Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the central promises of ObamaCare were that it would bend health costs down and wouldn't threaten existing plans. We now know that both of these claims were false.

The CBO warns us that the law will increase average private premiums by $2,100 within the next 5 years above what they would have been without ObamaCare. The administration's own actuary admits that the law bends the cost curve up--not down--by $311 billion over the next 10 years.

We now know that many existing plans are, indeed, jeopardized and that scores of companies that have been offering their employees basic plans have either dropped them or are continuing them only with waivers left to the whims of administration officials. But the most dangerous provision of this law is the Federal Government's assertion that it now has the power to force every American to purchase products that the government believes they should purchase whether or not they want them, need them, or can afford them. If this President prevails, the Federal Government will have usurped authority over every aspect of individual choice in the care of our families and can logically extend that power to every other commodity in the market.

The tragedy is that every day we continue down this road is a day we have lost to address the real problems in our health care system: the spiralling costs of malpractice litigation and defensive medicine, the loss of the freedom to shop across State lines, the loss of the freedom to tailor plans to the needs of individuals and families, and the absence of the tax advantages that families need to afford and choose their own health plans according to their own needs.

Churchill said all men make mistakes but wise men learn from them.

Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that ObamaCare was a huge mistake. Let us acknowledge that, learn from it, and move on to enact the reforms that will reduce health costs and increase health care choices for American families.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I haven't gotten to know Gabrielle Giffords very well yet, and I thank God that by His grace I haven't lost the chance to do so. I didn't know the Americans who came to speak with her that day. But what I do know is that they gathered last Saturday to do something uniquely American.

Gabrielle Giffords was reaching out and listening to her employers, the American people, and they had come to offer her their guidance, advice, and counsel. In this respect, the attack on Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents struck at the very heart of our process of representative democracy, that very point where the American people communicate their views to their elected representatives. That is the linchpin in the entire process of self-government.

This was not only an attack on those who serve; it was an attack on every citizen who steps forward to offer honest advice and counsel and, yes, even criticism to those they have selected to serve them and to serve the Nation.

It is the nature and strength of participatory democracy to have sincere and passionate differences of opinion. But in moments like this, we see the very best of the American people come forward. We put aside our differences and disagreements, and we stand together as one Nation, the American Nation; one race, the American race; one people, the American people. Men and women of goodwill cease to be Republicans or Democrats. We suspend our political agendas; we silence the partisan recriminations, and we stand together as Americans.

By doing so, we pay supreme honor to our fellow citizens who were felled in the exercise of their rights and responsibilities as a free people. We salute the heroes who, without a moment's hesitation, rose to resist and stop this craven and depraved attack, and we assure the world, as Lincoln said, that ``government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.''

Mr. Speaker, much of my district comprises forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Over the last 2 years, I have received a growing volume of complaints protesting the increasingly exclusionary and elitist policies of this agency. These complaints charge the Forest Service, among other things, with imposing inflated fees that are forcing the abandonment of family cabins held for generations, charging exorbitant new fees that are closing down long- established community events upon which many small and struggling mountain towns depend for tourism, expelling longstanding grazing operations on specious grounds, causing damage both to the local economy and to the Federal Government's revenues, and obstructing the sound management of our forests through a policy that can only be described as benign neglect, creating both severe fire dangers and massive unemployment.

Practiced in the marketplace, we would renounce these taxes as predatory and abusive. In the public sector, they are intolerable.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public's enjoyment of the public's land and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

Most recently, the Forest Service has placed severe restrictions on vehicle access to the Plumas National Forest, despite volumes of public protests. Supervisor Bill Connelly, chairman of the Butte County Board of Supervisors writes that ``the restriction applies to such activities as collecting firewood, retrieving game, loading or unloading horses or other livestock and camping.''

He goes on to write: ``The national forests are part of the local fabric. The roads within the national forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue for our rural communities which is critical for their survival.''

Mr. Speaker, this is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 million acres within our Nation, a land area equivalent to the size of Texas.

During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one-third of the land area of southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and favored aristocrats. The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the British people that in 1215 no less than five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude that now permeates the U.S. Forest Service from top to bottom is becoming far more reminiscent of the management of the royal forests during the autocracy of King John than of an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the public's use of the public's land in a Nation of free men and free women.

After all, that was the vision of the Forest Service set forth by its legendary founder, Gifford Pinchot, in 1905: ``To provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run.''

