But it is unreasonable to expect Congress to simply ignore such concerns and fast-track this legislation without considering the effects of these bills.

Let us be clear about what this legislation will do.

We are very eager and willing and ready to continue participating in this process, working toward a common solution.

I am here to oppose these measures because of my respect for the principles of sovereignty and the practical impact of land into trust.

It would be neither responsible nor constructive for this Committee or the Congress to attempt to push through legislation like the bills before us today without considering the views of the states, counties and cities that we represent.

I recognize and respect the feeling of obligation that you feel and I share for the oppression and the injustice that has been visited by our nation on Native Americans.

I want to say at the outset that I not only respect their views but certainly am deeply moved by their stories.

I believe either the Department of the Interior or the Congress has to clarify what is meant by that term, 'Federal jurisdiction'.

I think everyone testifying, pro and con, has referred to it as a fix. It is a quick fix that in the long term may do more harm than good.

The current process is lawless.

This may strike many on both sides of the aisle as going too far and greatly overstepping a direct answer to the Carcieri decision.

In my view, that issue would be mooted if it adopted the recommendation that I have made, which is that it take back authority for all of these fee into trust decisions.

Congress has this responsibility, and it should take back control.

possibly our greatest ally in the world, besides Britain, Australia, is becoming much more public about their very deep concerns with respect both to China's military modernization, as well as our staying power and our presence in the…

This proposal would create a new agency, a very strong financial products watchdog and guardian.

Since the very first hearings before this Committee on modernizing our financial regulatory structure, I have said that consumer protection should be a top priority in our deliberations.

These moments are the reason that I and many of my colleagues were enraged by the spectacular failure of consumer protection that destroyed economic security for so many of our American families.

I appreciate the opportunity to strongly support the Administration's proposal to create a Federal agency dedicated solely to protecting consumer interests in financial products and markets, and preserve and expand State consumer…

What has happened, Senator, and that question is a very good one, is that many nonbanking institutions have, in effect, invoked the shield by aligning themselves with national banks.

Creating a new agency to fight consumer cons and abuse in alliance with the States, the Federal Government can muster more potent and proactive policing and prosecution.

To those who helped create this mess and now plan to flood the airwaves with misleading propaganda, I have just two words for you: Get real.

That is why I called for the creation of an independent consumer protection agency whose sole focus is the financial well-being of consumers.

As a former United States Attorney, I can tell you that organized crime would offer a better deal.

The new agency--a consumer financial guardian--promises to be a powerful watchdog and protector, and a partner of State attorneys general in fighting for our citizens.

We know now that for 14 years, despite a clear directive from the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve Board took no action to ban abusive home mortgages.