Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about this rule and the underlying bill, but I have to say again, in response to our colleagues who were speaking just before we began this debate, those across the aisle who are in the majority by at least 39 votes, they are in the majority in the Senate also, and they cannot continue to say that Republicans are holding any bill hostage. We do not have the capability of holding bills hostage in this House, and it is really a concern of mine and some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that our friends keep making that comment. They can bring a bill up any time they want to, just like we will be dealing with these five bills, six bills today. They can't blame Republicans for their inadequacies.

Madam Speaker, I have several concerns with the underlying bill that the Democrats have brought before us today. For a start, this bill is over 270 pages and costs over $5.7 billion; it is not PAYGO-compliant; it was written behind closed doors in the dark of night; it does not afford Republicans the opportunity to amend the legislation to improve the bill and to make it more responsible to the taxpayer; and it combines six pieces of controversial legislation of concern to my colleagues on this side of the aisle.

While there may be merit in addressing each of these items individually, to combine them in one single piece of legislation and to force a single vote with full knowledge that Members and their constituents have several outstanding concerns represents irresponsible behavior. It does not represent the kind of governing that the people of this country deserve.

I do want to say to my colleague across the aisle that Republicans abhor any type of discrimination, and inasmuch as people have been discriminated in this country in the past, we object to that. We abhor it. So our objections have nothing to do with past discriminations but, rather, with the way that money is being spent and the way bills are being brought up continually under closed rules.

This bill contains two bills which settle two different class action lawsuits and four bills approving four different water rights settlements.

It provides $3.4 billion to approve a settlement reached by the Department of the Interior and Native Americans to resolve the Cobell v. Salazar case concerning the alleged mismanagement of royalties owed to Native American tribes by the Department of the Interior.

There is merit to reaching a resolution to this longstanding case. However, individual Native Americans and respected Native American organizations have outstanding concerns with this settlement which they have voiced directly to Congress. Instead of addressing these concerns, Democrats have brought this bill to the floor under a structured rule that does not allow Members the opportunity to fix the concerns.

One of the major concerns with this settlement is it allows plaintiff attorneys to be paid in excess of $100 million. Since every dollar paid to attorneys comes from the pockets of individual Native Americans, Ranking Member Dreier offered an amendment last night in the Rules Committee to limit attorneys' fees to $50 million, but his amendment was rejected by the ruling Democrats, so we are unable to consider it on the floor today.

The second individual bill contained in this legislation provides $1.15 billion to approve the Pigford v. Glickman legal case in which African American farmers alleged discrimination by the Department of Agriculture when applying for loans in the 1980s and 1990s. Alarmingly, when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by the USDA. Today, while the number widely varies, it is estimated that approximately 65,000 potential claims exist.

Former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer stated that, while those who were discriminated against ``should be reimbursed,'' there are other hangers-on trying to game the system. According to former Secretary Schafer, ``The problem you have with the class action lawsuits is a lot of people jump in that may be on the fringe, that maybe don't deserve it, that sounded good because their neighbor got a check. It is very expensive, very time consuming. Some people will get paid that probably don't deserve it. I don't like that kind of thing. I like to settle on merit.''

Therefore, the $1.15 billion provided in this bill may go to claimants who do not have valid claims but, who due to the gross incompetency of the Federal Government, may now receive fast-track payments for up to $50,000 in taxpayer money. Approval of the Pigford v. Glickman settlement is not PAYGO-compliant and is in addition to the $100 million already provided for in this case by the 2008 farm bill.

The next four bills contained in this legislation are four separate water rights settlements with Native American tribes. Taken together, they direct the government to fund nearly $1 billion and to participate in the construction and maintenance of the specified local water systems.

The first water rights settlement included in this bill provides $324.5 million to create a new rural water system with the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona. The second water rights settlement included in this bill provides $136 million to approve a settlement agreement among the Taos Pueblo, the Federal Government and the State of New Mexico. The third water rights settlement included in this bill provides $465 million to approve the 1999 settlement between the Crow Nation and the State of Montana. The fourth water rights settlement included in this bill authorizes $199 million to approve the controversial Aamodt Litigation Settlement in New Mexico.

Although some of these settlements are well-intended, there are fiscal concerns and a multitude of unanswered questions that still need to be addressed.

It is unclear whether these settlement amounts are in the best interest of U.S. taxpayers. The Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee asked the Department of Justice months ago whether these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and costs of litigation, but we have not yet received a response.

