be in the position of picking winners and losers between the tribes. i think the we need to have an open and transparent process, and i'm not sure exactly but that is being a freshman, but i think it's important that we explore these issues. so i would like to ask a couple questions. mr. gabaldon, given your experience as a tribal leader, what recommendations do you have for us to improve the process?

>> i guess the only one with the hurry up because we are having elders died, and it's sad to see a lot of these elders that are dollying waiting their whole life to be part of something they once were a part of. i guess the bureau of indian affairs needs to consider what they are doing when they drag their feet. they think that by slowing down the tribes they will run out of time. it's happening around the country tribes are not rich. we don't have an endless amount of funds to pursue. it's expensive. >> let me ask another question. what part do you think the local community has been a decision like this? do you think that this is strictly a federal government

issued along with a tribe or do you think the local community has any like the county government or the state government do you think they have input to this? >> no and i'm surprised the county officials at this table now. they had nothing to do with our termination. i don't understand why they would have something to do with the restoration. >> let me ask ms. dillon the question. thank you for your time coming year. what is your position? to me it does seem to be sort of a federal reissue if the tribe is recognized by the federal government like mr. kildee said and that some state issues as well. but it seems to me it does affect the local government. what are some of the issues that you are facing in your county relative to this? >> thank you for the question. it is definitely a matter of local interest.

affects our local land use. we have in particular is very strict land use regiment which everyone is required to comply with. we have an agricultural preserve like no other in the united states, and we are very concerned about the integrity of that agricultural preserve. so,. everyone who acquires and anyone who acquires land in napa county place by the same set of rules. >> the question i asked mr. gabaldon, how do you think we should be doing here to improve the process of recognition? >> i did that there are some realizations that have to be made. the first one being indian people are not people who are

like little pegs that fit in square holes. we have the same results of what happened to us but it doesn't happen in the same way. and when you have that kind of situation what happened in the great lakes isn't what happened to my people. what happened in california isn't what happened to my people. so when you are looking at indian people and you look at where they are what has happened to create the situation that they are in in 1947 we had the opportunity to voice it wasn't a treaty that had taken the indians from where we live from oklahoma and we had managed not to go we felt we would be recognized because we had to find ten years to prove the federal government that when you

are looking at a process that is so rigid you have to meet every single criteria and you have to meet it exactly criteria a, b, c. you can't do that if you don't realize the differences that come in indian people and that is the starting place. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from american samoa. >> thank you mr. sherman and i want to commend you via the ranking member for calling this hearing this afternoon. especially, i want to congratulate our colleague from the mexico now that he's being selected as this important subcommittee the gentleman from new mexico. thank you for calling this hearing. i ask unanimous consent that my

opening record be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman, this is not a new issue as you know we have been through this play a number of years. when he was a member of this jury committee before he went on to become the united states senator i think the understanding of the institution in terms of the treatment of native american people's mr. sherman you probably more than anybody in this committee and in this congress understands and appreciates the problems that the native american communities have had to endure and to go through as part of the history of the country. it's interesting to know, mr. chairman, the first national policy was to kill the indians. the only indian was a dead indian was the understanding. then the next phase of the history was what's assimilate

the indians and make them all like fellow americans. desolation i think was our policy then. then another phase of the change of our historical relationship with the native americans this terminate the indian tribes. so in the 150 years, this is what we have had to do in dealing with native american communities. so, now the latest phase is to recognize the indians as indians, and i can't think of a tribe that has had to endure this andrew sum and also experience. over 100 years now the indians, the largest indian tribe east of the mississippi recognized by the north state of north carolina, 50,000 are not recognized, federally recognized because of bigotry, racism and all the problems these people have had to endure. ..

this was done since 1978, 34 years now and i remembered it singly years ago the very person who wrote the regulation, and bringing out the seven criteria that the tribes that had to go through in order to be so-called recognized, it came right before this committee mr. chairman and said the system is so bad even he would not have been able to go through the process of being recognized as an indian if the

process was to be carried. this is exactly where we are right now. in terms of our treaty relationship, i want to always thank the gentleman from michigan for reminding the members of the committee that we do have a very special relationship with native american indians. it's in the constitution. we even have treaties with native american tribes, i think 389 treaties we had with indian tribes in the federal government broke everyone of them. now that is pretty good. mr. chairman, i did introduce a bill, h.r. 3103 to establish a commission statutorily by the will and mandate of the congress and how to make the system better than what it is. we have had tribes go from 15 years and have had to spend $300,000 some even in the millions and still could not be recognized, simply because the system simply is not workable and functional. so why cannot express my own

