it is your insurance company. i even have a government insurance, and the insurance companies make all the decisions. number two, maybe john mccain and the republicans are right, the american public does not want this healthcare plan. but they are wrong in that they do want nationalized health care. one comment on the economy, and i will go. the republicans under 20 years of republican leadership, even clintonese republicanship, you have run up the debt. clinton was the only one who balance the budget. you have ruined this country totally. bush was just a disaster, and what do the republicans in congress do? let him get away with it.

host: robert, that is it for our programs today. one of the things to have you look for, president obama is expected to be proposing new limits on banks. here is one story in "the washington post." he plans to propose new limits on the size and investments of large banks, according to a senior administration official of the white house, to refrain the financial reform agenda as an effort to rein in the companies largely to blame in the crisis. we will now take you to the floor of the house of representatives. three indian water rights measures on their docket today. live coverage begins momentarily. guest[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: almighty god , true humility will not automatically come to us when we choose to bow our heads in prayer or when we acknowledge our since and shortcomings. more often we are most humbled when overwhelming circumstances far exceed our control or natural disasters or human events surprise us. lord, the horrific tragedy of biblical proportions in haiti has deeply touched us all. at the same time, this island community is called forth a flood of compassionate prayer and created a mighty forest of coordinating resources, personal generosity and heroic

action. grant wisdom, prudence and fortitude to rescue workers, medical teams and caretakers who deliver aid and supplies. your mighty presence is known, lord, when true poverty casts a fresh light on another's wealth. when the weakness of some brings forth greater strength from the rest. sickness leans on the healthy. the dead are lifted up and buried to protect the living. how noble is this great sacrifice of living and dead. the human proportions of such love cannot be measured. we watch and say amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and

announces to the house her approval thereof. according to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, congresswoman kaptur. ms. kaptur: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate inform the house that the senate has agreed with h.con.res 228, providing for joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. the speaker: thank you. the chair will entertain up to 10 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. the gentlewoman from ohio, for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. kaptur: to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- the speaker: thank you. ms. kapp -- ms. kaptur: thank you. goldman sachs, who has way too much special access in this city and got bailed out by the american people to the tune of billions and is now handing those over in bonuses to their executives has paid a tax rate of 1%. you heard me right. 1% goldman sachs when most small businesses and corporations in this country are paying at a 35% tax rate. wall street elites still don't carry their fair share. imagine secretaries, nurses, firefighters, cleaning crews, the middle class of this country pay at a higher rate than goldman sachs. and the chief executive officer of goldman sachs harvested over $140 million in salaries while

head of that firm. he said business is a bit too much. his answer is he's doing god's work. i'd call that blasphemy. this is fundamental economic injustice in america and the american people know it. they're voting their frustrations. they expect congress to listen to them, not continue to reward wall street over privileges at their expense. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, most of the american people oppose the government plan to take over health care. it costs too much, it borrows too much, it taxes too much. it's inefficient and it gives government the control over our medical decisions. people should be able to buy health insurance across state lines to get competitive rates. small businesses should be able to pool together to get better rates through larger risk

pools. businesses that help take care of their employees should get tax breaks rather than tax increases. people should own their own health insurance policies and that's real portability. if anybody loses our leaves their jobs, they don't lose their insurance. people shouldn't be canceled for a pre-existing condition. and we should figure out a way to provide for catastrophic illness, catastrophic injury and affordability. these are things that most members agree on. these things don't cost billions of dollars. these things help keep government out of a doctor's office. we should fix what the american people want us to fix and keep the government from destroying america's health. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: mr. speaker, today i'm introducing a resolution decrying the shocking violence of the mexican drug cartels and urging the mexican government to bring to justice those

responsible for the killing of bobby salsedo and countless of innocent bystanders. bobby, a young elected official and rising star from my district was brutally killed in bue rango, mexico. -- durango, mexico. bobby's death reminds us that the violence of the mexican drug cartels is not in some faraway land but affects us here in the united states as well. this violence must be stopped. bobby's killers must be brought to justice. that is why i encourage my colleagues to support this resolution urging the united states and mexico to bring an end to the gruesome violence of the mexican drug cartels. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to talk about sergeant campbell from fort campbell, kentucky. he made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan while serving with the 932nd civil engineer squadron. his dream was to serve in the mirled and in law enforcement. after graduating from boone county high school in 1992, he joined the u.s. air force. after active duty he spent 10 years working as a pipe fitter in the air force service before fulfilling his dream of becoming a cincinnati police officer. he was recalled to active duty and deployed to afghanistan in october of 2009. as we honor this kentuckian, my heartfelt prayers is with his wife, his children and his loving parents. we are all indebted to tony for his bravery and willingness to answer the nation's call and defending freedom.

