White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1017.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1017 is a single rule that provides for separate consideration of three measures dealing with water rights settlements. Each bill is to be considered under a structured amendment process.

The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act; and H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009. Each bill has 1 hour of general debate, to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule for H.R. 1065 self-executes an amendment to ensure that the bill is PAYGO compliant. Each bill allows for the consideration of a separate amendment by Representative McClintock, which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also allows a motion to recommit, with or without instructions, for each of the three bills.

H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009; H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; and H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act are all bipartisanship pieces of legislation, and they are all sensible pieces of legislation. Each of these bills will approve, ratify, and confirm carefully negotiated settlement agreements between tribal representatives, non-Indian water users, and the United States Government.

These agreements will provide both the tribes involved and affected communities in Arizona and New Mexico proper access to clean water. These three bills will provide critical funding for the development of drinking water supplies for people who have been hauling their water for years in the back of their pickup trucks. We know how critical clean drinking water is for the human body's health and development. These bills will improve the health of young Native Americans by providing clean drinking water, and certainty to non-Indian people that the water will be available to them for development and use.

H.R. 1065 provides the required congressional approval for the agreement between the White Mountain Apache tribe and water users throughout Arizona. This legislation boasts the support of the entire bipartisanship Arizona delegation.

H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 each approve water settlement agreements in New Mexico considered critical to clean water access to the Taos Valley and Rio Grande watershed. Both of these bills were favorably reported by voice vote out of the Natural Resources Committee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has taken decades to work out these settlements. Congress has a responsibility to approve these settlements now and provide clean drinking water access for the affected tribes and the non-Indian people, and for their generations to come. I believe it is time for Congress to move on these bills, and I am pleased that Chairman Rahall and the Natural Resources Committee has worked in a bipartisan way to move these bills through the process.

Now, there is some concern on the other side of the aisle that the Justice Department has not commented formally on any of these bills. Our colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) believes the Department of Justice should formally respond to each of these bills before they take effect. The gentleman from California has legitimate concerns, and these concerns deserve to be considered on the floor today, and that is why we made this amendment in order on each of these bills.

This is a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how well my colleague on the Rules Committee adheres to the Republican talking points, but I will again reiterate that all the amendments that were brought to the Rules Committee last night were made in order. And I think this is a good rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that the gentleman's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the bill that we're talking about here today, I find it ironic that any Member on the other side of the aisle would talk about jobs with a straight face given their record.

In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, an improvement of nearly 90 percent. That is not acceptable, but we are trying to bring this economy in a different direction.

They drove this economy into a ditch; let's not forget that. Let's not forget the economy that President Obama inherited. Let's not forget the record job losses and the stock market crash and all the special deals on Wall Street.

I've heard enough from the other side about the issue of jobs. They nearly ruined this economy. They are responsible for the massive job losses that we see now that we're trying to fix. So enough about that.

I will go back to what we are talking about here today, and that is a rule to consider these important bills dealing with clean water for Native American tribes. I again would reiterate that this is a good rule, everything they wanted they got, and I hope it will pass unanimously.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me say a couple of things.

One is that this is a good rule and it should be approved. Secondly, and I say this with respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they talk about sunshine, it's laughable. When you compare the transparency and the openness of this Democratic Congress to the way this place was run when they were in charge, there is no comparison.

I remember one night, after a conference report was completed and when all of the signatures were on the conference report, when they snuck in a special provision to provide special immunity to drug companies. That's the kind of transparency and openness that existed when they were in control.

On the health care bills, they've been on the Web. The House bill has been on the Web, and the Senate bill has been on the Web. Even the Senate read it verbatim. So there has never been as much openness and transparency in any Congress as we've seen in this Congress.

When my friend from Florida talks about the deficit, boy, what a short memory. When Bill Clinton left office, he had eliminated the deficit, and we had started paying down the debt, and we left George Bush, Dick Cheney and my Republican friends with a surplus. Through their reckless policies--tax breaks for millionaires, special privileges for Wall Street and drug companies and all that they did-- they racked up a record debt, and they did nothing about it. In fact, when they were in charge, they used to argue on the floor that somehow the deficit and the debt didn't matter anymore. They tried to say it wasn't a big deal.

So they left this President with a mess. I guess it's sometimes fun to make a mess, but it's not so fun and not so easy to clean up a mess. The Democrats in Congress and the President of the United States have to clean up the mess that they left. It's a little bit ironic that those who drove this economy into a ditch are complaining about the size of the tow truck.

The fact of the matter is we have to make some tough decisions. We have to create the conditions for jobs to grow. We have to invest in industries where there is a future, and we are trying to do that.