In May of 2009 and April of 2010, some of my California colleagues and I sent letters to the Forest Service expressing these concerns. I've also personally met with senior officials of that agency on several occasions in which I have referenced more than 500 specific complaints of Forest Service abuses received by my office.

All that I have received to date from these officials are smarmy assurances that they will address these concerns, assurances that their own actions have belied at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the abuses by this increasingly unaccountable and elitist agency to demand accountability for the damage it has done and is doing to our forests' health, to the public's trust, to the government's revenues and to the Nation's economy, and to take whatever actions are necessary to restore an attitude of consumer-friendly public service, which was Gifford Pinchot's original vision, and for which the U.S. Forest Service was once renowned and respected.

From the State of North Carolina: William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson.

From South Carolina: John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler.

From Georgia: William Few, Abraham Baldwin.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my hope that historians will look back on the 112th Congress as the session that restored American prosperity and to express my strong agreement with the new leaders of this House who have declared that every action of this body must be measured against this goal.

We speak of jobs, jobs, jobs, but jobs are merely a byproduct of prosperity. And prosperity is the product of freedom. Government does not create jobs or wealth. It merely redistributes them. Jobs and wealth can only be created through the free exchange of goods and services in a free market. Government's role is to create and protect the conditions which promote prosperity.

If I give you a dollar for a cup of coffee, what's going on in that transaction? I'm telling you that your cup of coffee is worth more to me than my dollar. And at the same time, you're telling me that my dollar is worth more to you than your cup of coffee. We make that exchange and both of us go away with something of greater value than we took in. Each of us goes away richer. That's the freedom that creates prosperity. That simple exchange, whether it's for a cup of coffee or a multibillion-dollar acquisition, is what creates wealth.

But now suppose some third party butts its nose into this transaction: Oh, no, the coffee has got to be between 110 and 130 degrees and it has to include a swizzle stick; it has to be consumed more than 25 feet from the point of sale. And on and on and on. Every one of these restrictions reduces the value of that exchange for the one or the both of us.

That's the fundamental problem that we face today. Our government has not only failed to protect the freedom that creates prosperity, but it has become destructive of that freedom. To create jobs, we must restore prosperity; and to restore prosperity, we must restore freedom. We must restore the freedom of choice that gives consumers the ultimate say over the output of our economy. In a free and prosperous society, consumers vote every day with their own dollars on what kind of light bulbs they prefer or on how they want to get to work or what foods they like or how much water they want to put in their toilets or what kind of cars they want or what kind of housing they desire. These consumer choices signal every day what things are actually worth and what our economy will actually produce.

Government is destroying the elegant simplicity of this process, and Congress must reverse this destruction. We must restore the freedom of individuals to enjoy the fruits of their own labor so that they can make these decisions for themselves once again. That's why excessive government spending is so destructive to prosperity. It destroys the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions over what to spend and where to invest their own money. It robs them of both the ability and the incentives to create prosperity.

Presidents like Coolidge, Truman, Reagan, and Clinton, who have reduced government spending relative to GDP, all produced dramatic increases in productivity and prosperity and the general welfare of our Nation. And Presidents like Hoover, Roosevelt, Bush, and Obama, who have increased government spending relative to GDP, all produced or prolonged or deepened periods of economic recession and hardship and malaise. Our government is now embarked upon the latter course, and this Congress must reverse this direction.

Government has an important role to play in the marketplace. It's there to ensure that representations are accurate and that contracts are enforced. You have to tell the truth. You have to keep your promises. And government has an important role to play in ensuring that. Government exists to ensure that the currency is stable and reliable and that property rights are secure. When it fulfills this fundamental role, it maximizes the freedom that a buyer and seller have to assess their own needs and resources and to make those exchanges that allow both to go away better off than they were.

Madam Speaker, let us together revive and restore the freedom and prosperity of this Nation and fulfill that sacred command inscribed on our Liberty Bell: ``To proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to insert into the Record excerpts of remarks made at a symposium sponsored by Executive Action, LLC: ``Countering Iran's Nuclear & Terrorist Threats, The Opposition's Role: What Are the U.S. Policy Options?'' held at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, DC on Friday, December 17, 2010.

Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United States

This is one of those moments in history when we know that

future generations are going to ask what we did to advance

good and what we did to resist evil . . . .

I'm a lawyer, and lawyers make their cases with facts and

law and policy. So let's look at some facts, and some law,

and some policy, and see whether the case is there. The

history of the relationship between the United States and the

Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution can be summed up as

a series of attempts by the United States to, as the

diplomats say, engage the Iranian regime, each attempt less

successful than the one that preceded it. I'm not going to go

through that entire history, but an important part of it

begins in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, when

the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, also known as

the MEK, was designated by the Secretary of State under U.S.

law as a foreign terrorist organization and that designation

regrettably continues to this day . . . .

