Floor Statements

Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I am very pleased to make a very important announcement: today, a new Republican was born.

Our colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, delivered a baby girl this morning at 12:20. The baby weighed nearly 8\1/2\ pounds and is over 20 inches. Both the mother and daughter are doing very well, as is Brian.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

This legislation is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

But there are other issues that I think need to be addressed today. There has been bipartisan agreement across this country and in Congress that blanket moratoriums on offshore drilling hurts America when it comes to jobs and energy. Yet the Obama administration has suddenly imposed a moratorium that closes the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the entire Atlantic coast.

Madam Speaker, this is the wrong way to respond to the BP oil spill. It hurts our economy and job creation. The answer is not to say America can't figure it out and we should rely on other countries to produce our energy. The right answer is to find out what went wrong and make the effective, timely reforms that ensure that U.S. offshore drilling is the safest in the world.

The Deepwater Horizon spill was a terrible tragedy; but this is a great country, Madam Speaker, and we shouldn't allow this single event to disrupt our long-term need to develop an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes the responsible development of our Nation's offshore oil and gas reserves.

The administration has taken us in the wrong direction. Instead, we need to be working to keep and create energy jobs here in America.

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.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill that would expand water supplies, help resolve aging infrastructure in the West and protect irrigated farming acreage--all without increasing federal funding.

This bill, titled the ``Western Water Supply Enhancement Act,'' recognizes the benefits of long-term regional water conservation planning at the local level by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to provide up to $15 million of already-authorized federal funding to irrigation districts and municipal entities engaged in multi-year, regional, integrated and coordinated water planning. This legislation amends what is commonly known as the ``Secure Water Act'' provision of Public Law 111-11 to ensure that large conservation efforts are eligible. As opposed to the current small-project-by-small- project approach to conservation, this legislation incentivizes more comprehensive, regional approaches throughout the western United States.

These regional approaches are a result of the Endangered Species Act, which places additional demands on already limited water supplies originally devoted to agriculture or municipalities. The Endangered Species Act is national in scope, but many of its requirements impact local water districts that bear much of the financial burden. Investing limited federal dollars in regional conservation projects that are the result of federal regulations can relieve this pressure and protect and promote existing water uses.

I have always been and will continue to be a strong proponent of new and expanded water storage. Legendary projects, such as the Grand Coulee, Hoover and Glen Canyon dams, are the flagship federal projects that have transformed the American West from the desert to some of the most productive agricultural land in the world. Some in the environmental movement believe that conservation of existing resources is the only way to solve our growing water and power scarcity problems. I beg to differ. Everything, including new storage, regulatory reform and new conservation, has to be on the table for us to resolve our supply problems.

The Western Water Supply Enhancement Act would be one tool in that toolbox. It is not the solution, but it is part of the overall solution to help water utilities with limited, already authorized funding in their efforts to provide water to farm families and help promote a safe and affordable food supply for our nation and the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we wind down this session of this Congress, it is probably fitting that this bill is in front of us, because the bill before us today is intended to provide economic relief to the Territories of American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. Specifically, these territories, which are each home to approximately 70,000 people, are appealing to us, to Congress, to forestall congressionally mandated increases in the minimum wage in their territories.

It was the Speaker Pelosi-led Congress in 2007 that imposed this job- killing policy. The impacts in these territories have been very real and very severe, especially in American Samoa, which has seen one of its two primary employers, tuna packing plants, shut down after the minimum wage policy went into effect.

The next increase in the minimum wage in these territories is slated to take effect at the end of this month, Mr. Speaker. That's tomorrow, Thursday, September 30. So there is indeed an urgent need to act right now.

While I agree with the need to spare these territories from the economic havoc that this Democrat Congress has inflicted on them, there are other laws that this Democrat Congress has imposed over the objections, and against the will, of the American people. The most obvious one has been talked about for nearly a year--and that, of course, is the Big Government health care takeover that is threatening, among others, small businesses. It has also caused some seniors to lose their Medicare coverage and we are seeing costs in health care insurance premiums that are rising higher and higher. And the 2001 and 2003 tax relief that is slated to expire at the end of this year, of course, has not been addressed. Thousands of small businesses will be hit with this massive tax increase. In fact, rates will rise on all individual taxpayers. The child tax credit will be cut in half. The marriage penalty return and the death tax would revert back to its high rate. And yet, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has voted to adjourn and leave town without addressing these tax increases. This uncertainty we have seen across the country inflicts a terrible toll on our economy.