Voting to approve these water rights settlements forces Congress to be an arbitrator between sides involved in litigation. That is not a role that Congress should be forced to assume without sufficient information, information which still has not been provided by the Department of Justice. These settlements would be better resolved at the local level.

As Representatives, we owe it to our constituents to make sure settlements are not being made that will overcompensate a group or locality at the expense of the taxpayers. There is no documentation that these settlements would save the taxpayers money, and therefore it is unclear whether Congress is fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayer.

As my colleague from Colorado said a little bit ago, the philosophy of our friends across the aisle is that spending saves money. That isn't an argument that the American people are buying anymore. As you can see, Madam Speaker, each of these six bills has individual concerns that must be addressed on the floor of the House. Instead of affording Members the opportunity to fix these bills, however, the bill before us today is another representation of the failed Democrat strategy for passing legislation: throw numerous bills together into one cumbersome legislative vehicle; slap an outrageous price tag on it; waive PAYGO; and call for an immediate vote under a structured rule which does not allow for any amendments.

The American people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to their problems. Fortunately, help is on the way, and in January, this House will set a new course toward protecting individual liberty and shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating Federal bureaucracy. That's why I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this irresponsible rule and on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

I think the debate on this bill today points out why we have such a broken system in this country right now.

The Federal Government has no business being in the farm business. We need to get our Federal Government back to the intended purposes of the Federal Government, which are very limited in our Constitution. Every time the Federal Government gets involved in things it has no business getting involved in, they go awry, and I think the arguments from our colleagues across the aisle point that out.

I also want to point out that contrary to statements repeated over and over again by our colleagues across the aisle, Americans have not enjoyed any tax cuts in the past 4 years since they have been in charge of this Congress. To the contrary, the House Republican Ways and Means Committee has highlighted more than $680 billion in tax increases that have been imposed on the American people since the ruling liberal Democrats took control of Washington in January of 2009. Now, because of Democrat inaction, the American people are looking at the largest tax increase in the history of our country, which would affect all married couples, all families with children, seniors, and small businesses. That would destroy an average of 693 jobs every year through 2020; drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings, and $33 billion from business investments.

That would raise taxes on the 55 percent of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others; cost the average nonfarm small business owner $3,500 more in taxes; cost the 49 percent of all seniors with income below $250,000 525 more dollars in additional dividend taxes, and cost the 25 percent of seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.

President Obama's plan to allow portions of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates to expire, resulting in steep tax hikes beginning in January of 2011 for small businesses and those earning $250,000 or more would significantly affect the economy in North Carolina, most notably in the number of jobs and changes in personal income.

According to the Heritage Foundation, from 2011 to 2020, North Carolina's Fifth Congressional District would lose, on average, 1,577 jobs annually; lose, per household, $4,647 in total disposable income; and see total districtwide individual income taxes increase by $827 million.

The job-killing consequences continue with evidence based on a simulation of the Moody's Analytics macroeconomic model, which indicates that an across-the-board tax increase would precipitate a double-dip recession during the first half of 2011; leave employment in decline throughout 2011, ultimately leading to 8.6 million fewer jobs than we had in 2007; aggravate the unemployment rate, which would remain above 10 percent through late 2012; promote a sluggish GDP growth of 0.9 percent in 2011; and prevent a return to full employment until 2015.

Although the proposal to increase income taxes for those earning over $250,000 technically applies to 2 percent of taxpayers, the simple truth is that the top two income brackets play a critical role in keeping the economy running, as they already contribute 50 percent of all tax dollars, spend 25 percent of U.S. personal outlays, and generate 50 percent of small business income.

Those with income under $250,000 will be impacted by the increase in dividends and capital gains taxes as 24 percent of tax filers with incomes less than $250,000 would be hit by increased dividend taxes and 10 percent by increased capital gains taxes. Furthermore, half of seniors earning under $250,000 would have to pay higher taxes for dividends, capital gains, or both. Over the next 10 years, the Heritage Foundation projects a $1.1 trillion GDP loss if current tax rates are not extended.

The case is clear. The Democrats' misguided tax plan is motivated by class warfare, not sound economic policy.

Fortunately, Americans roundly rejected this incompetent governance and Republicans stand ready to promote policies to help restore America's economic vitality.