with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to share my concerns and outrage over human rights abuses in egypt. the egyptian government must uphold the rights of all religious communities by ending discrimination and harassments of these groups and prosecute those that do harm to these groups. an attack that happened just two weeks ago starkly shows the need for change in egypt. a drive-by shooting killed six catholic christians. while the united states and the human rights community has been vocally condemning this attack and other human rights abuses, the egyptian government has yet to recognize the full significance of the violent act or the overreaching issue of intolerance in the country. violence in the name of religion is unacceptable. but when governments do not sufficiently address such behavior that violence is far more troubling.

religion is a fundamental freedom that must be upheld and respected in every nation and in every community. i urge my colleagues in the house to join me in calling for freedom and basic human rights for all people. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week i introduced legislation that requires terrorists to be tried in military courts. the american people are outraged that foreign terrorists are waging war against the united states are being treated as common criminals. the al qaeda trained nigerian terrorists who tried to blow up the flight on christmas day in detroit is only the latest example of this misguided policy. the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack is going on trial in new york city. just blocks from ground zero. even no new york, the

democratic governor disagrees with this approach. putting terrorists on trial before military tribunals has many benefits, including the fact that sensitive u.s. intelligent sources and methods will be protected. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and co-sponsor the military tribunal for terrorists act. thank you. 7 c16 c13 the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i want to, press my sincere appreciation of thanks for the volunteers who have worked and continue to work in the flood ravaged community of cedar rapids and all throughout iowa. on monday, martin luther king day, we observed a national day of service and volunteerism. i had the honor of working alongside a number of volunteers in cedar rapids, iowa. it is the effort, dedication, a

sense of shared community like i experienced on monday that is the heart and soul of iowa and our great nation. while i have been able to work with congress to provide supplemental disaster assistence toward flood recovery, it is the volunteers from not only iowa but all over the country who have offered their hearts and time and made a truly monumental impact in our state. thank you again, volunteers, for all you do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: mr. speaker, my constituents, people saw their last 18-month-old daughter on april 7, 1995. bianca's father, wan, took her for a scheduled child custody visit and abducted her to mexico.

that was almost 15 years ago. i was shocked, shocked to learn that there are over 950 u.s. citizen children being taken into mexico by a parent. no parent should ever go through this nightmare. that's why i have been working with all levels of government to urge cooperation with mexico and allow this mother to see her child again. congress should pass h.r. 3240, the international child abduction prevention act of 2009 which would establish an office on international child abductions within the state department. i'm a proud co-sponsor of this legislation which would strengthen the means we have available to ensure that the children know they have a mother who loved them and come home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute. miss mallonny: mr. speaker, as we -- mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, as we consider new job initiatives to create more jobs for unemployed americans, the joint economic committee will be producing a series of charts over the next few weeks to help us better understand the economic missteps that led and contributed to this great recession. this chart goes back to 1992, the year that president clinton was elected, and it shows that during his time there was more very robust job creation in the private sector and then during the bush years it fell dramatically. this dark line is the job creation going up during clinton years, falling dramatically

under the bush administration. it also shows that democrats have been considerably more effective at creating private sector jobs. economic reality was actually even worse than this chart shows. as nobel prize-winning economist joe self stiglets pointed out, job creation during the bush administration was fueled by a bubble that inflated housing prices and spurred consumption and hiring. when that bubble burst, the bottom fell out. we owe it to the millions of unemployed who fell victim to the failed economic policies of the past to invest in democratic job creation policies that have actually put people back to work in the private sector. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? without objection, the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. rehberg: mr. speaker, while efforts to tax have failed because of overwhelming public

opposition, the environmental protection agency perfect tated one of the largest power grabs ever. it expanded the definition of air pollutant to include greenhouse gases. this means the federal government now has the authority to regulate everything from carbon dioxide to water vapor. as a result, every living person is now a source of pollution from exhaling co-2 and water vapor. every breath you take, every word you utter is now subject to e.p.a. regulation. the american people need room to breathe. so i have sponsored h.r. 391 to do just that. i hope my colleagues will join me because the hot air that comes out of this chamber would qualify us as a superfund site. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor newen for

its 31 years of media service in orange county, california. it was the first and largest daily newspaper published in vietnamese in the united states and founded by mr. yen in 1978. while its first four-page issue dated back on december 15, 1978, was printed in his garage. today he has more than 60 employees and a daily circulation of 18,000 and the online edition is one of the most widely read services with 1.5 million hits a month. it has provided the vietnamese community with editorials and local and international news stories that highlight community service and activism while bringing the community together. i applaud the paper for those important achievements for its 31 years and i look forward to

its contribution in the next 31 years. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. granger: mr. speaker soon the courts-martial of the three navy seals accused of beating a suspected terrorist will begin. these trials and the outcomes are being followed closely by our service members. there's broad concern that political correctness may be impacting the decision to accuse service members of crimes stemming from the treatment of terrorists and accused terrorists. this is not acceptable. our soldiers must be able to carry out their missions without considering the sensitivities of the aclu. there's another group that's also following these courts-martial, the terrorists. in fact, the al qaeda handbook specifically directs any