However, always a silver lining, Mr. Speaker. With this bill, the Democrat Congress admits that they were wrong, that the policies they imposed are costing real people their jobs. I'm glad that they admit here tonight what they have done. But I should say this as, again, we're winding down, Mr. Speaker. Relief shouldn't just come for American Samoa. Americans across the 50 States are losing jobs and hurting because of the actions of this Democrat Congress. They, too, Mr. Speaker, need relief.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This corrects actions that were done to these territories 3 years ago, and I think this is a very good policy. I wish we could have addressed this earlier rather than 1 day before the law would go into effect. So I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I appreciate the gentleman's giving some background on this, and I'm not going to refute that. However, it seems to me that the mere evidence of the remedy that we are proposing here is aimed at the minimum wage, which was passed in 2007, and the remedy addressing the minimum wage would certainly indicate to me that, at least in the real near term, the reason for this is the minimum wage, and so I stand by my remarks, but I know there's always more to it.

If the gentleman will yield, I will just simply say that I find it remarkable that the remedy we are trying to pursue is prolonging an increase in the minimum wage.

If the gentleman will yield, I don't recall during the debate that there was a discussion of any level of minimum wage as the gentleman was referring to, but as was pointed out by the gentleman from Iowa, it simply is a matter of supply and demand, and we need to be cognizant of that.

So, with that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Lewis of California for his leadership in bringing this resolution before the House. The recent theft of the Mojave Cross memorial honoring American soldiers who died in World War I is an act that merits our strongest condemnation. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, generations ago water and power visionaries came up with the idea of making the West bloom by harnessing our rivers. The Hoover Dam is a legendary example of that vision.

When completed in 1935, it was the tallest dam and the largest hydroelectric generator in the world. It literally helped create cities in the arid West and to this day, as my friend from California pointed out, still provides numerous benefits: emissions-free hydropower, drinking and irrigation water, and recreation and flood control.

This bipartisan resolution is a fitting honor to the Hoover Dam and to those who had the foresight to create one of the world's best-known engineering marvels.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 714 has been adequately explained by the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, and we have no objections at all to this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been adequately explained by the gentleman from California, and it does enjoy strong bipartisan support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Shannon McDaniel, a long time advocate for water users and agricultural producers in the State of Washington. Mr. McDaniel's much deserved retirement comes after 30 years of service to irrigated agriculture. In his current position as the Secretary/Manager of the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, Mr. McDaniel manages an irrigation district that provides water to 230,000 acres of irrigated land and 4,000 landowners and farm operators in the southeastern part of Washington State.

Mr. McDaniel is an expert and a true leader in the water resources field. He has testified before Congress many times over the course of his career, helping inform both the House and Senate on legislation and other matters important to water users and agricultural producers. His expertise has also been vital to the management and delivery of water to farmers in the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. Throughout his career, he has developed strong working partnerships at the local, state and federal levels, particularly in his involvement with the Bureau of Reclamation's Columbia Basin Project.

Mr. McDaniel serves as a mentor and advisor to many irrigation district managers in the Pacific Northwest. He has selflessly given his time to, and been actively involved with many professional and civic organizations including: the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Washington State Water Resources Association, Northwest Irrigation Operators, Leadership Tri-Cities and the Washington Agriculture and Forestry Education Foundation. As a result, his peers have bestowed many awards on him throughout his career, including the National Water Resources Association President's Award, the Bonneville Power Administration's Administrator's Excellence Award for Exceptional Public Service, the Washington State Water Resources Association Water Resources Leadership Award and the Northwest Irrigation Operators Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. McDaniel's many contributions to Western irrigated agriculture are immeasurable. Although he is retiring from public service, his leadership, dedication and expertise will be valued and appreciated for generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is an amended version of the bill as reported, and I thank the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the legislation for their willingness to engage the Republicans on a bipartisan basis in what is a rather complex body of law.

The Republicans hope this bill accomplishes its primary goal, which is to increase the outsourcing to tribes of programs and functions of the Department of the Interior that are provided to Indians because of their status as Indians.

At the core of H.R. 4347 is the principle that Washington, DC, is not capable of managing tribal programs as effectively as the governments of Indian people--the Indian tribes. This bill could be a template for proposals to outsource Federal programs, where appropriate, to States, tribes, and the private sector.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that the Obama administration has not provided a formal statement on the position of H.R. 4347, as amended.

Bipartisan staff sought to address concerns expressed by the Department of the Interior in its testimony on the bill as introduced. For this reason, I think the House is owed something in writing from the Department clarifying its views on the amended bill. Regardless, I do not see this silence from the administration as a reason to hold up the progress on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has adequately described this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in my view that are wrong with this bill, but I just want to point out three of them. First, this bill represents wasteful and unnecessary spending at a time of exploding Federal debt. Second, it lacks needed protection for private property rights. Third, it expands the already bloated Federal Government at a time when our priority should be on jobs and economic growth, not the growth of government.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that at a time of near double- digit unemployment and trillion-dollar debt, we really ought to be working to unleash private-sector economic growth so more Americans can find jobs, can pay their mortgages, and provide for a better life for their families. Instead, as usual, with the current Democrat leadership, we are talking about borrowing more money from foreign countries to pass a bill to further aggrandize the Federal estate.