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

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

I realize that we are here to debate something other than the continuation of the tax cuts and staving off the tax increases which are coming right around the corner. However, it is important that we continue to remind the American people that our colleagues across the aisle continue to refuse to deal with what's the most important issue that we need to be dealing with. Instead, we are here day after day, day after day naming post offices and celebrating anniversaries of sports figures when our colleagues have known that the tax increases were going to occur on January 1, 2011, since that bill was passed. But they have been in control for 4 years, and they have refused to deal with it.

Furthermore, we have a President and a Congress of the same party. They both know this had to be dealt with, but they seem to want to leave everything until the last possible minute and then blame Republicans because something isn't being done. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is just not the case. Our colleagues across the aisle, the Democrats, are in control. They could have brought the tax increase bill up any time they wanted to. They refused to do it. They have left it until the last minute. We need to remind the American people of that, and we are not going to be told that we are holding something hostage.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from Colorado that when the stimulus bill was passed, what you call the Recovery Act, we were promised, the American people were promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent. The Treasury Department recently issued its Final Monthly Treasury Statement for Fiscal Year 2010. This statement indicated the deficit for that fiscal year totaled $1.294 trillion, or 8.9 percent of GDP. This is only the second time in history that an annual deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. When was the last time? Last year, when again we had a Democratic President and Democrats in control of the Congress.

Over the past 22 months, President Obama and congressional Democrats have embarked on an unprecedented spending spree that has lowered economic growth, reduced investment, increased the cost of borrowing, and killed American jobs. Now, rather than reducing spending, Democrats hope to move a $1.11 trillion omnibus discretionary spending bill that would increase expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars. In doing so, Democrats are ignoring the clear message of the American people and endangering the well-being of future generations.

Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the liberals ruling over Washington have implemented an agenda of record spending and deficits that's unprecedented in this country's history. Since the liberals seized control of the White House and Congress last year, profligate spending has led to $2.51 trillion in budget deficits. To give a little perspective, the total amount of deficit spending in the first 22 months of President Obama's administration is more than the combined deficits of President Bush 43's administration over 8 years, which were previously the highest deficits of any President in history.

In the 22 months since President Obama moved into the White House, Democrats have spent $6.1 trillion, which is more than the first 22 months of the administrations of President Clinton and Bush 43 combined.

The Treasury Department reported that in October 2010 alone, the government spent $24.1 billion to make interest payments on the money it borrowed. In fiscal year 2010, the government has spent $414 billion on interest payments, an amount equal to 32 percent of our deficit.

Americans made it very clear they want the Washington spending spree to end. Democrats, however, have turned a deaf ear, and still want to pass a disastrous $1.1 trillion spending bill in the lame duck session of Congress. The growing deficits under the Democrats' leadership will ultimately lead to a lower standard of living and less opportunity for future generations of Americans. As spending by the Federal Government grows to unsustainable levels, the U.S. will sacrifice its sovereignty by becoming dependent on debt borrowed from foreign countries. As the Nation's debt grows, confidence in financial markets will erode and propel the U.S. into a perpetual economic spiral.

Everything from a senseless energy tax, government takeover of health care, bailouts of the auto industry, megabanks, and the European Union, combined with endless tax and spending increases leave the American people sitting in amazement wondering where the imagination of these European wannabes will lead us next.

As the American people have been scared to death witnessing the deterioration of everything from the economy, foreign policy, and national security, they should know that fortunately there is a choice between the same old tired liberal agenda and new, innovative solutions being offered by the GOP.

In September, House Republicans put forward a pledge that will put America on a path toward economic prosperity. The pledge includes actions that will create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive. Specifically, the pledge would permanently stop all job-killing tax hikes; allow small business owners a 20 percent tax deduction against income to allow capital formation and investment, which will stimulate business expansion and new hiring; require congressional approval of costly regulations to reduce the cost burden that government growth imposes on businesses; repeal the ObamaCare 1099 requirement, to eliminate the wasteful and expensive mandate that all businesses report vendor purchases in excess of $600 annually; immediately cut government spending to pre-bailout levels to save at least $100 billion in the first year, and put the Federal Government on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt, moving away from a debt-driven economy, and eliminating the fear that unsustainable spending has created.

The evidence is in, Madam Speaker: The liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007.

I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling liberal

Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting this rule and the underlying bill to protest the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private sector job creation and getting the economy back on its feet.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1736 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the

customary 30 minutes to my friend from North Carolina, (Dr. Foxx).