operative who is detained to immediately claim he was tortured and mistreated. we cannot stand by and allow our war fighters to be manipulated by the enemy. when these charges are brought, many of our service members elect to have civilian defense counsel based on their level of experience and expertise at their own expense. even when acquitted or the charges are dropped, these service members are left with significant debt. this is also unacceptable. the people who so willingly defend this country deserve the very best and should be acquitted or the charges dropped, it is the responsibility of our government to pay these costs. today i am introducing a resolution to address this inequity. i will continue to fight for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and urge all members of congress to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise. >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, americans thirst for real change did not end with the election in 2008. across this country people are mad. mad that the rampant speculation in our financial markets which led to the current economic meltdown and the double-digit unemployment has not yet been addressed. i want to thank president obama for his announcement this morning acknowledging what former fed chairman paul volcker has been saying for months. it's time to reinstate the institutional protections that safeguarded our country for more than a half century. the glass steagall act. ironically repealed in 199 at the behest of the financial services industry. the only thing in america that can ever be deemed too big to fail is america itself. it is time for those of us in congress to grow a backbone. to have the courage of our convictions and stand up to the big banks. no longer can we allow the greed

of a few to put the entire nation at risk. just as we are united in our effort to combat threats from abroad, we must be vigilant to those very real threats from within. we were sent here by the voters to take care of them, the taxpayers and the consumers. the banks can take care of themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> as we approach president ronald reagan's birthday, i remember very well 22 years ago when he thought our country was threatened by russia and the future of our children and their children were in danger of being imperiled, he stood at the bradenberg gate in germany, shook his fist at russia and said, mr. gorbachev tear down this wall. we honor in a few days moo my fourth congressional district the man who said that, tear down

this wall. today i say to the leader of another country, our country, mr. obama, your health bill and your 34 czars, tear down that wall that separates you from the american people. pull down your health bill and start over. the people have spoken, we need jobs not bribes and broken promises. pull down that bill. pull down that bill. pull down that bill. pull down that health bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor catholic schools in my district and across the country for their contributions to their students and communities. jan 31 through -- january 31 through february 62010 has been designated as catholic schools week by the national catholic education association and the united states conference of catholic bishops. i have a number of catholic schools in my district,

including st. therese, our lady of fat ma -- fatima, saint answer, and st. peter and paul. each of these schools is advancing strong academic goals in the classroom and developing well wounded young adults in our communities. i congratulate these catholic schools as well as the students, parents, and teachers for their ongoing dedication to a quality education. receiving a quality education is key to our children's success and as a parent of three i am well aware of this. in closing, i extend my best wishes to the students who attend the catholic schools in the seventh congressional district and wish every student in colorado the best of luck in this school year. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: if you are concerned about run away federal spending and a rising national debt, you won't find a lot of comfort in today's headlines. after passing a government takeover of health care costing trillions, over a trillion dollars and bunt that will triple the national debt, democrat leaders are talking about bringing legislation that will raise our debt limit by $1.9 trillion. but we are told by the same democratic leadership they are going to get serious in 2010 about fiscal discipline. i guess along those lines president obama is expected to announce a bipartisan commission that will look for ways to reduce defendants in the future. sounds like an appealing idea, but the devil's always in the details in washington, d.c. the president's commission on cross-examination actually looks like a guard dog with no bite. looks like fiscal discipline but it could easily be ignored by congress. remarkably the president's proposal as i have heard about

it is prohibited from recommending cuts in any discretionary spending, that will be about $1.4 trillion, and the bridge to nowhere that's completely off limits. and as many of us know, the partisan bias and the structure of it as reported, it's likely this commission would just be an excuse to raise taxes. the american people don't want more government, more taxes morks political poss -- posturing about spending. they want this congress to show the character and strength to make hard choices and put our fiscal house in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. each year tens of thousands of ex-offenders are released from prison back into our communities. many of them return to our neighborhoods with few prospects and no way to provide for them and their families. . months of waiting for these benefits pushes these ex-offenders back into criminal

activity. many see it as the only way to survive. today, i believe this congress has the responsibility to address this clear danger to the public. that's why i introduced two bills last year, h.r. 2829 and h.r. 3053, which will ensure that former inmates have access to tanf, medicaid, social security disability and other benefits upon their release from prison. by removing months of waiting, we can help these individuals successful re-enter society and avoid going back to crime. i hope my colleagues will co-sponsor both of these bills both for the ex-offenders and for the safety of our community. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and permission to revise and extend my comments. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. arcuri: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to take this opportunity to talk about an issue that's taken root in my district and across upstate new york and that's a concern over natural

