H.Res. 1017

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 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.

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 thank the gentleman for yielding.

As has been pointed out, this and the two bills that follow ratify out-of-court settlements that arise from decades-old litigation filed by various Indian tribes against the United States Government. They apportion water rights, among the three of them, to over 110,000 acre feet of water, and they draw more than half a billion dollars from the taxpayers of the United States, mainly for the development of those water resources.

From the outset, I believe that the controlling issue in approving any of these claims is simply this: Is it cheaper to settle out of court or to go to trial? To answer that question, we must turn to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General is presumably involved in these negotiations. He commands the legal expertise to judge the soundness or weakness of the government's case, and he is the official of our government directly responsible for representing the people of the United States in this litigation. Yet, when these bills were brought to us last fall, the Attorney General's office was completely silent on that question. In fact, the administration expressed many reservations about the technical aspects of these bills, which leads me to believe that these are not settlements negotiated by the Attorney General with the tribes and then presented to Congress, but rather they're settlements written by Congress itself, which Congress is neither designed nor is competent to do.

Most importantly, we were absolutely unable to get a straight answer to the most important question at issue, and that is: Do these settlements exceed the likely liability of the government if these claims went to trial? If we were a corporate board of directors making a decision on an out-of-court settlement and we agreed to that settlement without consulting with our legal counsel, we'd be guilty of breaching our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders. How can we do any less as the Congress of the United States?

I'm new around here, but I spent 22 years in the California Legislature, many of them on the relevant committees that heard settlement bills. The central testimony in all of these settlements was from the attorney general's office as the State's legal counsel. They'd appear before us and they'd testify that in their professional legal judgment the settlements were justified under current law and that the State's liability and legal costs would likely exceed the settlement if the matter went to trial.

I'm told that's the way it used to work around here. The Attorney General would negotiate the best possible settlement on behalf of the United States and then submit that settlement to Congress. Congress would then approve or reject it. Now it seems to be working in precisely the opposite manner. Congress now does the negotiating and then presents the bill to the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, that is not going to end well.

I wrote to the Attorney General's office in September and again in October asking for their legal assessment of the cases involved. This is hardly unprecedented. For example, in 1994, the Department of Justice testified before Congress on a similar water settlement in the Colville case. There, Peter Steenland, a Clinton Justice Department official, testified, ``The Federal Government is not that well postured for a victory on this claim which has been pending for over 40 years. Absent the settlement, we could well litigate it for another 10 years and the outcome could easily be a significant cost to the taxpayers and the public.'' Well, if the Clinton administration could give Congress a straight answer on an Indian water settlement bill, then I felt there was no reason why the current one shouldn't also be straight with the Congress.

There's a simple word for this. It's called ``transparency.'' We've been assured that's a guiding principle of this administration. We truly need some transparency in these cases if we're to do our job competently and to do justice to both sides in these claims, yet the administration remained completely untransparent on this issue. That's why I submitted a simple amendment to all three bills. The amendment would require that before the settlements take effect, the Department of Justice has to certify that settling out of court would be preferable to going to court.

I'd like to thank the members of the Rules Committee who granted the rule allowing these amendments to be presented today. But as the gentleman from Washington has said, a funny thing happened after the Rules Committee voted that rule out on Tuesday night. Two hours after the Rules Committee, 7:45 in the evening, our office received a letter from the administration responding to my requests made way back in September and October of last year, and in it the Departments of Justice and Interior finally are prepared to state, although somewhat ambiguously and circuitously, that ``settlement would be preferable to litigation of these claims.''

I certainly hope this is not going to be their pattern. We have many more Indian water settlements pending for substantial amounts of money, and the Congress should not have to wait for months to get a straight answer out of the administration for each settlement. The Congress should not be forced to choose a funding amount in the dark and without an informed legal opinion from our Attorney General at the outset. These matters should not have to wait until the eve of a congressional vote.

Mr. Speaker, since the administration has responded to the question raised by the amendments that I'm prepared to offer, I'm not going to introduce them to these bills today. But it is hard to square their assurances of this week with the Department of the Interior's letter to the subcommittee chairman of November 10 with respect to the White Mountain Apache settlement, that says: ``Given the benefits being obtained by the tribe under this settlement, the administration would consider the approximately $109 million of additional funding for a development fund authorized under this bill to be excessive if it were viewed as settlement consideration.''

I'd also point to concerns raised by the administration--again, this is unique to the White Mountain Apache settlement upcoming in the same letter--objecting to language ``which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.'' They warn, ``This provision will engender additional litigation--and likely in competing State and Federal forums--rather than resolving the water rights disputes underlying adjudication.''

Obviously, this administration has a lot of work to do before future water settlements are considered. I believe Congress needs to demand that the administration be candid and forthcoming in all future water settlements and that Congress insist that before it begins deliberating on a settlement, that the Attorney General has conducted and completed the negotiations, has determined all of the details, has certified that the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and only then submit that settlement for consideration and approval by the Congress.

We need to make this happen in committee, not the night before a bill is sent to the House floor. And I believe that a growing number of us will have a problem agreeing to the advancement of future water settlements without these reforms. Anything less is breaching the fiduciary responsibility that we hold to the people of the United States. And I want to dwell on that term for just a moment. Congress' fiduciary responsibility, that sounds laughable today, but to the Framers of our Constitution, the term ``Congress' fiduciary responsibility'' wasn't a punch line. It was a bedrock principle. It's high time we restored and respected that principle.

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.