The MEK is the only organization of Iranians, both inside

Iran and outside Iran that opposes the current regime that

favors a government in Iran that is democratic, secular, non-

nuclear, and a republic. Again, this is not one of the few

organizations that fit that description; it is the only one .

. . .

If in fact MEK has renounced violence, as it has; if in

fact it presents no threat to any U.S. personnel or interest,

in fact it presents no such threat; and if in fact it has

been of affirmative assistance to the United States, as it

has; and is not regarded as a terrorist organization in the

United Kingdom or the European Union, then why was it placed

on that list and why does it continue to remain on the list

of such organizations that is kept by the Secretary of State?

Well, I think, it's pretty openly acknowledged that the

reason MEK was placed on that list during the Clinton

administration was to curry favor with Iran, and to use the

designation as a way of entering into dialogue with the

Iranian regime. And I am sorry to say that even during the

administration that I served in, it is reported that MEK

continued to remain on the list for the same misguided reason

. . . .

The Iranian regime is now in the enviable position of

having the United States designate as a terrorist

organization a group of Iranians who are a threat to that

regime, and of limiting that group's activities. In other

words, the Iranians now have the great Satan working for them

. . . .

The continued designation of MEK as a terrorist

organization gives great comfort and legitimacy to the

Iranian regime, by putting on the sidelines an organization

that is potentially a grave threat to the regime. What's to

be done? Well as I'm sure many of you know there is an

ongoing case in which MEK has challenged the designation. In

July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

circuit issued an opinion essentially sending the matter back

to the State Department and to the Secretary of State and

asking her to re-evaluate whether MEK should be on that list.

But the court did something more than that. It expressed a

good deal of skepticism at least about the non-classified

information that was put before the court and shared with

MEK, and which MEK could therefore rebut. Without getting

into a whole lot of detail, the Secretary of State may choose

to base her determination entirely on classified information

if she wants, and then nobody knows why she made the

decision, but she didn't do that in this case. She said she

based her decision on both the classified information and the

non-classified information and the court discussed in some

detail some of the non-classified information, and it showed

that a lot of it consisted of unsubstantiated, anonymous

rumor, whose reliability was unknown and could not be tested.

And all we can say is that if the classified part of the

record, which MEK has not been allowed to see and to which it

cannot therefore respond to directly, consists of the same

kind of information as the non-classified part, then the

Secretary of State's decision would be based on absolutely

nothing substantial. Time will tell. But this is about more

than a case in the District of Columbia and more than MEK.

This is about the posture of the United States toward the

Iranian regime . . . .

When succeeding generations consider the question I

presented at the beginning of these remarks, of what we did

to advance what is good and to resist what is evil, they will

find an answer that we and they can live with.

Madam Speaker, this lame duck session is rapidly descending into farce. I believe the House is now in danger of becoming a caricature of everything the American people rejected in November: incompetence, arrogance, and a complete detachment from reality.

Nearly 2 months ago, the American people said very clearly they don't want this Congress legislating for them any longer. And instead of graciously and humbly accepting the public's verdict, the Democratic leaders seem intent to thumb their nose at the American people.

Perhaps the most bitter indictment of a malingering legislative body was delivered by Cromwell to the Rump Parliament. His words seem appropriate now to this rump Congress:

``You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. It is not fit that you should sit here any longer. You shall now give way to better men. Now depart and go, I say, in the name of God, go.''

Madam Speaker, on November 2, the American people spoke loudly and clearly: stop the spending. Instead of graciously bowing to the public will, the left has embarked upon a frantic lame duck spending spree with a majority that has already been turned out of office by the voters.

First, they exacted another $136 billion in spending as the price to prevent a devastating tax increase on New Year's Day. They tried-- unsuccessfully--to cram through a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill packed with more than 6,000 earmarks. They are now pressing to continue spending at a rate that exceeds even that of 2010.

Now you could say they're partying like irresponsible teenagers; but even irresponsible teenagers have enough sense to stop trashing the house after the parents have phoned to say they're on their way home. Madam Speaker, the parents are going to be here in 15 days, and I have news for you: The party's over. Go home.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senate for passing the tax relief measure yesterday and I certainly hope that the House passes it today.