gas drilling prospects in a procedure called hydraulic fracturing. it's a great natural resource for this country to cultivate, to use for heat and energy. however, in upstate new york we have another natural resource that's critical to our survival and prosperity and that is our water. our water supply is precious, and we are so fortunate in upstate new york to have an abundance of water resources but i never want to take for granted and will always fight to protect. now, i want to oppose the natural gas drilling in upstate new york because there is a definite opportunity for gas drilling that has a positive impact. and i think that's an important thing if we're going to address energy costs and local jobs in the region. but i don't want to sacrifice the purity of our water resources by rushing to drill before the infrastructure is in place in new york to regulate it in the way that it needs to be regulated. i will stand with the people of my district to -- who could be affected by natural gas drilling to ensure that their water is protected.

thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. burton: mr. speaker, some people just don't get it. i was reading "the wall street journal" this morning, and when the senators, the democrat senators met, one of the aides was asked by a reporter, you

know, what was going on, and the aide to one of the democrat senators said this. people are hysterical right now . hysterical because the american people realize that this health care bill is an absolute disgrace and a tragedy and they didn't want it and they overwhelmingly voted against it? in massachusetts they're hysterical? i'd like to say to that young man and to any of my colleagues that hasn't gotten the message from massachusetts and new jersey, the american people don't like the direction this country is heading in. they don't like the big spending. they don't like all of these new socialistic programs, and they don't want the government coming between them and their doctor. and i hope my colleagues will get that message so we can work together to solve these problems facing the nation regarding health care. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia -- west virginia seeks recognition?

mr. rahall: pursuant to house resolution 1017 i call up house resolution 3254. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3254, a bill taos pueblo indian water rights settlement. the speaker pro tempore: prunalt to house resolution 1017, the bill is considered as read. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted. after one hour debate on the bill it should be in order to consider the bill printed in part a of house report 111-399 if offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, or his designee and shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wfble. mr. rahall: thank you. -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 3254. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rahall: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: today, the committee on natural resources is bringing before this body for consideration three bills which would provide for the settlement of the legitimate water claims of several indian tribes. many americans rarely give a thought to having clean, pottable water in our homes. we take the water from the tap in the kitchen and we take it for granted. but that's not the case in all places. there's no scarcity of water in my home state of west virginia. we are rich in water. it flows freely. yet, today we continue to work to ensure that all of our citizens have access to clean, pottable water as well as to be served by sanitary waste water systems. and i have and will continue to fight this fight every day of my tenure in this body.

so it is with understanding and with compassion that i bring these three measures to the floor today. the pending measure, and i give him full credit for his leadership and bringing it tower attention, sponsored by the gentleman from new mexico, ben lujan, would adjudicate the tribes of the pueblos and taos and ratfying a settlement agreement. 40 years, my colleagues. 40 yeets of litigation. that is what the pending legislation would end, and i comment commend mr. lujan and mr. heinrich, another member from new mexico and our member on the committee of natural resources for this matter. and i congratulate the gentlelady from california, grace napolitano, for the hearings and all of her hard work on the measures that we are considering today. this legislation implements a settlement agreement that was signed in may of 2006 by the

pueblo of taos, the state of new mexico, 55 community ditch association, the town of taos, sanitation district and the 12 taos district of mutual consumer water association. collectively, the parties of the agreement represents the majority of water users in the taos river valley. let me emphasize that point. this settlement provides water certainty to both tribal and nontribal communities. under this settlement agreement, funds would be authorized for the taos settlement fund, the taos infrastructure and watershed fund and for various projects that are mutually beneficial for the pueblo and non-pueblo parties. i'd note that the taos pueblo have settled for a water right that's far less than what the claims started between the united states and the pueblo. this amount is more than

appropriated in h.r. 3254. yet, we will hear from some on the other side of the aisle that they are just not sure whether or not this settlement agreement is a good deal. they just do not know, they will say. well, all of the parties which finally came together to settle 40 years of litigation, i remind you, believe this is a good settlement. the gentleman from new mexico who represents these people and this body believe it is a good deal. the gentlelady from california, grace napolitano, who held hearings on this bill and worked with all of the concerned parties, believes it's a good settlement. and the committee on natural resources, which approved the pending measure, thought it was good enough settlement to send to the full house. let me be clear, both the departments of interior and justice were involved in this settlement agreement. rather than engage in pro tractive litigation, both democrat and republican