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 1736.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1736 provides for the consideration of the bill H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment thereon by the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. It provides 1 hour of debate, with 50 minutes of debate controlled by the Natural Resources Committee and 10 minutes controlled by the Ways and Means Committee.

The bill contains a number of important provisions, many of which have already passed the House. It approves settlements in the class action lawsuits brought against the United States Department of Agriculture by African American farmers and against the Interior Department by Native Americans.

The bill will fully fund America's obligations in these cases and settles both the Cobell and Pigford class action lawsuits. Both of these have been in the courts and settlement talks for years and years.

In Cobell, the Interior Department was ruled at fault for mismanaging billions of dollars in grazing land, gas, and other royalties owed to thousands of American Indians. This settlement will pay off roughly 500,000 plaintiffs in the case. In Pigford, the Agriculture Department discriminated against thousands of African American farmers who applied for loans and other assistance during the 1980s and 1990s.

The plaintiffs in these cases have waited decades for resolution of this matter. Justice must not be delayed any further. Passing this measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the government.

Passage will also approve four water rights settlements with American Indian tribes, providing the tribes with funding to rehabilitate and build new reservoirs, irrigation and water distribution systems. The House has already approved three out of four of these settlements.

Another critical provision in this bill is the extension of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, also known as TANF. This comes at a time when so many Americans are struggling financially and are due to lose the support of this program if the House does not act. While the Senate amendments we are considering today incur more costs in the short term, over 10 years this bill will actually save money and reduce the deficit.

On November 19, the Senate took up the bill, adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill, all by unanimous consent. The House must pass these measures without any further delay. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In response to my friend from North Carolina, I would say that the Republicans in the United States Senate are the ones who have been holding up legislation just as this until they get what they want. They put all these things together, and send it back to the House.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

I would just say to my friend from Iowa that the settlement now applies to all African American farmers who were discriminated against, not just those that filed their claim by 1997, and as a consequence, it's a much broader class that is being settled with. We just can't have this kind of discrimination going on in this country, and America needs to pay its debts and not allow this kind of discrimination to go forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio, Congresswoman Fudge.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the body that we're here to discuss Cobell v. Salazar, Pigford v. Glickman, plus the settlement of a number of water right cases.

But even having said that, I would like to respond to my friend from North Carolina that not even the Republican Congress that set forth these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires thought they would go on forever. They set them so that they would expire at the end of this year so that this Nation would have the revenue that it needs to pay its bills. But the Republicans who have now taken this House want to continue those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires so that this country can't pay its bills as it's supposed to.

So the tax cuts, prosecuting two wars without paying for them, allowing the bottom to fall out of Wall Street without any regulation sent this country into a huge deficit which has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Now, we've seen, since we've passed the Recovery Act, growth in the economy, not that loss of 6 percent as we saw in the final quarter of the Bush administration. But we've seen five consecutive quarters of growth. We've seen increased employment from the private sector. We have a long way to go, and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are not the way to do it.

With that, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, I guess I have a completely opposite view of my friend from North Carolina as to the importance of this bill. The payment for wrongs against thousands and thousands and thousands of people that were delayed under Republican Congresses, Republican Presidents, it is about time that we settle these cases and pay the bills to people who were either discriminated against or had their trust moneys bungled by the Interior Department.

We actually, through the course of all this, had one Interior Secretary under a Republican President who got herself in trouble. Ultimately, it was all resolved. Now it's time to settle these particular cases. Decades of litigation, decades of settlement talks. It is a red-letter day that the discrimination and the mismanagement that harmed so many people are resolved.

That's the purpose. That's why this has been a bipartisan bill and I hope will be a bipartisan vote later today when we take up the bill.

There are 500,000 Native Americans whose communities were deprived of revenue rightfully and legally owed to them for commercial development of their land. There are thousands of other Native Americans whose communities will benefit by completing long overdue water projects.

There are also 70,000 farmers in the Pigford case who were deprived of their ability to farm because of their race, out and out discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will receive some help this holiday season because we will extend temporary assistance for needy families.

My Republican friends like to talk about tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts that were supposed to expire, have been planned to expire by a Republican Congress from the beginning of the decade. This isn't something new. This isn't some big surprise. But the Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate would like to hole up and do nothing until their friends, the millionaires and billionaires, continue these tax cuts, and at the same time stop payment and satisfaction of claims that have been long overdue to these hundreds of thousands of Native Americans and thousands and thousands of black farmers, as well as millions of people who need assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

This country pays its bills, doesn't just give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans among us. That's what this Democratic Congress is about. That's what the Democratic Senate and this President is about. It is about honoring our commitments and stopping discrimination.