According to the CBO, this bill comprises $136 billion of additional spending. That's true, but that's for $721 billion of tax relief. That means that 15 percent of this bill is spending; the other 85 percent of it is tax relief. That means no across-the-board increase in income taxes next year, no AMT biting deeper into middle class families, a death tax that is a third less than what it otherwise would have been, threatening far fewer family farms and family businesses with extinction.

If this relief fails, when the ball drops at Times Square on New Year's Eve, Americans will have just been walloped by a tax tsunami the likes of which we haven't seen since the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Families and small businesses will be spending the new year struggling to pay thousands of dollars of new taxes. A family making $50,000 will see at least $3,000 more taken from its paycheck. A small businessperson whose shop makes $300,000 will have to cut another $8,400--perhaps the difference between a part-time and full-time job for an employee.

From the left we're told we should raise taxes on the very rich who make over $200,000 because they don't pay their fair share. Well, according to the IRS, those folks earn 36 percent of all income; they pay 49 percent of all income taxes. But a lot of them aren't people at all. Half of the income earned by small businesses will be hit by these tax increases. These are the job generators that we are depending upon to end the nightmare of unemployment for millions of American families. To confiscate billions of dollars more from them and then expect more jobs to come of it is simply insane.

Some of my fellow conservatives object to the 15 percent of this bill that spends money we don't have and I agree, but that damage can be corrected through offsetting spending reductions next year. The new Republican House majority can do that without the Senate or the President simply by refusing to appropriate funds--and it is committed to doing so. But it cannot rescind the taxes next year without the Senate and the President, who have made their opposition to just such a clean bill abundantly clear. And even if such a retroactive bill could be passed by spring, these families and businesses won't get their tax overpayments refunded to them until they file their returns a year later.

Mr. Speaker, massive tax increases under Hoover turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. Let that not be the legacy of this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Kathy Lund of Rocklin, California.

Since her first election to the city council in 1985, Kathy has provided invaluable contributions to the city. She worked to develop a strong fiscal position for the city: formulating a General Plan for Rocklin and assuring that it was followed while also establishing and protecting an emergency fund and setting aside funds to meet the city's future retirement and health-benefit obligations. Kathy also provided much-needed support for numerous school and education initiatives, including Safe Routes to School improvements throughout Rocklin, the development of joint facilities for the Rocklin Unified School District and the construction of the Sierra College interchange. Her passion for serving her community was further displayed through her work to ensure the safety and well-being of its people. She was instrumental in the creation of the Anti-Gang Task Force, for the development of a city- wide park system, the creation of the six-city Placer County Transportation Agency and for working to guarantee the continuation of essential ambulatory service for Rocklin residents.

Madam Speaker, I can offer no better commendation to Kathy than that which the people of Rocklin have already conferred upon her by continuously reelecting her over the last 25 years to serve on the city council and to six terms as mayor. At a time when cities across our country find themselves struggling financially and desperate to find capable and honorable officials, Kathy Lund has been a sterling example of all that ought to be meant by the designation ``public servant.'' I am proud today to congratulate Kathy on her numerous accomplishments and to thank her for a quarter century of commitment, dedication and service to the people of Rocklin.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Chauncey Poston to the City of Grass Valley, California.

Council Member Poston has a long history of service to others, beginning with his time with the United States Navy serving in Vietnam and Guam, following which he returned home to California where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resources from California State University, Humboldt. Since 1978, Chauncey has lived in Nevada County, where he has served as President of the Nevada County Resource Conservation District, as a member of the Grass Valley Planning Commission and the Grass Valley Traffic Safety Review Committee and since 2006, as a member of the Grass Valley City Council. Chauncey is well known for his many accomplishments and contributions to our community, including his work to ensure the fiscal solvency of the City's infrastructure programs, facilitating the cooperation between local government, businesses and interest groups and working to address each issue the City has faced as it has grown: from traffic congestion to public safety and economic development. It is a remarkable statement of Council Member Poston's service that every part of our community, from businesses to fine and performing arts groups to environmental advocates, felt they were well represented by his efforts.

Grass Valley City Administrator Dan Holler described Chauncey well: ``Throughout his years on the City Council he was dedicated to building a better community by listening to residents and businesses, by being involved in civic organizations, by making hard decisions and by focusing on the long-term vision of the City of Grass Valley.'' Madam Speaker, in a time where localities across our country are struggling to find competent and effective leaders, Council Member Chauncey Poston has served as a fine example of the culture of service that ought to be reflected in all elected officials, and it is my privilege to rise today in recognition of that service.

