Pursuit of International Education (PIE) Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act. Before I begin, I would like to thank

my colleagues on the Resource Committee: Chairman Rahall; Chairwoman Napolitano; my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich; and Ranking Member Hastings.

I also want to thank the Tesuque Acequia Association; David Ortiz and the Rio Pojoaque Acequia and Well Water Association; D.L. Sanders and the office of the New Mexico State Engineer; Santa Fe County, the city of Santa Fe; and the tribal leaders from Nambe, Pojoaque, Tesuque and San Ildefonso. Thank you for your hard work over the past decade to reach these settlements.

The testimony of the settlement parties and tough negotiations and debate has made the consideration of these bills possible today. The parties to this settlement have worked for a very long time to come up with solutions that are equitable and fair to all water users in the Pojoaque Valley, including tribal and non-tribal residents alike.

Our water resources are precious in New Mexico. Without a reliable water supply, we cannot improve human health, protect our cultures and traditions, or grow our economies. This settlement will protect water resources, advance the implementation of effective water management, and ensure future access to water resources for all residents encompassed by the settlement. That is what makes H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement Act of 2009, so important.

I would like to submit for the Record letters I have received from the State of New Mexico, the County of Santa Fe, the Rio Pojoaque Acequia and Well Water Association, the Tesuque Acequia Association and others who have asked Congress to take a serious look at the importance of approving these settlements because this piece of legislation is so vital to the prolonged existence of culture and agriculture in my district.

It has taken over 40 years, countless court proceedings, congressional hearings and mediations before this bill arrived at this point. The people of the Pojoaque Valley and surrounding communities have debated and negotiated this water settlement since the 1960s. Parties have informed me, Mr. Speaker, if legislative action does not move forward, the Federal Court is prepared to resume legal proceedings on the underlying Aamodt lawsuit. This litigation would have dire effects upon all non-water rights holders in the basin and incur tremendous court costs and legal fees on American taxpayers. The cost to the government of continued litigation would, and probably will, exceed the cost of the settlement itself.

We heard today, Mr. Speaker, that we did hear from the Attorney General's office saying that they did prefer this course of action to litigation. Senators Bingaman and Udall of New Mexico introduced legislation in the 110th Congress to enshrine this settlement and conducted hearings before the House Resources Committee and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In the 111th Congress, New Mexico's Senators and I reintroduced this bill with my colleague, Martin Heinrich from New Mexico, with improved revisions that took the considerations of the settlement parties into account; and in doing so, we improved the settlement.

In September, additional hearings were held on this bill, and H.R. 3254 was supported at markup in the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous and bipartisan support. This settlement is about people and the quality of life in small rural communities. The future of this community depends on the availability and dependability of a water supply. This settlement ensures just that.

Rather than continuing a course of costly litigation that could tear a community apart, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting to enact these settlements. Thank you again for the leadership to the members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power and the members of the Natural Resources Committee for their support.

You know, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about water settlements going forward, I know that Democrats and Republicans from this side of the aisle and from the other side of the aisle, we all have the honor of representing constituencies that include Native Americans and tribal communities. In New Mexico there was a school project. They asked the kids to draw pictures where they get their water from. Most kids in school districts across New Mexico drew pictures of water faucets going into water bottles, things of that nature. There were children from Native American communities who drew pictures of their mother and fathers, brothers and sisters carrying water jugs to get water into their homes. They drew pictures of their fathers driving pickup trucks with large water containers like you would to provide water to animals out on the range.

I hope we don't lose sight, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that water is a very precious resource and there are still many people across this great Nation of ours who don't have access to it.

County of Santa Fe,

State of New Mexico,

Santa Fe, NM, January 14, 2010.

Re Support for Aamodt Litigation Settlement Legislation.

Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,

Andrew Jones, Legislative Director, Cannon House Office

Bldg., House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Lujan: On behalf of Santa Fe County, I

want to affirm the County's strong support for the Aamodt

Litigation Settlement Act (H.R. 3342). Santa Fe County

expresses its great appreciation to you for your continued

support of the settlement and urges your help in securing

passage of this very important legislation.

As I testified this past session before the House

Subcommittee on Water and Power, the settlement will achieve

a fair and equitable resolution of the difficult and

entrenched water disputes that have plagued the Pojoaque

Valley for so many years. Rather than defining winners and

losers, the settlement protects existing uses and allows for

future growth by careful management of available water

resources. At the same time, it recognizes and safeguards

time immemorial and senior use priorities of Pueblos and

early Spanish acequias. The settlement also creates a

reliable supply to more recent domestic and commercial uses,

and is flexible enough to account for changing uses in the

future. Without settlement, I am certain valley residents

will be subjected to intractable and divisive litigation for

many years, fostering regional conflict and leaving junior

water users at great risk of curtailment.