administrations over the last 20 years believe that negotiated indian water right settlements are the preferred course of action. in testimony before the water and power subcommittee, the commissioner, the bureau of reclamation stated, and i quote, providing certainty, not just as to the quantification of the tribe's water rights, but as to the rights of all water users, end quote. he added further, indian water right settlements are consistent with the federal trust responsibility to native americans and with the policy of promoting indian self-determination and economic self-sufficiency. we do indeed have a trust responsibility to indian country, and fulfilling that responsibility is at the heart of what we are doing today. the taos pueblo has had to fight for its water rights against spanish settlers with mexico and then as part of the united states. let us today end this long fight and provide certainty to all the water users in the taos valley.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia -- the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to reluctantly oppose this and the two other claim settlement bills that are being considered on the house floor today. as a member from the western part of the united states, i am well aware of how important these settlements can be to tribal and nontribal communities. in general, indian water right settlements are instruments to reduce litigation in bringing water supply certainty to communities in the western part of the united states. when done right they provide not only certainty to all parties but they also benefit the american taxpayer who could end up paying much more if the litigation went forward. it is indeed congress' statutory role to consider and

approve these settlements when these settlements are complete, but congress should have all the information it needs to conduct a proper review and pass judgment on the merits of approving these settlements. yet, we do not have all such information on these three bills today. the most critical missing element is a clear direct answer from the department of justice through the attorney general of whether these settlements represent a fair resolution to the taxpayers. as i mentioned during committee consideration of these bills, it's appropriate that these agreements are largely worked out by the people of the local level, the taxpayers from the -- from across the country have to pay for such agreements. so, mr. speaker, in that context, while i applaud the idea that local groups are working it out in their best interests, which i think is a positive state, these do have to be paid for by the american taxpayer. so we must be able to answer

this question, is this the best deal that can be reached and is it in the interest to the parties of the settlement as well as to the taxpayers of this country? the three bills the house will consider today total over $500 million in potential federal expenditure. before congress spends over a half a billion dollars, we certainly should know whether taxpayers are getting fair treatment. the american people are highly concerned about the spending that's gone on in this congress. whether it's the stimulus spending that has failed to create the promised jobs or the government takeover of health care with a price tag of well over $1 trillion, the spending in this congress is out of control. congress needs to get serious about the record debt being run up during president obama's first year in office. this means not only stopping the megaspending bill, but also taking a hard look at the smaller bills. such as the $500 million bills

that are represented under these three bills. we need the attorney general to provide us with a clear, direct answer. the ranking reason of the water and power subcommittee, mr. mcclintock of california, has been working to get such answers. in september and october of last year he wrote to the attorney general asking direct questions. no response was received until two days ago. just as these bills were headed to the floor of this house for a vote. regrettably, this bill does not provide the direct answer to the questions asked. we finally -- we finally replied -- they finally replied at the 11th hour with ambiguity and generalities but not with the clear answer that this congress and the american taxpayers deserve. so, mr. speaker, let me repeat again, while i support the concept of the settlement bills, because by definition

these are people, local people on the ground making the decisions in their best interest and the possibility that these three bills merit passage by the house, without a clear answer, as i talked about earlier, from the department of justice, on whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal, i cannot support this legislation. so, therefore, i urge my colleagues to oppose all three of these bills. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield to mr. lujan from new mexico. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. lujan: thank you, very much. i rise in support today for h.r. 3254, the taos pueblo water rights settlement act. i would like to thank chairman rahall and chairwoman napolitano for their stewardship of all

three water settlement bills we are considering on the house floor today which are such an important part of meeting the water needs of the people in my district. mr. speaker, it's taken clearly three decades of work by so many new mexicans for me to be able to stand here today and address this body about the critical issue of water management. and water security in my state. i would like to thank all the tribal leaders and community members who have repeatedly traveled from taos to washington, across new mexico to work on this legislation throughout the years. generation after generation, mr. speaker, people have been coming together to try to find resolution to benefit the community, to save taxpayers money, to prevent costly litigation from moving forward through the federal court system. as we consider these water settlements today, we should remember that behind this legislative language the

procedural necessaryities and the committee reports, these bills are about basic need and water. these settlements are the fulfillment of a promise made by the united states. let me repeat that, mr. speaker. these settlements are the fulfillment of the promise made by the united states to its people. tribal and nontribal alike, that their water needs would be met. the preservation of the ancient culture of the taos pueblo, as well as the future of the modern taos community depend upon the passage of this legislation. let me give you a little history about this settlement and why it's so important to pass this legislation today. the legal proceedings that led to the taos pueblo indian water rights settlement, also known by my constituents as the beta settlement, began in 1969 by the new mexico state engineer. the state engineer's office in new mexico is charged with the distribution and management of water resources in our state.

the litigation continued until 1989 when the negotiations of the settlement began. it has taken until today for these negotiations to reach a point where it could be possible to enact the settlement into law, to resolve the water allocation between tribal and nontribal community members in the taos area. this legislation will bring to close decades of litigation and uncertainty with regard to water resources for the people of my district. the passage of this legislation will bring security to water users in taos by making water available for future generations and ensure that this valuable resource is protected. h.r. 3254 quantifies and protects taos pueblo's water and provides further security for watter users of the town of taos. and many other nonind-- non-indian water users. they are all provided safeguards for their use of water under this agreement.