I am pleased we are going to pass this bill today, and I hope that all Members support it and not delay any further these rightful claims that have existed for so long.

With that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support the Pigford-Cobell settlement, and ask that we continue to seek justice for those who have been denied it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who were instrumental in furthering this legislative effort and bringing this momentous bill to the House floor. H.R. 4783 serves as a means of justice and vindication for minority farmers and landowners who were previously wronged by the Agriculture Department and the Interior Department when they were only trying to make a living. These were American farmers, who have dedicated their lives to the prosperity of the United States, by in essence, providing for their fellow citizens.

I have long been an adamant supporter of American farmers in their mission to strengthen agriculture in our Nation. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have been actively involved in the fight to ensure that black farmers and Native Americans received justice for the discrimination they encountered. For nearly a decade, I have worked alongside my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, other Members of Congress, and civil rights advocacy groups to uphold the standards of equality and fairness, and ensure that the government is held accountable for its wrongdoings.

I am pleased that the Senate has passed this legislation by unanimous consent earlier this month to right the many past wrongs of our government. I hope that today, in the House, my colleagues too will vote to pass this important legislation. H.R. 4783 deals with the unfortunate situations addressed in the Pigford II and Cobell v. Salazar cases. Black farmers and Native Americans were discriminated against in those aforementioned cases based solely on their race. They are owed restitution by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior; they are owed a chance to rebuild their communities and continue with their lives.

In the Pigford case, there are numerous accounts of black farmers receiving unfair and unequal treatment when applying for farm loans or assistance through the Department of Agriculture. As if that were not enough, when these minority farmers submitted their discrimination complaints, they heard no response from the Department of Agriculture and were essentially ignored. The judge in the Pigford case said that the holding was, ``a historical first step toward righting the wrongs visited upon thousands of African-American farmers for decades.'' It is truly disheartening to know that an arm of the federal government, which has a duty to treat all Americans fairly and equally, played a role in the historic plight of the minority farmer in the United States.

The Cobell case is important because of its resolution of many American-Indian tribes' claims to water, one of the necessary elements to sustain life, and the poor management of Indian trusts. The White Mountain Apache Tribe settlement, the Crow Tribe settlement, the Taos Pueblo settlement, the Aamodt settlement, and finally the Reclamation Water Settlements provided for the tribal water rights claims for a number of American-Indian tribes.

Furthermore, H.R. 4783 also allows for the settlement of billions of dollars in Indian trusts that were mishandled by the Department of Interior. In the holding of the Cobell case, the judge states that, ``it would be difficult to find a more historically mismanaged federal program than the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust.''

Such gross mismanagement impeded the livelihood of more than 300,000 Native Americans. How are Native Americans, or any minority for that matter, expected to trust the United States government if, as lawmakers, we do not stand up for their rights? This settlement ensures the recognition of these past civil infractions by the government, and portends a brighter future for the minorities in America.

Essentially, the right to life and livelihood are resolved by this settlement. American-Indian tribes will finally receive access to drinking water, and black farmers will receive restitution for and recognition of previous racist actions that directly affected their ability to sustain themselves.

In July of this year, Shirley Sherrod's forced resignation from the Department of Agriculture was reminiscent of the racist trend many black farmers faced when dealing with the government. The media whirlwind surrounding the treatment of Sherrod raised allegations of racism by the hands of the government. Images of black farmers being denied loans for their own farms, in order to maintain their own livelihood resurfaced. Despite the wrongs Sherrod faced personally, she focused attention on the very types of discriminatory practices that perpetuated racism, led to losses of land, and ultimately resulted in these lawsuits. She reiterated the importance of equal treatment for all American farmers, regardless of their race. Systematic racism should not occur in the United States in the 21st century, and H.R. 4783 reaffirms that notion by taking steps to reverse a history of gross racism and civil rights infractions.

The passing of H.R. 4783 will finally allow for the compensation of these gross injustices. While I am in strong support of the passage of this bill, it is unfortunate that this long awaited settlement comes riddled with stipulations. The Claims Resolution Act, as amended, creates two payment ``tracks'' by which the victims of past discrimination may state their claims. These payment tracks effectively raise the evidentiary bar for those who were victimized by the government's past injustices, making it more difficult for them to receive the settlement that this bill provides.