The National Park Service estimates that it would cost $10 million to buy the land targeted in this bill. Now this isn't beachfront property in the Virgin Islands like we saw targeted earlier in this Congress. Instead, it is in the Arizona desert. But we are hearing the same argument why we should go along with this.

Are these private lands in danger of being injured by development? Hardly. It seems some of the land may be owned by the State or a wealthy nonprofit presumably created to protect the land from development. There is no urgent need to borrow money to buy this land right now. No one can claim that these lands are in imminent danger.

Further, this legislation does not protect the rights of private property owners. Instead it continues the disturbing practice of Congress drawing boundaries of Federal land management areas around private property, even in cases where the landowners have not given their written approval.

When Congress expands Federal boundaries to encircle private property, we sometimes shower ourselves in praise for protecting private property from the dreaded private property owner. But Congress should only draw boundaries around lands the Federal Government already owns, not around what it wants to own.

I know the bill purports to protect private property, but it does nothing, Mr. Speaker, and this is important, it does nothing to restrain the eminent domain authority already possessed by the Secretary of the Interior according to both Federal case law and the Congressional Research Service. This bill expands an area previously designated under the Antiquities Act. As the Committee on Natural Resources learned from recently leaked Department of the Interior documents, this administration is strongly interested in creating new national monuments or expanding existing ones, and doing so with or without Congress.

The American people are way ahead of Washington on these issues, Mr. Speaker. They know that what we should be doing is controlling spending, protecting private property, taking better care of the land we already own, and reducing the dead weight of taxation and Federal bureaucracy that is stifling free enterprise, which is the engine of economic growth.

With that being said, there are parts of this bill that I could support, such as clearing up administrative jurisdiction issues and a boundary modification to remedy trespassing issues for an irrigation project. However, I am sorry that these sections, which had broad support, weren't allowed to stand on their own.

So for those reasons I've cited, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5110.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentlewoman from Arizona did not yield to me so I could ask her a question as we have heard a great deal of talk here on the floor about jobs creation. I am certainly one who believes that we need to create jobs, particularly in the private sector, because the private sector is the engine of growth in our country.

I was simply going to ask the gentlewoman if she could document officially how many jobs have been created. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that this existing area is already some 1,600 acres. To suggest that an area which is 1,600 acres is not creating jobs but that adding some 400-plus acres would create jobs flies in the face of common sense.

What this bill is all about, once again, is the Federal Government's buying more land when we have a backlog of some $9 billion of maintenance in this country. Yet here we are, trying to add more land, which presumably adds more to the backlog. The American people get it. They understand it. While this is small, I understand, Mr. Speaker, it is the reason I think this bill is ill-advised today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about how this ``National Scenic Area'' designation will affect the safety, welfare, and economic livelihoods of those who live and work within this 160,000-acre proposal.

Mr. Speaker, there is no underlying act for national scenic areas, as is the case for wilderness proposals and wild and scenic river designations. Instead, unless guidelines are set limiting how restrictive the designation will be, a National Scenic Area designation is accompanied by only hope and uncertainty.

H.R. 4823 is silent on everything but the fact that land exchanges are prohibited. This sort of vague and open-ended delegation of authority is an invitation to litigation and bureaucratic overreach. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation in its current form.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Apparently the gentlelady from Arizona wasn't listening to what I said in my opening remarks as to what concerns I had with this bill. I wish that she had yielded to me because I could have asked a question and maybe she could have enlightened me. But my understanding is there is absolutely nothing in Federal law that designates or describes what a scenic area is. Unlike a wilderness area, unlike a wild and scenic river, nothing describes what a scenic area is. I said in my opening remarks that the reason I oppose this is simply because the vagueness of this opens up potential litigation that will likely affect those surrounding this area. That's what my concern is. I would be willing to work with anybody to try to resolve these issues, but to suggest that my opposition to this is because I am opposed to jobs, it simply misses the point. The gentlelady was simply not listening to what I was saying.

Now, I do have a concern when there are Federal dollars that are spent, but there are no Federal dollars on this; it's simply that we don't have what a designation is. In fact, one could say, Mr. Speaker, if one were thinking in a mischievous way, that the only job creation that legislation like this would create, if it were passed, would be for the trial bar because they could sue over something that is not described in statute. Who wins by that? I don't think the private property owners around this area would win by that.

So I'm disappointed that she would use the tone of argument against our opposition as not trying to work together. There is just simply no designation for ``scenic'' in Federal statute. Don't you think we ought to have some designation before we designate something ``scenic''?

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has adequately explained this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.