sense of frustration mr. chairman and sincerely with your leadership that our subcommittee will certainly look at the possibility. let's mandate this by the congressman. here's the problem that we have here. congress ultimately does have the authority under the constitution to recognize an indian tribe simply by introducing a bill but here's the problem. when a bill is introduced to get recognition to a tribe, there is an issue by some of our colleagues here who say they have to go through the recognition process. a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress but the way that bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 30 or 40 years. so what do we do with the if the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress. what do we do from here? so i would strongly in my humble recommendation mr. chairman, we need to put this in the form of

the statute because here's here is the problem you have with a regulation that can be done by this administration and the next administration will change their regulation. and a poor indian tribes don't know who to turn to simply because it's inconsistent that we have had in dealing with the wreck mission process. i noticed that my time is up mr. chairman. i just wanted to have a chance to ask that question. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back or goes be a great speech. the gentlelady from wyoming. >> thank you mr. chairman. that's fine. >> two lovely ladies. >> congratulations to ranking member lujan. your important issue we are dealing with today. ms. tucker i want to thank you for your testimony because i come from south dakota and we have nine tribes that are already recognized by the federal government. they are treaty tribes in your

story is not one that i often get a chance to hear so i want to thank you or that in your testimony gave an education to somebody who has a different experience with tribes that are recognized in a much different manner so i appreciate that. tribes that are located in my state, it's important to recognize they are being recognized in different manner and a longtime treaty tribes do have a different status. we need to make sure that and all of this process that we have this discussion and going forward whatever the decision is and the action the congress takes that we deal with integrity and we recognize there are treaty rights and we also recognize that it is our job to review the standards for which we let nice tribes into the future. i find it very interesting as most everybody does here as well as that the department of interior was invited but declined to intend. my hope is everyone a agency believes this is an important issue and they should have been here today to talk to our tribes and to have a discussion on them and how they are recognized as

they are located here in the united states. the department of interior and secretary salazar should make this a priority. i know that hearing from some of the tribes in south dakota that they feel the department of the interior and the bureau of indian affairs are not making native americans a priority and unfortunately their lack of attendance here today tells me that is yet another example of them not making this a priority. the federal government does need to fulfill its promises and his obligation to tribes but too often they fall short. that is not acceptable to me. i also wanted to, supervisor dillon at the bottom of your testimony on page five, i just had a question for you. one of the footnote talks about you were -- a special relationship that happens between the tribes in the federal government but that special relationship should not diminish the intensity with which the government litigates tribal claims. can you expand on that and a little bit what that means and the experience you have had with

the sense that they have not litigated that with intensity. >> thank you. i would be happy to. we have found in a litigation we have had is there were defenses, legal defenses that the government put forth that then did not use. they have not asserted those defensive in a proactive way at all. it's as if one might say that the cia's a bit conflicted and another reason why we advocate that this process recognition for a terminated tribe, tribe that was terminated by congress, should not occur in litigation. the bia is obviously sympathetic to the try. they are not pursuing the remedy such as latches, meaning they were 50 years ago that they were terminated and now they have come forward. the government has not asked for the kind of discovery to -- that

is required to establish its their tribe and in fact when we, the county, asked for that proof, the reaction from the tribe was to move the court to dismiss us from the case and the government is silent on that request. they have not taken a position. as it they think it's okay for the tribe to dismiss us from the case and for there not to be any proof put forward. so, in your experience then you have seen them bring these forward, the defense to draw attention to them but yet you haven't seen them actually pursue them are all the cases that were carried out? >> they put them off their initial response that they have done nothing. >> do you think they choose to ignore its? >> yes we believe that's the case. >> that i would like to ask for your feedback, chairman gabaldon is well on what you perspective

would be and you feel as though the government's relationship with your tribe as they worked through this process, you feel as though there are defenses that they are working in cooperation with you on or do you feel there has been clear separation? >> i would almost have to defer to my attorney on that legal issue. this isn't really the place to discuss the case, but i can tell you it's no case law dealing with the government. >> well thank you. i appreciate your being here today and with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> i tangled the lady from hawaii. >> thank you mr. chairman. and congratulations. i saw congressman lujan on the way to work this morning. he was up early. let need first begin with ms. tucker. i looked at your testimony and it's not numbered but it is

about page five i guess where you have your chronology. your timeline. and it says 1976 to 77 is when the initial petition was filed, and of course in 2011, you still basically -- >> we are still waiting. >> are you waiting for that initial petition? >> well no, the initial petition was returned and the cardboard rocks which i guess some of the data, most of the data, and a letter that we would start again. so now we have roughly 144 banker boxes and after sitting and ready for active consideration for a number of years, we finally got moved in december at christmas. so what did they do for you at christmas? >> they moved us to active