Also, as I have previously testified, I recognize that some

of my non-Pueblo constituents continue to be dissatisfied

with the settlement. Consequently, the County will be

conducting a series of community outreach and settlement

focus meetings in the coming months. We will do this even if

the legislation is first enacted into law. The County has

contracted with the adjudication ombudsman program at the

University of New Mexico to facilitate the community outreach

program. The purpose of the meetings will be to hear public

concerns and to provide information about the settlement.

Ultimately, the settlement must be accepted by the community

to succeed.

On behalf of Santa Fe County, I greatly appreciate your

help with this matter.

Sincerely,

Harry B. Montoya,

Santa Fe County Commissioner.

I appreciate the ranking member from the Natural Resources Committee yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is clear language on the dockets of the State of New Mexico that has been expressed by many of the parties which encouraged them to go to litigation, that very much do hold--that senior water rights holders in the State of New Mexico, which these tribal communities are, do hold senior water rights.

Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about the importance of how we can achieve cost savings to taxpayers across the country, it is important that we understand the laws and the protections that are held to those individuals that are senior water rights users, which clearly is the reason why so many people could be impacted. And as litigation continues, the cost of litigation adds additional cost to the taxpayers of the country.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that I don't have the response that my ranking member colleague may be looking for. But his counsel may inform him as well as our counsel has informed us that some of that documentation is not public record at this time. With that, I tried to answer the question, but I apologize to the ranking member that we are not able to provide the answer that the ranking member may be looking for.

Thank you, Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings.

You have heard about the three bills. We are here today on these three pieces of legislation that would settle the water rights of six Native American nations in New Mexico and Arizona. The people on these reservations inhabit the same sacred lands as their fathers, their grandfathers, and many generations before. These three bills would provide them with the water that their ancestors were entitled to but never received.

We often take for granted the most basic of our resources, water. The people of the pueblos and the high country of Arizona never have. They understand the value of water and its importance in their cultures and well-being. Water is the lifeblood of these individuals, and when they were assigned reservations of land, their assumption was that they would also have access to the water they needed to survive. They were not, and hence for the last 140-plus years, these individual Americans have been fighting for the right to this most basic of resources, water. It is time today for us to do something about this for these six native nations.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned Charlie Dorame in your statement as an example of the type of dedication that has been made for these water rights settlements and the subsequent legislation. Leaders in each tribe and pueblo have invested many decades in trying to acquire water rights that for generations came without legal restrictions but instead were part of their homeland.

For many years these tribes have been treated as second-class citizens of our great country, America. We have taken their lands. We have taken their resources, and we have even taken their water. But instead of complaining, these pueblos and tribes have worked with the Federal Government and the local governments to legally, and I might add very costly, attempt to acquire access to something that always has been part of their lives, water.

Members of these tribes across the country today continue to work to support their sovereign nations. They work with the States and work with the local partners who see the benefit of the settlement not just for the tribal communities but for the entire region.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have Colorado River Water Users Association's 2010 resolutions, the Western States Water Council, and the National Congress of American Indians here in support of this legislation, people looking for local and regional solutions, just as we have been directing them to do.

Mr. Speaker, I have brought with me these resolutions so we can understand that they have wide support, not only from the Native American areas but also from their neighbors and their friends within the area. Each of these organizations supports the settlement of Indian reserved water rights by negotiation or agreement. They realize in order to plan for the future and for their economy, we need to provide certainty to a basic human right, water.

These resolutions are consistent with the administration's views of supporting collaborative negotiations as an inherent responsibility to Federal trustees to Indian tribes and their members. Most importantly, we can not, we must not forget that we are talking about Americans, Native Americans, human beings. These tribes and pueblos have done everything that we have asked of them and have taken the long walk to walk with the Federal Government's legal restraints and now are in sight of securing for their people a basic human right, water.

After decades, these people have made huge efforts to play by the government rules to acquire rightful access to water that traditionally came with the land that they lived on. The price for these people has been high, the walk long and filled with many disappointments and many empty promises.

I ask that you support this legislation today. Support it because these Native Americans have followed all of the rules, procedures, and hurdles that our government has laid out. Support the legislation because it is the right thing to do and because it is supported by all local community and regional water managers; and, most importantly, because it is time to provide

certainty to the tribes and the pueblos and the people of New Mexico and Arizona that we can do right by them. At the end of the day for this one precious resource, water, we can sit down and appreciate doing the right thing for them.

