Tom Cole

I really want to commend the Administration on this. We have had successive administrations... that did not sit down and bring this to a settlement.

If there is anything that we can do legislatively to help you in terms of facilitating that process, please let us know or come forward with recommendations because it really is very important, as you know, to a lot of tribal people.

I think you can get way too caught up in these details. It is people's lives and assets.

I would really like your comments. One of the things that really frustrated me at multiple administrations over the process of Cobell was this act of, investigation of the records, computations.

I think this is a history that is not a very happy one in this country where there has been a lot of abuses.

I will assure you you will be seeing lawsuits about this in the not-too-distant future.

I think Mr. Simpson makes an excellent point about maintaining this particular program over time.

I would also want to make sure that this is not because we simply are not spending enough money on roads and access.

I am just skeptical if it really is, and this has come to me rather recently.

I am a big proponent. I mean, I really do believe in user fees in a variety of areas.

I would be honored to assist in the passage of his bill as one of his lead Republican co-sponsors.

Since the Carcieri decision has been published, tribes throughout the United States are worried.

The Indian Reorganization Act was meant to encourage tribal sovereignty and self-governance in order to build sustainable self-governing tribal communities.

The Federal government's treatment of tribal nations over most of the last 200 years has often been reprehensible.

This decision, which would fundamentally change the nature of tribal land in the United States, caught most individuals in the tribal community by surprise.

H.R. 3697 and H.R. 3742, bills whose enactment would have amended Section 19.

This whole issue of force, this predates this freeze, of forced relocations is really interesting.

I think each side has a pretty good argument to make because at the end of the day we just underfund the program.

But you need, you do need to have that tool, and Congress needs to be willing to sort of, you know, stand up to the lobbies.

Most of the mail I get on this issue, Mr. Chairman, is from people who do not own horses, who have never been around horses.

The politics are tough.

This idea that you have to give up part of your sovereignty to get some of it is really incredibly offensive.

What is your comfort level that Johnson-O'Malley funds... are actually used as they are intended to be used?

Why would that be a problem to get some language that would eliminate that kind of ridiculous interpretation because these dual-use facility things are really good.

We would end paying for them in indigent care in some other facility when they are actually entitled to medical care.