mr. denham and mr.walz, for their dedicated service to our nation while in uniform and for the commitment, supporting our veterans here in congress. i deeply value and appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces. i'm proud to represent thousands of them who reside in the 11th district of virginia, a district that takes military service very seriously and holds it in high esteem. i believe we here in congress have a sacred duty, mr. speaker, to provide for their well-being. for that reason i strongly support efforts to expedite the transition of our nation's warriors to civilian life. we need to do all we can to help these dedicated veterans find gainful employment. it's a shameful fact that the men and women who volunteered to safeguard our country are having so much trouble finding steady, good-paying jobs. a double-digit unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans almost -- veterans, almost double the national average, is simply unacceptable. transitioning to civilian life is

mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointing to see that secretary salazar and the bureau of indian affairs has not engaged this committee on this important issue. this is -- i mean, this is and always has been an act of congress under the constitution, but without the administration working with congress, it makes it tremendously difficult to create an even playing field and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i -- i would continue to press the bia and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to resolution on some of these issues. first, chairman gabaldon, i want to understand your issue of termination. more specifically, you were -- you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california ranch act as 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the tillie hardwick decision? >> no, sir. we were part of that case, and we were dropped off that case in 1987 with no prejudices. >> why? why wasn't --

mr. denham. i'm quite honestly a little flabbergasted that the interior is not here. they -- 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 howo best make these determinations. they need to be part of that -- of that process. i just have a couple of questions, and chairwoman tucker. >> yes, sir. >> are you suing, or are you pursuing legislation? >> no, sir. we've been in the legislative process 34 years and now we've come to congress >> thank you. and in that case i also align myself with chairwoman tucker and the chairman of the committee in regard to the proper process for making these -- these determinations. miss dillon, what's the current status of the litigation? >> currently we are waiting for a determination from the court as to whether the tribal council's motion to have us dismissed from the case will be granted or not. >> and is there also some other information that you're waiting on as party to this suit? >>

mr. denham, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the commell house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5856 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 20 13 -- 2013 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, july 18, 2012, the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 153, line 15. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section, section, none of the fund made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, united states code. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for fufe -- five minutes. mr. king: tha

mr. denham. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. panetta, mr. shinseki both deceive -- glad to see you both here. by the way thank you for your support on the veterans jobs this weekend to law. a good bipartisan effort that we worked on after afghanistan trip. another issue that came up during that same trip was working with our veterans on active duty that were transitioning back and had disabilities and further conversations with general law stick afterwards, he had said that this was the number one issue, the evaluation process of those disabled before they get discharge, making sure not a day goes by that they are having to wait for disability or the issue of 20,000 non-deployable men and women that are disabled on active duty. he said it was the number one issue dealing with legislative issue that needs to be taken back to 1940 and the question i would have for you is what would be your recommendation and what is the legislative fix that you need us to pass that would help with this overall disability evaluation system? >> my view is that o

mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointed to see the secretary salazar and that bureau of indian affairs had not engaged this committee on this important issue. this is, i mean is a nose has been an act of congress under the constitution, but without the administration working with congress, it makes it tremendously difficult to create an even playing field, and certainly to move forward on this matter. so i would continue to press the bia and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to some resolution on some of these issues. first, i want to understand your issue of termination more specifically. you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california rancher we act, 41 other tribes were in california. >> and it wasn't restored under the tillie hardwick decision? >> no, sir. we were, part of that case and we were dropped off that case in 1987 with no prejudices. >> why? why wasn't that? >> well, we believe that the tillie h