consideration. by that point in time we had probably in-house written for petitions. any time of finding comes out on a tribe, or any time a court case is initiated by a petitioner, it changes something, and we are required to respond to the change, because our petition will not be judged on their current regulations. >> did you file any legal actions in 1976 to 2011? >> no, we have been haven't filed any court cases. it's very expensive to go to court and we are a very poor tribe. >> isn't this also very expensive? >> this was very expensive. in the case of moving us to active consideration, we have been very fortunate that administration for native americans had a funding that was available for tribes in status

clarification. and our tribe was able to get funding that could help us defray some of this. >> have you been given any indie vacation as to when -- indication as to when they may make a final determination? >> my conversation -- i testified on the process before the senate and my conversation at christmas was they had a year to respond. i have heard from no one inside their organization assigned to us. i offered to come and meet with them and they said that was not necessary, and that they would make a decision. i asked them at that time, with amec and on-site visit because that's important, that you come and see the community and how we live. and they said that they would determine an on sight if they thought it was merited from our data. >> i read 238.seven and the

seven criteria's have portions of it which are time-sensitive it would appear. for example 50% and geographical locations. have any of those criteria begun to now affect your eligibility? in other words over this period of time by assuming his change. >> even though demographically our members are located in the same area, time is change. if you look at the years between let's say 18621940, before this defense installation got into our area we were doing primarily second cousin exchange marriages and it was holding up very tightly together in terms of one of those criteria they look for. at that point, as we are changing through time and becoming a more modern nation, people are coming and going in

moving more, yes it does affect, do you have 50% marriage in one another. >> this is the criteria that if the person of the marriages are marriages in a group. like you said your second cousin? >> exactly second cousin exchange. another requirement when you are looking at it every 10 years. they would like to report that someone came where i live in the remote parts of florida where it wasn't allowed and we would probably not be treated well to come there any way. it is hard to be tactful sometimes on how i say things. let you know when you are looking at a place that we could finally stand up and fight in 1940 and say here we are. you didn't get rid of all of us and now they say well that's great and a 1900 can you show me where the anthropologists that you were here? well, no, i can't. so that is the kind of

regulation challenge. >> thank you and my time is up. >> i apologize for taking too much time. >> that's fine. >> we do have more time. mr. thompson we don't have anybody else on our side right now. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for allowing me to sit in on today's hearing and mr. lujan congratulations on your ascension to the ranking member position. i know you will do a fantastic job. thank you to all the witnesses who came today to testify on this very important issue. i want to begin by saying that i like myself with the chairman and i believe the other members who have gone on record stating that they believe it's the role of congress to make these determinations, not the courts, not the department, and also i align myself with mr. denham.

i am quite honestly a little flabbergasted that the interior is not here. most of my questions are for them number one, but they have been absent on my side of the discussion in regard to this issue and i really think that they need to participate so we can figure out how to best make these determinations. they need to be part of that process. i just have a couple of questions, and chairwoman tucker, are you pursuing legislation? >> yes sir, we have been in the legislative process 34 years and now we have come to congress. >> in that case i also allied myself with chairwoman tucker and the chairman of the committee in regard to the proper process for making these determinations. ms. dillon, what is the current status of the litigation? >> currently we are waiting for

determination from the court as to whether the tribal council motion to have it dismissed from the case will be granted or not. >> and is there also some other information that you are waiting on as party to this suit? >> well we have never received any information from the tribe that we have asked for. our discovery demands have been ignored. >> mr. gabaldon is there a reason why you have not been forthcoming with the information regarding the folks who are enrolled in your tribe and the status? >> yes i am at there is a reason. we don't feel it's the county's business as to do the job of the department of the interior. no county has ever asked for records, social security's numbers addresses and names of travel members, so i want to correct them is to win when she

says it was after the after discovery we removed them. we remove them because they had their shot in and court. they filed nine motions to remove us. the judge denied all those motions and we kept going. so then they appeal that and they lost the appeal so we felt, what are they here for? for? it would be up to the judge to determine if they have a right to have standing, and we feel they don't have standing so we will let the judge make that decision as to if they have standing and if the judge sees they have standing we will give them the information they need. >> are the membership rolls available? have they been released to interior, to the court -- >> we have released them to the interior i believe in 2010. they have all of our records and there is speculation that we

don't belong to the original group. i would like to make a clear, there is only one group. >> who determines that? i'm assuming the department has that information and they are able to run the traps and figure out if folks are who the -- are who they say they are. there is a continuity of tribal organizations, tribal governments, is that correct? >> yeah, that was requested. >> who determines that? >> the department of interior. >> so they have everything they need in order to do that? >> we have given it to them like i said in 2010 and if they need a copy we will give it to them. >> and the department of -- advice to you should go through the court to settle this? >> when we asked for it administration restoration, we did ask the mayor to do that and he advised us to go through the