Water, Mr. Speaker, which you are drinking, is running short in the U.S. We need to preserve it and take care of it, and none other more than our Native Americans love the Earth and what Mother Nature gives us. Help us pass this bill.

2010 Resolutions Adopted by the Resolutions Committee of the Colorado River Water Users Association, December 9, 2009

* * * * *

* * * production. The federal government should pay for

replacement power due to operational changes for recreation,

fishery or the environment.

5. Reclamation-constructed and maintained water storage and

conveyance systems situated throughout the Colorado River

Basin are critically important to the economies, the quality

of life and the survival of the people who depend upon waters

from the Basin. In order to avoid huge financial impacts

associated with performing maintenance that was deferred or

making future repairs on an emergency basis, Congress should

recognize and appropriate requisite funding to maintain

aging, critically important water project infrastructure in

the Colorado River Basin and across the West.

6. Reclamation should immediately commence and fully

implement the measures identified in its Managing for

Excellence action plan, issued in response to the National

Research Council's Managing Construction and Infrastructure

in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation report, including

transfer of operation and maintenance responsibility to

project sponsors when they are capable and willing to take

over such responsibility.

Resolution No. 2010-4--COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL

The CRWUA urges continued funding and implementation of

measures to control the salinity of the Colorado River. The

Administration should request and Congress should provide

sufficient funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program.

Resolution No. 2010-5--SETTLEMENT OF INDIAN RESERVED RIGHTS

The CRWUA supports the settlement of Indian reserved water

rights by negotiation or agreement, recognizing that:

1. Settlements should result in the least possible

disruption of existing water uses and the economies based on

those uses, while at the same time providing the affected

tribes with the firm water supplies required to meet the

long-term needs of the reservation inhabitants and to

establish lasting tribal economies.

2. The achievement of these objectives requires federally

funded water projects designed to ensure that all of the

tribal water needs in the subject basin or watershed are met.

3. Appropriate participation of the Federal, State, local

governmental and Tribal entities, and non-Indian water users

in the settlement process is required for the success of any

negotiated settlement.

4. Any water rights settlements that have been approved by

the respective parties should be immediately and fully funded

to implement their terms within the specified timeframes. The

Federal Government must take advantage of existing funding

authorizations, such as Title VI, Emergency Fund for Indian

Safety and Health, of P.L. 110-293, by complying in a timely

manner with Congressional mandates and budgeting funds, while

continuing to explore and develop new creative solutions to

fund Indian water rights settlements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The arguments that I made on the previous bill are exactly applicable to this bill. So let me simply summarize. To summarize, I believe, and we believe on this side, that settlement agreements are in the best interests for all parties involved. But there is an element that needs to be highlighted because settlement agreements generally at the end cost money, and the missing part of these agreements on these three bills that we are considering today is, What is the cost to the taxpayer?

We need to have transparency when we make that decision, and that decision, unfortunately, was not afforded to us in committee, and at the last minute, it was afforded to us in a very ambiguous way. So it's for that reason, while I support the claims settlements as a general principle, not having all the information, I must oppose this bill, as I did the last bill. And with the next bill coming up, I will say essentially the same thing.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are debating here is not the settlement claims per se. I think we all in this House agree that if you can get agreement with parties involved in litigation and come to agreement amongst them, that is good policy. That has very well been explained by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But what is at issue here is the third part, and that is: Is this claim going to be beneficial to the taxpayers by not costing the taxpayers more than if they went through litigation? That is what the issue is. It is very clear.

Now, the gentleman from New Mexico just a moment ago said something to the effect that this would save the taxpayers money by not going through litigation. I would like to ask the gentleman, and I will yield to the gentleman if he can provide me documents as to that fact. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he can provide that to me.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the gentleman was about a statement that he made that it would be more costly to go through litigation than to settlement. I asked the gentleman very specifically if he has documentation to that effect. And so I hope that the gentleman would respond to me on that point because that is the difference in this debate on this bill and the last bill.

I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he has that documentation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt.

Do you have documentation to that point? We asked the Department of Justice specifically on that point, and they have not responded. Do you have documentation on that point? Listen, if this saves the taxpayer money, I am totally in favor of it. All we are asking is for that documentation. If the gentleman has it, please provide it. Does the gentleman have it?

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize, this is the core point. The gentleman just said he doesn't have it, and yet we are being asked here, Members of the U.S. House, representing everybody in this country, taxpayers who may not be involved with this, to pass judgment and support this settlement agreement when we don't know if the cost is beneficial or not. That's the issue.

I would hope, as I said in my closing remarks on the first bill, when we have future settlements coming forward we can have this information, full transparency, Mr. Speaker, in committee so we don't have to go through this drill on the floor and go back and forth and then unfortunately have somebody say we don't have this documentation.