The first track, which requires substantial evidence of discrimination, limits victims' settlement to $50,000 per person. This standard is too restrictive because of the passage of time since the incidents of discrimination took place, and the possibility that many of the records and documentation of discrimination have been lost.

The second track, which allows victims to receive a settlement of up to $250,000, requires a much stronger evidentiary standard; victims must be able to show evidence of economic loss as a result of discrimination. Such a standard will often be too burdensome to meet, as it is difficult to prove definitively that discrimination was the sole cause for someone's loss of land, and that other mitigating factors may not have played a role in the loss. This standard could leave those victims who lost the most due to discrimination by the USDA with a lesser settlement than they rightfully deserve.

A settlement of $50,000 poses a hardship to Black farmers and Native Americans, and certainly is not enough to properly compensate for the years of discrimination they experienced. Nonetheless, it is a positive first step toward making these victims whole again.

Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, I have been a strong voice and advocate for Black and Native American farmers in the United States who are truly dedicated to the American dream. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 represents nearly a decade-long battle for equality and justice. It is now time to finally acknowledge the systematic injustices experienced by black farmers, and Native Americans everywhere. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4783, and to finally allow those affected to move on with their lives.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1736, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a measure which will settle over a combined century of litigation. The bill will bring to closure some shameful acts undertaken by the United States, and it will allow several communities to move forward in rebuilding their communities and their trust in the United States.

With passage of this legislation, Congress will resolve six outstanding litigation matters consisting of two class action lawsuits and four water settlements. In addition, the bill includes the initial installment to fund another water settlement passed earlier this Congress.

First, claims by individual Indians for a historical accounting and mismanagement of individual Indian

money accounts in Cobell vs. Salazar will be resolved. After a century of mismanagement by the Federal Government, a class action lawsuit was initiated by individual Indians against the United States seeking redress for the mismanagement. This bill will provide $1.5 billion to be distributed to individual Indians and to pay administrative and attorneys' fees. An additional $1.9 billion will be used to fund a Trust Land Consolidation Fund so that highly fractionated lands may be repurchased and consolidated into single tribal ownership again. This will streamline administration of trust lands. After 14 years of litigation and several attempts by the parties to settle, the administration has brought an end to a problem first created by Congress over 120 years ago.

Second, discrimination claims by African American farmers against the United States will finally be settled. The settlement resolves claims by African American farmers who were denied loans based on racial discrimination.

Third, H.R. 4783 will resolve the water rights claims of seven tribes and pueblos in the States of Arizona, New Mexico and Montana, bringing to an end nearly a century of active litigation.

When tribes were moved to reservations, the Nation assumed a legal obligation that water should be supplied to meet the native people's needs. This legislation meets the Nation's legal commitments and provides water certainty to surrounding non-Indian regions, towns and industries, thereby allowing economies and jobs to continue to grow.

Water in the West is in short supply. After years of negotiating, the tribes have agreed in these settlements to an amount of water far less than what they were originally requesting. The tribes, States and local partners negotiated these water settlements, often in contentious proceedings, over many years. They are to be commended for sticking with the process and working together to find a mutually agreed upon solution.

Finally, H.R. 4783 would provide initial funding to the Reclamation Water Settlement Fund passed earlier this Congress. The settlement fund provides financial support that will be used to develop water supplies for the reservation. Many Navajo people today continue to haul water to meet their daily needs. It is time to provide this basic human right.

I am proud to say that we have been able to resolve these longstanding litigation matters without adding to the Federal deficit. The entire bill, with an estimated cost of approximately $5.4 billion, is fully paid for.

In closing, I think it is important to note that the House has already passed most of the various components of the bill before us today in this Congress, some even twice. This legislation has received the administration's full support.

Although the Crow Nation water settlement has not yet passed in the House of Representatives, the Water and Power Subcommittee has held a hearing on this measure. All concerns by the administration have been addressed and resolved. As a result, I support inclusion of the Crow Nation water settlement in this legislation. The Senate has finally acted. It is time that we do our part one last time and send this measure to the President.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), a subcommittee chair and member of the Committee on Natural Resources who has been intimately and powerfully involved with these issues over a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, our Committee on the Judiciary has been very instrumental in the drafting of this legislation, especially in regard to the paid-for section.

