I cannot find the reference to which you say you have that power in there.

One of the reasons why I would like this in statute is so we know exactly what the game is, what the ball looks like, and it is listed in statute.

I appreciate the concept. You have memos. They are not the same thing as statute.

I suggest, respectfully, that we ought to really look at the big picture if we truly want to help the American Indians-- or just talk about it.

It is time for a paradigm shift, and it is time to actually have the agencies working with Congress, not opposed to Congress.

I would hope you would admit that if we put the criteria in statute, it has far more power and clarity than if it was simply in a regulation.

I would like to actually listen to the Native Americans themselves, get some testimony toward that.

Do you consider any tribes have been unlawfully recognized?

It may be cumbersome, it may be uncomfortable, but it is congressional responsibility.

The Constitution clearly says in the Indian Commerce Clause that Congress has the authority over Indian affairs.

What I am trying to do here is find out a way.

I appreciate you wanting to explain here. I do not have much time.

the rule must be fixed to foster MEP sponsorship and participation.

We believe the Department of the Treasury would benefit from a specific legislative solution.

None of the participating states feel the same way, and none of the participating states share the Office of Surface Mining's assessment of its own actions.

Estimates on how many jobs this will cost vary widely.

Many of my colleagues have already talked about, in great detail, the potentially disastrous effect of the new Stream Protection Rule.

I am just brainstorming here. I am not advocating that position, but it is an option that should be on the table.