the work that has been done between all the settlement parties and the federal government is truly a testament to the necessity of patching this legislation and the willingness of people to come together to protect the water resources that are so valuable to this community. without this settlement, the future water availability for the people of taos and taos pueblo will be uncertain and possibly disastrous. mr. speaker, as we come today and hear some of the concerns about moving this legislation forward, the uncertainty that will exist with federal litigation and the possible costs and problems that could be passed on to taxpayers is something that this litigation will not only add to but that this settlement will help resolve. i certainly hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, that members of this chamber, truly see the importance of us working together and making sure that we support people coming together through costly and expensive litigation from moving forward

to do what's right, especially when it comes to the basic necessity. and the valuable resource of water. i urge you to support this bill and i ask that we help protect the water resources of the people of the third congressional district. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to mr. mcclintock of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. as has been pointed out, this and the two bills that follow ratify out-of-court settlements that arise from decades-old litigation filed by various indian tripes against the united states government. -- tribes against the united states government. they abortion water rights among the three of them to over 110,000 acre-feet of water and

they draw more than half a billion dollars of the taxpayers of the united states, mainly from the development of those water resources. from the outset, i believe that the controlling issue in approving any of these claims is simply this. is it cheaper to settle out of court to go to trial? to answer that question, we must turn to the attorney general. the attorney general is presummably involved in these negotiations. he commands the legal expertise to judge the soundness or weakness of the government's case. and he's the official of our government directly responsible for representing the people of the united states in this litigation. yet when these bills were brought to us last fall, the attorney general's office was completely silent on that question. in fact, the administration expressed many reservations about the technical aspects of these bills, which leads me to believe that these are not settlements negotiated by the attorney general with the tribes and then presented to congress. but rather they are settlements

written by congress itself which congress is neither designed or competent to do. most importantly we were absolutely unable to get a straight answer to the most important question at issue and that is do these settlements exceed the likely liability of the government if these claims went to trial. if we were a corporate board of directors making a decision on an out-of-court settlement, and we agreed to that settlement without consulting our legal counsel, we would be guilty of breaching our if i douche -- fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders. how could we do any less as the congress of the united states? i'm new around here but i spent 22 years in the california legislature, many of them on the relevant committees that heard settlement bills. the central testimony in all those settlements was from the attorney general's office as the state's legal counsel. they would appear before us and testify that in their professional legal judgment the settlements were justified under current law and that the state's

liability and legal costs would likely exceed the settlement if the water went to trial. i'm told that's the way it used to work around here. the attorney general would negotiate the best possible settlement on behalf of the united states and then submit that settlement to congress. congress would then approve or reject it. now it seems to be working in precisely the opposite manner. congress now does the negotiating and then presents the bill to the attorney general. mr. speaker, that is not going to end well. i wrote to the attorney general's office in september and again in october asking for their legal assessment of the cases involved. this is hardly unprecedented. for example, in 1994 the department of justice testified before congress on a similar water settlement. there, peter seeland, the clinton justice department official, testified and i quote, the federal government is not that well positioned for a victory on this claim which has

been pending for over 40 years. absent the settlement, we could well litigate it for another 10 years and the outcome could be easily significant cost to the taxpayers and public, end quote. if the clinton administration could give congress a straight answer on an indian water settlement bill, then i felt there was no reason why the current one shouldn't also be straight with the congress. there is a simple word for this, it's called transparency. we have been assured that the guiding principle of this administration. we truly need some transparency in these case it is we are to do our job competently and to do justice to both sides in these claims. yet the administration remained completely untransparent on this issue. that's why i submit add simple amendment to all three bills. the amendment would require before the settlements take affect the department of justice has to certify that settling out of court would be preferable to going to court. and i'd like to thank the members of the rules committee who granted the rule allowing

these amendments to be presented today. but as the gentleman from washington has said, a funny thing happened after the rules committee voted that rule out on to tuesday night. two hours after the rules committee voted, 7:45 in the evening, our office received a letter from the administration responding to my request way back in september and october of last year. and in it the departments of justice and interior finally are prepared to state, although somewhat ambiguously that, quote, settlement would be preferable to litigation of these claims. i certainly hope this is not going to be their pattern. we have many more indian water settlements pending for substantial amounts of money. the congress should not have to wait for months to get the straight answer out of the administration for each settlement. the congress should not be forced to choose a funding amount in the dark and without an informed legal opinion from our attorney general at the outset. and these matters should not have to wait until the eve of a

congressional vote. mr. speaker, since the administration has responded to the question raised by the amendment i was prepared to offer, i am not going to introduce them to these bills today. but it is hard to square their assurances of this week with the department of interior's letter to the subcommittee chairman of november 10 with respect to the whitewater apache settlement that says, and i quote, give the benefits being attained by the tribe under this settlement, the administration would consider the approximately $109 million of additional funding for a development fund authorized under this bill to be excessive if it were viewed as settlement consideration. i'd also point to concerns raised by the administration, again this is unique to the white water apache settlement upcoming, in the same letter, objecting to language, quote, which waives the sovereign immunity of the united states.