Mr. Speaker, that's the issue here. We are not arguing about the benefits of the claims. I am sure that they are very good. There have been long negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand, the gentleman will be the last speaker. I know my friend Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So I will close and I will yield myself the balance of the time by simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here is not the benefits of these settlements. We think those settlements are good. The one element that we have a question on is what is the cost to the taxpayer? I think that is a very, very legitimate issue for us in the U.S. House to consider.

So with that reason, as I mentioned earlier, I have to reluctantly oppose all three of these bills. And I would hope in the future at the committee level we can have this full transparency on future settlements that we will inevitably have in this Congress.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 3342) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3342.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are now proceeding with the second of three bills to implement Indian water rights settlement agreements being considered by this body today. The pending measure, like the previous bill, is sponsored by our colleague Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and cosponsored by Martin Heinrich of that State.

This legislation would settle the water rights of four pueblos in New Mexico under an agreement with the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe County, the city of Santa Fe, and individual water users. It would end 44 years of active litigation involving over 2,500 defendants by ratifying the settlement agreement and funding a regional water system for all water users in the valley.

The previous bill we considered would end 40 years of litigation. The one we are currently considering would end 44 years of litigation. I would say to my colleagues that today we are making history. The American people want certainty. During these tough economic times, we all want to have certainty in our lives. But for many, a long-year certainty with respect to water has not been the case in the Rio Grande watershed. Today we can provide that certainty.

The pending measure would secure water to meet the current and future needs of the pueblos involved, protect water users that make the region unique, preserve irrigation in the area, and provide water for all the region's residents. As in the case of H.R. 3342, water rights settlements improve water management by providing certainty not just to the quantification of a tribe's water rights but also to the water rights of all users. Certainty provides opportunities for economic development, for Indian and non-Indians alike. Where Indian water rights are unquantified, there is often tension and conflict between tribes and their neighbors. The best settlements, like the ones before us today, replace tension with collaboration, mutual interdependence, and trust.

I commend the team of Lujan and Heinrich for their hard work on this matter. I again would acknowledge the long hours of work that have been put into this measure by the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Grace Napolitano, in her position as chairwoman for our Subcommittee on Water and Power. She has gone through countless hours of hearings and discussions and meetings on these bills. I thank the four pueblos and their settlement partners for their hard work and dedication.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the chairlady of our Water and Power Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the lead sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to yield such time as he may consume to the cosponsor of this litigation, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude and reiterate what I have already said, that 44 years of litigation is far too long, 40 years of litigation is far too long. We all know the tremendous costs involved in litigation to the Federal taxpayer, the amount of salaries paid to judges, lawyers. We could go on and on about the costs that the taxpayer ends up bearing over some 44 years of litigation, longer time period than Moses spent in the desert. So with that, I would say that this bill is certainly economical to the American taxpayers, and I would urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the idea of transparency in this and in all things. I think that some observers may not appreciate the issues that are before us when we are dealing with Indian rights, whether it is settlement or something else, because of the unique situation of Native Americans in the United States and how the relationship that we have with the Indian Nations is as a result directly of the Constitution of the United States.

Often it is good for us to remind ourselves of the first principles involved when we are dealing with these issues. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to also mention that today, in a blow for freedom, in a tremendous action of a return to first principles under the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court finally got it right. The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, finally focused on the first amendment and talked about the essence of the first amendment being political speech.

We have been distracted so often in other decisions by the Court that they have lost in many times their focus on the fact that the first amendment is in essence a protection of our political speech. And today they overruled a previous case where they had wandered from that. They said to us that Congress cannot in fact make choices between preferred speakers and nonpreferred speakers, preferred organizations and nonpreferred organizations.

And here is one of the kernels of truth contained in today's majority opinion. ``Political speech is so ingrained in this country's culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws.'' That oftentimes in this body we, in the effort to try and cleanse the political system from the possibility of people who might take undue advantage of it, render political speech to the sidelines. And the Court has said the people are smarter than that. They can get around that, and therefore we ought to attempt to allow the full flowering of political speech.

The Court also said this. ``Rapid changes to technology--and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression--counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.'' This is a great day, Mr. Speaker. This is a great day. The Court said, ``Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the first amendment, and there is no support for the view that the amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' political speech.''

It is said that their previous decision in Austin allows ``censorship that is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large, corporations.''

Earlier this week the people of Massachusetts reminded us that here the people prevail, that the Constitution starts with the words, ``We, the people.'' That despite what the pundits say, despite what special interests say, the people prevail. Today the Supreme Court said the people can speak. It is a great day.