Madam Speaker, in the aftermath of the attack of September 11, a young man from Roseville, California, answered his country's call to duty and volunteered to take the war against radical Islam from our shores to theirs. His name was Sean Anthony Silva.

This Nation survives today and Americans remain safe today because of the idealism, the patriotism, the heroism, and the sacrifice of young Americans like Sean Silva who volunteer to defend us.

Today, they are the first line of defense between the tyranny and terrorism that have arisen in the Middle East and enlightened civilization around the world.

We in the House defend the principles of liberty and justice in this Chamber every day with our words. Men like Sean Silva defend them with their lives.

And on the night of October 9, 2003, Private Sean Silva defended these principles with his life. To understand the character of this young man, you need to understand what led up to that night.

Sean was a young person who saw his country attacked and instinctively rose to defend her. He saw his countrymen threatened and instinctively rose to shield them.

When Sean told his parents, Richard and Donna, that he wanted to enlist, they were obviously quite concerned. His mother worried that Sean would be dispatched to the Middle East within weeks of boot camp. Sean's reply was simple: Mom, I'm ready.

He wanted to be an Army Scout, always leading, always in motion, always protecting the path of his comrades. Sergeant Timothy Sloan of the Army's Roseville, California, recruiting office remembered that Sean ``wanted to be out doing things. He didn't want to be sitting behind a desk.'' Ultimately, he was assigned to the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment based in Fort Polk, Louisiana; and from there, he shipped out to Iraq.

The night of October 9, 2003, he had already returned from one treacherous patrol and was scheduled for another the next day. A night patrol was unexpectedly ordered, and Sean volunteered to go right back out on to the deadly streets of Sadr City, even though it wasn't his turn. His commander reminded him that he had already done much more than duty required, and Sean simply smiled and said, I just want to learn to do my job.

A few hours later, Sean's patrol was ambushed; and in the fierce fighting that followed, he gave what Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion.''

At Normandy, the chapel bears a tribute to those who ``endured all, and gave all, that justice among nations might prevail and that mankind might enjoy freedom and inherit peace.'' At the age of 23, Sean Silva did exactly that.

Sean would have turned 30 this year. No doubt he would be married with children now, with a promising career, getting ready for the holidays with his friends and family. Instead, his chair remains empty at the family table, and friends still leave messages for Sean at the Fallen Heroes Web site.

There is one in particular that stands out in this season. It comes from a little girl in Fort Jackson, South Carolina, whose father survived that terrible night. It reads: ``Thank you Silva for protecting my daddy. He is here today because of direct actions that you have done. Thank you soo much.''

Sadr City is no longer besieged. Its streets now bustle with commerce and enterprise, and young people look forward to raising their own families and starting their own careers. They do so solely because of the sacrifice made by men like Sean Silva.

That sacrifice is ongoing for Sean's family every single day. I met Sean's father at a Memorial Day event this year. He speaks of his son's death as if it were yesterday.

Time does not heal the wounds borne by our Gold Star families. For them, every day is the day that the casualty officer came to call.

We owe it to these families to honor what Lincoln called ``the cherished memory of the loved and the lost.'' We owe it to these fallen heroes, as Shakespeare said, to see that their ``story shall the good man teach his son.'' And we owe it to ourselves, to our children and to our Nation to remember how precious is the freedom and peace that their sacrifice has purchased.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, titles III through VI of the bill purport to settle four water rights claims against the United States by signing away the public's right to nearly 300 billion gallons of water every year in perpetuity in addition to spending more than a billion dollars.

Now, the proponents of the bill are correct that if the taxpayers are going to end up paying more if these claims go to trial, then we should settle them out of court, but that is simply not the case. For the better part of a year, I asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General on this question to no avail until a day before the issue was first brought to the House floor. And what we received was not a legal opinion assessing the validity of the claims or the extent of the taxpayers' liability; it was a general statement of their preference for settling claims rather than litigating them, and it is undermined by very many specific objections raised by the administration over the course of the last 2 years.

For example, with respect to the White Mountain Apache settlement, the Department of the Interior wrote on November 15 of this year: ``This authorizes Federal appropriations for numerous tribal projects that are extraneous to the settlement.'' They urged, ``These projects should be considered on their own merits in separate authorizing legislation.''

Last year, it warned that funding would ``be excessive,'' would be excessive, if it were viewed as settlement consideration. They also warned, a year ago, of language that is still in the bill which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for future litigation. They warned: ``This provision will engender additional litigation and, likely, in competing State and Federal forums rather than resolving the water rights disputes.''