they warn, quote, this provision will engender additional litigation and likely in competing state and federal forums rather than resolving the water right disputes underlying adjudication. obviously this administration has a lot of work to do before future water selllements -- settlements are considered. i believe congress needs to demand that the administration be candid and forthcoming in all future water settlements and congress insist that before it begins deliberating on a settlement that the attorney general has conducted and completed the negotiation has determined all of the details, has certified that the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and only then submit that settlement for consideration and approval by the congress. we need to make this happen in committee, not the night before a bill is sent to the house floor. and i believe that a growing number of us will have a problem

agreeing to the advancement of future water settlements without these reforms. anything less is breaching the fiduciary responsibility we hold to the people of the united states. i want to dwell on that term for just a moment. congress' fiduciary responsibility. that sounds laughable today. but to the framers of our constitution, the term congress' fiduciary responsibility wasn't a punchline, it was a bedrock principle. it's high time we restored and respected that principle. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: it's my honor to now yield to another co-sponsor of this legislation and a valued member of our committee on natural resources, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. heinrich, such time he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. heinrich: thank you, mr.

speaker. thank you, chairman. the taos pueblo indian water right settlement act is critically important to taos pueblo and for that matter all of northern new mexico. i want to thank my colleague, representative ben ray lujan for his leadership on this important issue. i also want to thank chairman rahall and chairwoman napolitano for their support of this bill through the committee process. this bill is a result of many, many long years of negotiation among the parties to find a fair and equitable resolution for this conflict. like the other long-standing water rights cases, this case has been in federal court for 40 years. more than a decade ago community leaders realized that litigation would not solve this problem. but negotiateation might. -- negotiation might. i want to commend the hard work and cooperation of all the stakeholders, this outcome demonstrates a real compromise by all the parties involved.

taos pueblo is the only living native american community registered as a national historic landmark. and it's been continuously inhabited for over 1,000 years. under new mexico state law, that long history gives taos pueblo senior water rights and reinforces our duty to help protect the water resources while providing certainty to both indian and non-indian water users in the taos valley. . it protects the buffalo pasture. the pueblo has agreed to give up some of its water rights in exchange for protecting the groundwater that feeds the buffalo pasture. a settlement agreement was signed in may of 2006 by taos pueblo, the state of new mexico and many affected non-indian water users in the taos valley.

but this settlement still needs ratification and approval by the united states federal government and that's what this bill will do. it will bring much-needed certainty to the taos valley and new mexico water users. as anyone from a western state knows, water is the lifeblood of our community. whether you live in downtown albuquerque on a ranch, in a pueblo, every new mexican deserves their right to clean, reliable water. this settlement is a historic step in ensuring that new mexico communities have clear and reliable water rights -- rights to the water that they need, and i'd urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia.

mr. rahall: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, could i inquire of my friend, the distinguished chairman, if he has any more speakers on this bill? mr. rahall: i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker. mr. hastings: is he prepared to close? mr. rahall: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. speaker, i know that mr. mcclintock says he's not going to offer his amendment. so with that i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i think that we've made it -- hopefully we've made it very clear in this debate that the agreement and the settlement of the claims is preferable to litigation when fair resolutions are met. i think most people would agree with that. we certainly do on this side of the aisle. that is better for those to be worked out at the local level

rather than going to lawyer fees and years fighting in court. yet, we as representatives owe it to our constituents to make certain that settlements -- that overly compensate or benefit one community or locality while ultimately being paid out of the tax pockets -- pockets of the taxpayers. settlements must be fair to claimants, the affected community and to taxpayers. despite several months of efforts to get a clear, direct answer from the attorney general on the question of whether these sments are in the interest of tax -- settlements are in the interest of taxpayers, they responded, unfortunately, at the very last minute with a short, vague letter that leaves the question largely unanswered. these three bills, as i mentioned, mr. speaker, spend over $500 million. taxpayers deserve a transparent

and straightforward reply. because that has not been forthcoming, as i mentioned, i must oppose all three bills. but, mr. speaker, in the future i would hope that the democrat majority would be put on notice that we expect to hear directly from the justice department on the merits of the proposed settlements while this is being considered in the natural resource committee. with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, these settlements need to be fully vetted and explained in a fully transparent manner with clear answers from the justice department. until that happens, these type of bills should not be advanced to the house floor as three bills were advanced to the house floor. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: let me colon clued by noting that in -- let me conclude by noting that in a letter from the department of interior and the department of justice they noted, and i quote, both rangor and uncertainty can have substantial economic consequences. the existence of unquantified water rights claims cast a shadow over all water users in a water basin. as no other water user in the basin can be certain when these rights may be used and how this will impact other users, end quote. the pending bill solves this problem. it provides needed certainty. and before finally concluding, i would note to my colleagues, and i did not really want to do this for fear of scarring off support on my side of the aisle, but i'd note that the third of these bills has a co-sponsorship of the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. not an individual known around here for his prolific spending