I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Conyers, and I ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a UC only to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent only to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a UC only to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

May I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick), a member of our Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude debate on the majority's side, I yield all of the remaining time to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Maxine Waters.

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Madam Speaker, the process by which Congress conducts the American people's business matters. For a long time, Beltway insiders claimed that Americans don't care about process. It was a self-comforting excuse to conduct business out of the public view and to shut down debate. However, the message from the voters in November's election was unmistakable: It's very clear the American people do care about Congress acting in a transparent, open, and fiscally responsible manner. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, not everyone in Congress has heeded this message, and this is evidenced today by the manner in which the Democrats are seeking to pass this bill.

When this bill originally passed the House in March, H.R. 4783 was aimed at addressing income tax benefits to charitable contributions for the relief of victims of disasters in Haiti and Chile. Two weeks ago, this bill emerged in the Senate and looked completely different. The Senate secretly rewrote the bill behind closed doors to create an over 270-page, $5.78 billion omnibus package of largely Indian settlement bills. And the House is now slated to debate this package without a single House Member, Madam Speaker, not one House Member, Republican or Democrat, having the opportunity to offer an amendment to improve it.

As I have stated several times on the House floor as well as in the Natural Resources Committee, I believe there is real merit in responsibly settling legitimate legal claims, especially when a settlement reduces the potential risk and costs posed to taxpayers by lengthy, uncertain litigation. It is with this view that I would like to review two pieces in this omnibus package, the Cobell vs. Salazar settlement and the settlements of Indian water rights claims with four tribes.

First, in the Cobell case, I agree that the lawsuit has gone on far too long and that it is important for individual Indians to be treated fairly by the Federal Government. Yet, since the proposed terms of the settlement were first publicly revealed the Congress has been petitioned by several Indians and respected Indian organizations expressing real concern with the details of that settlement. It is very disappointing that these very legitimate concerns by directly affected Indians are being dismissed by this Congress. In particular, Madam Speaker, the concerns over the possible payment of over $100 million to lawyers and the handling of damages claims deserves a response by this Congress. The Senate bill makes modifications in both areas, but to be bluntly honest about it, Madam Speaker, the new text is nothing more than window dressing because it can be completely disregarded by the judge. To address one of these concerns, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday to cap the Cobell attorney fees at $50 million. The Rules Committee blocked the House from voting on this simple amendment.

Under this bill, a literal handful of plaintiff attorneys may be paid over $100 million. This equates to one-third of the amount awarded in the settlement for the claims actually litigated by these attorneys. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This equates to one-third of the amount litigated by these attorneys. This is simply too high. Some have argued the lawyer fees are just 3 percent of the settlement, but such a calculation would require proposing to pay lawyers a share of funds from cases in which they had absolutely no involvement in representing. It also should be noted that the $50 million cap on fees is not arbitrary. It reflects an amount plaintiff attorneys indicated they can live with under their signed agreement with the government.

This legislation should be about fairness to individual Indians, but those who control Congress right now are bending over backwards to protect a $100 million payout to a few lawyers. Let's be clear: every dollar paid to attorneys is a dollar that comes out of the pocket of individual Indians in this settlement. Congress has an obligation to ensure that individual Indians, not lawyers, receive the most money possible, but sadly, in this bill, that is not happening.

In regard to the four Indian water rights settlements included in this bill, three of these have previously passed the House. At that time, I expressed my sympathy with such settlements; however, at a time of record deficit spending and record Federal debt, it is the duty of Congress to ask questions to ensure that these settlements are in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Over the past year, Congressman Tom McClintock of California, the ranking member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, has sent written inquiries to the Department of Justice asking a basic question, and that basic question is: ``Do these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and cost of litigation?'' Very simple question.

To date, the Justice Department has regrettably not answered these questions even though they did answer similar questions with respect to the Cobell settlement. It is for this primary reason that I was compelled to

oppose those settlements when they passed the House.

Now there are four such settlements, and the pricetag for them is $1.23 billion. If Congress is going to spend this much money, it seems to me there's a duty first to show whether this is a fair deal. Without answers from the Justice Department, informed decisions cannot be made, and it is not responsible, in my view, to support this bill.

So for all of these reasons I must recommend to my colleagues that they oppose this bill until these reasonable questions can be answered and the clear deficiencies of the settlements are answered.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time as he sees fit.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.