mr. gabaldon, given your experience as a tribal leader, what recommendations do you have for us to improve the process? >> only one. i guess the only one would be hurry up because we're having elders die, and it's sad to see a lot of these elders that are dying and waiting their whole life to be part of something they once were part of. i guess the bureau of indian affairs needs to really consider what they are doing when they drag their feet. they -- they think that by slowing down these tribes they will run out of money. this is, i'm assuming, i don't know, but it's happening around the country. tribes aren't rich. we don't -- we don't have endless amount of funds to pursue courts. it's expensive. >> let me ask you another question. what part do you think the -- the local community has in the decision like this? do you think that this is strictly a federal government issue along with the tribe, or do you think the local community has any, you know, like the county government or the state government? do you think they have input to this? >> no, and i'm actually surprised the county offici

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 tha

mr. gabaldon, is it your assertion that you feel that your tribe was never terminated? >> no. we believe we were terminated in 1959, but it was by a non-wappo indian. >> i appreciate that very much. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. denham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first start by saying it is very disappointing to see that secretary saldsary and the we'ro 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 b.i.a. and secretary salazar to engage this committee so we can come to resolution on some of these issues. first, chairman gabldon, 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

mr. gabaldon, the -- one of the criteria of 25 cfr-83, 83.7g. it states that the petitioner demonstrates that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of a congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbident federal relationship. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the question. >> section g states that the -- if you don't meet this criteria, there's no administrative relief. you don't have the opportunity to pursue something administratively. what this states is the criteria is the petitioner demonstrates that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressed -- that has expressly terminated or forbidden the federal relationship. would your tribe fall into that? you wouldn't meet that cratia? >> we don't immediate the criteria because of the g. that's why we weren't able to use the petition process. >> i think that's important to note as we talk about this. some of the aspects associated with judicial i think recommendations from former assistant secretary and your purs

mr. gabaldon, is it your assertion that you feel that your tribe was never terminated? >> no, we believe were terminated in 1959 but it was but a non-wobbler indian. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. dinunzio? 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 have not engaged in this committee on this important issue. this is a nose has been an active constitution. but without the administration working with congress, it makes it commits a difficult to create 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 could come to some resolution on some of these issues. first, chairman called upon, i want to understand about your issue of termination more specifically, you were terminated through an act of congress? >> we were terminated by the california ranch react as were 41 of the tribes in california spent and it wasn't restored under the de

mr. scott ubaldon. >> good. my name is scott gabaldon. i am -- i would like to thank for the opportunity. our tribe was wrongly terminated and deserves it restored. our history, the napa valley was inhabited solely by the indians until 1823 with 10,000 years of ancest ancestry. the name, napa valley itself is derived from our language, meaning land of plenty. although the county of napa posts the wappo indians as part of the heritage, some only want us to be a memory. representative mike thompson, who has had colorado first congressional district since 1998. the inconvenient truth of opposition to what is an injust done to the wappo people is those who oppose us are rich. there are no vineyards working to oppose us. the minimum wage workers do not oppose us, nor any local tribes in the area. they will use the stronghold of power in napa county when our tribe is restored. to those who misled and to garner your support through perspection. we are not a new tribe. the lies they told by agency desperate to satisfy a political agenda in 1958 are nothing compared to the lies being told to the c

mr. gabaldon, one of the criteria, 25 cfr -- 83.7 g. it states that the district demonstrates neither petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation has expressly terminated or federal relationship. and i'm sorry, i didn't hear the question. >> section g. states that if you don't meet this criteria, there's no administrative relief, or no relief that you had the opportunity to pursue something administrative. what the states is the criteria is the petitioner demonstrates that neither petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressed passionate expressly relationship. would your tribe fall into that? would you meet the criteria speak with we don't meet the criteria. that's why we weren't able to use the petition process. >> i just think that's important to note as we talk about this, some of the aspects associate with judicial i think recommendations from former assistant secretary ago hoc in your pacific that may be one of her areas but it's something that is important to