Again, in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy was losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, which is an improvement of nearly 90 percent. We on the Democratic side have pledged to do everything we can to help create more jobs in this country and to focus on the issue of jobs, because that's where the concern amongst the American people really is.

In the stock market, stocks have seen significant gains since the beginning of March 2009, following the passage of the Recovery Act, which they all were opposed to. The Dow is up 58 percent. The S&P is up 64 percent. The Nasdaq is up 75 percent.

The GDP has grown. In the first quarter of 2009, the GDP was negative 6.4 percent. By the third quarter of 2009, the GDP was on the rise, increasing plus-2.2 percent, the best quarter for growth in 2 years. Forecasters predict steady GDP growth throughout 2010.

We see home sales are now rising. We see manufacturing beginning to rebound. U.S. manufacturing activity rose 55.9 from 53.6 in November, reaching the highest level since April of 2006. It is a positive indication of broader economic growth.

So it is difficult to sit here and to listen to lectures from Members on the other side of the aisle who created this mess, which is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's what they gave to President Obama. We have to fix it, and we have pledged to do whatever is necessary to help put people back to work, to help people be able to stay in their homes, and to help nurture growth in future industries.

So, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Given their abysmal record, it's hard to believe they come here with straight faces to talk about these things; but we're going to fix the mess that they made.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1017 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 847) expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives that any conference

committee or other meetings held to determine the content of

national health care legislation be conducted in public under

the watchful eye of the people of the United States. The

resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of

the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which

may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall

not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 847.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the next 2 days, the House is set to consider three separate bills that would approve and ratify tribal claims to water rights made by the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona and the Pueblos of Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos in New Mexico. The bills would also restore and protect some environmentally sensitive land and watersheds, and require the maintenance of the water systems in question until they are conveyed to the respective tribes.

I support these bills when the McClintock amendments are included because I believe that the settlements will bring long-term certainty and stability to the respective tribes and water users in the affected areas.

Mr. Speaker, last night the majority in the Rules Committee decided to allow for consideration all three of the amendments submitted to the three bills we are set to consider this week. I wish to thank them for their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing minority amendments. These important amendments would prevent the bill from taking effect until the Attorney General assures Congress in writing that the settlements in these bills would represent a net benefit to the U.S. taxpayer based on the costs and risks of litigation and the odds the tribes would prevail in the litigation. I believe these amendments are important because they require the Attorney General to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of the settlements and make sure that they are fiscally responsible before the settlement funds can be paid.

Now, I assume that the other side of the aisle will highlight that this rule allows debate on all of the amendments which were submitted to the Rules Committee, but it restricts any and all possible further amendments from consideration. It is not an open rule. The majority campaigned on a promise to allow open and bipartisan debates in

Congress, yet this year they have yet to allow even one open rule. That is correct, not one open rule. And that, Mr. Speaker, includes even the traditionally open appropriations process.

They could have changed that glaring and unfortunate statistic by allowing an open rule on the underlying, uncontroversial bill, but the majority in the Rules Committee decided to continue to make this the most closed Congress in history.

Now, let's look at the possible reasons the majority on the Rules Committee decided to vote against an open rule for these bills. Could it be that there is not enough time on the House schedule this week? Well, the House, until last night, was scheduled to be in session until Friday. And this rule, as proposed, only allows for a total of 3\1/2\ hours of total debate time for all three bills and all three amendments.

Even though we are now scheduled to leave on Thursday, we still have more than enough time to complete the three bills with an open rule. I sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time, and to prove, at least offer some evidence, that they are living up to their pledge to run an open Congress.

I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open debate even on uncontroversial bills, and so they restrict debate consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close debate in the House. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, it is not a question of talking points, it is a question of fact. We will move on.

I at this point yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes, to my distinguished friend from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw last night that the blame game no longer works. And if we want to look at the past, we will see that when we cut taxes, we made it a reality; the recession after 9/11 was the shortest recession in history.

Now, unfortunately, the policies that are being followed now are totally different. They're increasing debt massively. The deficit as a percentage of GDP after TARP--that I opposed, but it can be said that it was a bipartisan decision, TARP--after TARP, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 4 percent. Today, 1 year after the Democrats took the Presidency and they had already taken the House and the Senate, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is almost 12 percent, Mr. Speaker.

We are running in a dangerous direction, heading toward a collision with a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportion. But, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats just don't get it. They don't see it. The American people sent a message last night that they had better, but it still remains to be seen if they received the message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as we wait for the Republican leader, let me say that I have enjoyed this debate. These are noncontroversial bills that are being brought to the floor, and yet they're important. And, also, there are issues that have been brought out and that will be brought out now. I will oppose the previous question to bring out the issue that Mr. Buchanan talked about and bring it to a floor vote this morning.

Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. I think that quote is fitting. It's fitting today considering, as Mr. Buchanan pointed out, that as we speak, the majority is drafting, behind closed doors with no sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every American.

So I think the question is begged, what is going on behind those closed doors? We don't know. We do not even know who is at the table. The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors.

We need to bring sunlight, sunshine, into a process that is shrouded with secrecy. That is why I, along with a bipartisan group of 163 Members of this House, have cosponsored House Resolution 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague, Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House that any meetings held to determine the final contents of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not behind closed doors. Mr. Buchanan pointed out the fact that C-SPAN has offered, in fulfillment of a campaign promise by the President, to be present at the negotiations.

Now, in order to help bring in sunshine to a process that the majority continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to continue the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will give Members of the majority a chance to live up to their promise, as the distinguished Speaker said, ``to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.''

Madam Speaker, I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize consideration of the water rights bills and of the settlement bills that are being brought to the floor today; but I wish to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Buchanan transparency resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the water rights bills and then, once we are done, so that we can consider the Buchanan transparency resolution, H. Res. 847.

I have been informed that the Republican leader will not be coming down to the floor at this time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I rise in opposition to the rule.

Today, the press is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit-cutting commission by Executive

order. There are also reports that instead of putting every spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending controlled by the Democratic-controlled Appropriations Committee would be exempt.

I oppose creating this panel by Executive order, and the American people will oppose this sleight of hand also. Press reports suggest that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission's recommendation up for a vote in Congress, but a vote that is not mandated as it would be if Congress passed similar legislation statutorily. More important, the vote that could take place under the administration's plan would happen after the midterm elections and before the newly elected Congress begins. It would be basically a lame- duck Congress vote. Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy but never be accountable to the American people. Is it right for an outgoing Member of Congress to consider proposals that could affect every single American, knowing that days or weeks later they will no longer answer to voters in the district they once represented?

Between the Democrats and the Republicans in both Chambers, over 30 Members have already announced that they are retiring or running for another office. It is not appropriate for outgoing lawmakers who may eventually lobby for a special interest that has a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission to then vote on that recommendation. Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly elected Congress, who will have to publicly stand by their vote on the commission's recommendations, Members who have been elected and are accountable to the American people. A deficit commission established through Executive order amounts to nothing more than political cover.

This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending that will conveniently help them survive the upcoming election cycle. All of a sudden, the Obama administration has found deficit-cutting religion. The same administration that pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus promising that unemployment would be held under 8 percent now wants to get our Nation's financial house in order. The same administration that promised an open and transparent process on health care reform, which is now being negotiated behind closed doors and could cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion, now wants credibility on spending issues.

The FY 2009 budget deficit registered at an unprecedented $1.4 trillion. I believe the American people understand the depth of our financial problems, recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked on, and won't be fooled by a fig leaf commission established by an Executive order.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the American people will be cut out of the process under this plan. The bipartisan commission process I've talked about, and many Members on both sides have talked about for 4 years, includes a legitimate public engagement mandating public town hall- style meetings throughout the country. Now there will be no input from the hardworking people in our neighborhoods and communities. That is not right, and everyone knows it.

If lawmakers were serious about the debt and the deficit issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would halt the budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and muster the political will to have an honest conversation with the American people about where we are, where we're heading, and what changes need to be made to get back on track. But an open process that allows the American people to weigh in will never happen through a commission established by an Executive order all done here in Washington.

This morning, Congressman Lamar Smith, our colleague from Texas, in a 1-minute speech on the floor offered a series of lessons to be learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said, All true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not have a voice in a deficit commission established through an Executive order.

He also said that common sense triumphs partisanship. A commission through Executive order negotiated by one party is the height of partisanship. Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have not been involved in this effort.

He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway?

In closing, Mr. Smith correctly, and I say correctly, noted that one- party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of power by a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. And to be fair, Republicans were just as arrogant at times. Hopefully we have learned a lesson and will never go back to those times.

Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the American people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. We would be wise in this Congress to heed that lesson.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, January 12, I requested and received a leave of absence until January 27, 2010.

For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, below is how I would have voted on the following votes I missed during this time period.