courts or through congress and we understand that there are political challenges in congress and so we wanted a fair shot through the courts as recommended by mr. echohawk. >> so he recommended that even though he has all the documentation that you believe would determine your tribal status? >> i believe he has. i don't believe they went through it. >> i have no other questions. thank you. >> i don't want to question anybody here today. i just liked what you said in the sense that it shows the system is broke. i have always said that congress should have the authority to issue recognition and not the bureau. and i think it shows with the bureau has done here, that they still think they have the deal and that is the trouble with this congress and has occurred over the years. we have transferred power to the

executive branch, and that always changes. there is no real standard. i believe they have seven to nine standards but we have had cases where they accept one tribe and they won't accept the other tribe. i would like to see this congress, this committee, work together and sit down with the people at this table and other tribes that wish to be recognized and set out a criteria of criteria that we make a judgment on and it may be difficult but i tell you it will be a lot stronger and a lot better. i don't like the interior branches recognizing a tribe without any input at all. even when they were recognized and didn't has to be. i don't think it's the right thing to do. they overstepped their andre. >> mr. chairman could i ask in regard to the department of the interior, are you going to -- are they going to come to the committee to ask questions in the questions that i had today? >> we will have another hearing. and i'm not saying we have got

people from virginia here in this room, but we are going to move that bill again and we will see what happens on the senate side but i suggest you talk to the senate side. because the state, i think the state recognizes, your state ms. tucker do they recognize you too? >> we have no mechanism for state recognition. we were recognized in 1986. i have the language from the people and since we haven't dealt indian commission they had nowhere to put us. >> and again i believe mr. weaver you have been recognized by the state? >> we have. >> if you are recognized by the state, and i know the virginia tribes were, mr. moran specifically show that to us and i just think that for some reason there is a shortage of wisdom in the interior department and i still believe my good colleagues that although

it would take some time and effort, i think we have the responsibility trust wise. ways. we shouldn't transfer power to the executive branch. we are doing it and we have done it over and over and all different walks of our lives and i think in this case because of the nation to nation trust authority, we have to do a better job. we are going to try to do that. any other comments from any other member's? mr. lujan? >> mr. chairman to quick questions. mr. gabaldon, one of the criteria of 25 cfr 83, 83.7g stays the petitioner demonstrates neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation and have expressly terminated or have been in a federal relationship. see i'm sorry, i didn't hear your question. >> section g states that if you

don't meet this criteria, there is no administrative relief or no -- you don't have the opportunity to pursue it administratively but the criteria is the petitioner demonstrates that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbid the federal relationship. would your tribe follow into that? would it meet that criteria? >> we don't meet that criteria. that is why we weren't able to use the petition process. >> i think that's important to know as we talk about this. some of the aspects associated with judicial i think recommendations from former assistant secretary echohawk and their pursuit that may be one of those areas but it's something that's important to know. and because the tribe is in a situation where how it is privately held, there is not public lack in that area.

has that been talked about by the tribe at all? >> i will tell you, no land has been talked about by the tribe. the only land we seek from the federal government was the land that doesn't require anything from the county because it's already in a federal trust. we weren't seeking land like the old reservation that is in the private hands now. i will tell you in the beginning we did seek that linda was to make a statement to the federal government saying we want it back immediately. if you look at our first amendment complaint, we have changed that because we understood that a ruffle the feathers of the council saying you need to go through the process. we are not denying the fact that we have to go through the process and we surely will but right now it's not about land. it's about restoration and it's always been about restoration. >> thank you for the indulgence. mr. chairman appreciated.

>> any other questions? if not i want to thank the panel. >> i would like to acknowledge what you said about congress's ability or power or authority to recognize. as of april 2011 the gao report out of the five and 64 tribes that have been recognized, five and in 30 of them were through congress so i trust the collective wisdom of the congress and i appreciate the fact that the virginia tribes gained recognition through the house. so again i am very optimistic that the right thing will happen. >> and if i can be a little bit snide here, i preferred going through this way and not through lawyers and for those in the audience if your hair is rising, good. i get very frustrated the money that is spent on legal advice, when it should directly not money but the petition to the

congress, and i have a couple of lawyers so i have to be careful. i watch it every day and it's a great industry but it frankly produces nothing. it absorbs money and that is the terrible thing. a short comment and i want to adjourn this. >> my short comment is the lawyer we are using is very helpful and he did a lot of it pro bono. >> he must be an angel and there are dam few of them. this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody's going to have. what role does the government play in housing finance? if you want to subsidize housing in this country, and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees that is something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it's costing. but when you deliver it through a third-party enterprises,