Engender additional litigation, extraneous to the settlement, excessive if viewed as settlement consideration--these are the administration's own words. In fact, the administration expressed so many reservations about aspects of these settlements that we can only conclude that they are not settlements negotiated by the Attorney General and presented to the Congress, but, rather, they are a grab bag written by the Congress itself and now rubber-stamped by the administration on political and not legal grounds.

We were initially told that the Attorney General never comments on the validity of claims, but we found this to be false. For example, in the Cobell case in 1994 when the Attorney General's office believed that we needed to settle out of court, they said so. They said: ``We are not well-postured for a victory on this claim.'' They warned: ``The outcome could easily be a significant cost to the taxpayers and the public,'' and that is not what they are saying now with respect to these four settlement claims.

Mr. Speaker, we have many more Indian water settlements pending for vast quantities of water and substantial sums of money. We need to get our act together on this. I believe Congress needs to demand that the administration be candid and forthcoming on all claims for settlement; and that Congress insist that before it begins deliberating on a settlement, that the Attorney General has conducted and completed the negotiations, determined all of the details, certified that the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and only then submits that settlement for consideration by Congress. Anything less is breaching the fiduciary responsibility that we hold to all of the people of the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Americans of African descent and Native Americans have suffered grave injustices over the years at the hands of this government, and they deserve justice--no more and no less; but if we are excessive in our zeal to do justice to one group, we end up necessarily doing injustice to others. That is the concern that is raised in this bill.

Legal settlements--and that is what this bill purports to be--should be settled on legal grounds, but there is serious question, including serious question, obviously, within the administration in using their own words, as to whether these settlements are in the interest of justice or in the interest of all the people of our land.

In one hour of debate, the proponents have not cited one argument-- not one word--on the legal issues of a bill that purports to settle legal issues, and that ought to tell us a very great deal right there. That is the problem with this bill, and that is why action should be deferred on this bill until the Attorney General actually conducts good faith negotiations on behalf of the people of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Women's Improvement Club of Roseville. Since its foundation in 1910, the Club has been a community service organization benefiting the City of Roseville and surrounding areas. The clubs numerous contributions to our community have included the founding of the city's first library, developing Woodbridge Park, contributing annually to the restoration of the El Dorado and Tahoe National Forests, spearheading several educational and arts programs and providing invaluable support to area veterans and service members. Furthermore, the Club's members contribute invaluable time and resources to community events, as well as to local and international charities.

Madam Speaker, it is without doubt that our community is a better place today as a result of the constant dedication of the Women's Improvement Club of Roseville. I am proud to recognize and thank the Club for a century of service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the groundbreaking for the Rough and Ready Fire Station in Nevada County, California.

Since its founding in 1963, the Rough and Ready Fire Department has served to protect the homes and businesses in their community. In the early years, the department consisted of a phone-tree-style call list that would spring into action when needed, using whatever assortment of equipment the group could afford to buy, maintain and house in local barns. In 1970, the current fire station was constructed on Rough and Ready Road to house two fire engines and serve as the headquarters for the 16 volunteer fire fighters. As the town continued to grow, so did its need for fire protection and the department acquired two additional engines, but with room in the station to house only two vehicles. As a result, the department went back to housing some fire engines in barns, including the Davison Barn, where chickens began roosting in the engine and going on fire calls.

As the years wore on, it became increasingly clear that the fire station on Rough and Ready Road would not be able to meet the needs of the city indefinitely. Without a training area large enough to accommodate all firefighters, lacking sleeping quarters or any space to service vehicles, an absence of ventilation, air conditioning and insulation, and a hopelessly leaky roof, the need to build a new facility was more than evident. Beginning in 1995, the department saved a little money each year towards a new station and by 2004 the land had been acquired and the department officers were finalizing design plans. Finally, in 2009, having raised just under one million dollars through department savings and private donations, Rough and Ready secured a federal matching grant to allow for construction to move forward. At over 8000 square feet and complete with five engine bays, living quarters and up-to-date infrastructure, the new station will greatly increase the department's capacity to serve the 2,200 citizens in their immediate district and the over 52,000 people in the surrounding area.

Madam Speaker, it is impossible to overestimate the necessity of fire protection or to measure to countless contributions these firefighters make to our community. It is has been my privilege to work with the Rough and Ready Fire Department in competing for a merit-based federal grant and it is with great pleasure that I rise today to join the city of Rough and Ready to celebrate this joyous occasion.