On rollcall 1, Establishing a quorum in the House of Representatives for the Second Session of the 111th Congress, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 2, Disposing of the President's Veto of H.J. Res. 64 (H.J. Res. 64), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 3, Honoring the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (H. Res. 1002) I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 4, Supporting the initiatives of Chicago Wilderness and the Children's Outdoor Bill of Rights (H. Res. 860), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 5, To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, as the ``E.V. Wilkins Post Office (H.R. 3892), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 6, Congratulating the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine for its 150 years of commitment to advancing science and improving health (H. Res. 1004), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 7, Congratulating the Penn State women's volleyball team on winning the 2009 NCAA Division I national championship (H. Res. 1015), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 8, Commending the University of Virginia men's soccer team for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship (H. Res. 991), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 9, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3254-Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act--H.R. 3342 Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act--and H.R. 1065-White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009 (H. Res. 1017), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 10, Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2009 (H.R. 3726), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 11, Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act (H.R. 3254), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 12, Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (H.R. 3254), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 13, Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act (H.R. 3342), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 14, White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009 (H.R. 1065), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 15, Expressing Condolences to and Solidarity with the People of Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating Earthquake of January 12th, 2010 (H.R. 1021), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 16, Nuclear Forensics and Attribution Act (H.R. 730), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 17, Expressing support for designation of January 2010 as ``National Mentoring Month'' (H. Res. 990), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 18, Recognizing the importance of cervical health and of detecting cervical cancer during its earliest stages and supporting the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month (H. Res. 1011), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 19, Expressing support for the designation of January 10, 2010, through January 16, 2010, as National Influenza Vaccination Week (H. Res. 1003), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 20, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4474--Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act--and H.R. 3726-Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 (H. Res. 1038), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 21, Expressing support for designation of January as Poverty in America Awareness Month (H. Res. 1024), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 22, Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act (H.R. 4474), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 23, Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 (H.R. 3726), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 24, To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (H.R. 4508), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 25, Honoring the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National Park Act (H.R. 1020), I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Water Rights Quantification Act.

Water is a precious resource to all of us in the Southwest. In my district, farmers have to fight to keep their crops growing, firefighters are constantly challenged by raging wildfires, and local officials consider the drinking water supply in every discussion of the community's future. We know we need to make each drop count. That is why I am proud to have worked with the White Mountain Apache and other stakeholders to introduce this bill.

The White Mountain Apache Water Rights Quantification Act finalizes a settling agreement that will end a long-running water rights dispute in greater Arizona and provides a path toward a reliable long-term water supply for the White Mountain Apache tribe and areas across the State.

The agreement under consideration continues a long history of settlements of Indian water rights disputes in our State. We have found time and again that these settlements, as opposed to litigation, help the tribes and their neighbors achieve real certainty in their water supply. They are able to better plan for the years to come. The negotiating process also builds working relationships between the parties involved, allowing them to cooperate and more effectively manage their watersheds for the future. With this legislation, folks here will finally begin to see these benefits.

Along with approving the agreement, this bill authorizes construction of the Miner Flat dam and pipeline, which will provide a 100-year municipal drinking water supply to towns on the White Mountain Apache tribal lands. That is critically important because our need for drinking water is both immediate and serious. People in the area are being threatened with water shortages even now, in the winter of what was a great water year in the rest of the State.

Nearly 15,000 tribal members will be served by the project, and it cannot come a moment too soon for them. Furthermore, it lets us move forward with a number of projects that are crucial economic drivers for the region: fish hatcheries, irrigation projects, and infrastructure improvements to a local ski park. We will be able to create jobs and get folks back to work.

I was born and raised on White Mountain Apache tribal lands, and my hometown is one of those that would gain from this project. I have seen firsthand the challenges that these communities face, and I am confident that this legislation will make a real difference in addressing them.

At this point, I would like to address the cost issue that has been raised by my esteemed colleague from Washington. When I was a kid, we had to boil our water, and if we didn't, we got sick. We got real sick. That was over 50 years ago. We didn't have the convenience of purified water that comes delivered in big jugs that I've seen in most congressional offices here in Washington. That situation, where folks living in the United States today do not have access to running water that they can drink, is not acceptable.

My confidence that this legislation will make a real difference in addressing those critical needs is shared by many in Arizona where the bill has earned widespread support. Every single member of our State's delegation in

the House is cosponsoring H.R. 1065, and I want to point out that that includes my esteemed colleague Congressman Jeff Flake, who I think is the watchdog of the House on spending in Congress.

I have worked closely with Senator Kyl to move forward on this critical project in both Chambers. Folks on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of securing our water supply. They also recognize the effort and care it has taken to get to this point. The settlement has taken 21 different stakeholder groups years of negotiation and compromise to reach. It is carefully crafted to best fit the needs and demands of all those involved. It is time for folks in my district to get the infrastructure and water supply they have been working toward for so long.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.