habits. so i do that again with the trendation of scarring off support from my side of the aisle before the pending measure. i ask all members to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on the bill has expired. the chair understands that the amendment will not be offered. pursuant to house resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to approve the taos pueblo indian water rights settlement agreement, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the andrew. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1017, i call up the bill h.r. 3342 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will -- the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 227, h.r. 3342, bail to authorize the secretary of the interior, acting through the commissioner of reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the rio grande basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the pueblos of nambe, pojoaque, san ildefonso, and tesuque.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1017, the bill is considered as read. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted. after one hour debate on the bill it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part b of house report 111-399, if offered by the gentleman from california or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 3342. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. we're now proceeding with the second of three bills to implement indian water right

settlement agreements being considered by this body today. the pending measure, like the previous bill, is sponsored by our colleague, ben rahilou has of new mexico, and co-sponsored by martin heinrich of that state. this legislation would settle the water lights of four pueblos in new mexico under agreement with the state of new mexico, santa fe county, the city of santa fe and individual water users. it would end 44 years of active litigation involving over 2,500 defendants by ratfying the settlement agreement and fund a regional water system for all water users in the value. the previous bill we considered would end 40 years of litigation. the one we are currently considering would end 44 years of litigation. i would say to my colleagues that today we are making history. the american people want certainty. during these tough economic times, we all want to have certainty in our lives. but for many a long year

certainty with respect to water has not been the case in the rio grande watershed. today, we can provide that certainty. the pending measure would secure water to meet the current and future needs of the pueblos involved, protect water users that make the region unique, preserve irrigation in the area and provide water for all of the region's residents. as in the case of h.r. 3342, water rights settlements improve water management by providing certainty, not just to the quantification of a tribe's water rights, but also to the water rights of all users. certainty provides opportunities for economic development for indians and non-indians alike. where indian water rights are unquantified, there's often tension and colon flict between tribes and their neighbors. the -- conflicts between tribes and their neighbors. the settlements replaces tension with collaboration, mutual interindependence and

trust. i commend the team of lujan and heinrich for their hard work on this matter. i again would acknowledge the long hours of work that have been put into this measure by the distinguished the gentlelady from california -- the distinguished gentlelady from california, grace napolitano, for chair of water and power. she's gone through hours of meetings and discussions. i thank the four pueblos for their hard work and dedication. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the arguments that i made on the previous bill are exactly applicable to this bill. so let me simply summarize. to summarize, i believe and we believe on this side that settlement agreements are in the best interests for all

parties involved, but there's an element that needs to be highlighted because settlement agreements generally at the end costs money. and the missing part of these agreements on these three bills that we are considering today is what is the cost to the taxpayer. we need to have transparency when we make that decision, and that decision unfortunately was not afforded to us in committee and at the last minute it was afforded to us in a very ambiguous way. so it's for that reason while i support these -- the claim settlements as a general principle, not having all the information, i must oppose this bill as i did the last bill and with the next bill coming up i'll essentially say the same thing. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. rahall from west virginia is recognized.

mr. rahall: i yield to the chairlady of our water and power subcommittee, mrs. napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, chairman rahall and ranking member hastings for all your hard work. three pieces of legislation would help indian nation in new mexico and arizona. these people on these reservation, the sacred lands of their fathers, grandfathers and many generations before. these bills would provide them with the water their ancestors were entitled to but never received. we all take for granted the most basic of our resources, water. the people of the pueblos in the high country of arizona never have. they understand the value of water and its importance to the cultures and their well-being. water is the lifeblood of these

individuals, and when they were assigned reservations of land, their assumption was that they would have access to the water they needed to survive. they were not and for the last 140-plus years these individual americans have been fighting for the right to this most basic of resources, water. it is time today for us to do something about this for these six native nations. mr. chairman, you mentioned charlie and in your statement as the type of dedication that's been made for these water right settlements and their subsequent legislation. leaders in each tribe and pueblo have invested many decades in trying to acquire water rights that for generations came without legal restrictions but instead was part of their homeland. for many years these tribes have been treated as second-class citizens of america, our great country. we have taken their land, we've taken their resources, we've

even taken their water. they've worked with the local governments to legally, and i might add, very costly attempt to acquire access to something that always has been part of their life, water. members of these tribes across the country today continue to work to support their sovereign nation. they work with the state -- they work with the local partners who see the benefit of the settlement not just for the tribal communities but for the entire region. and, mr. chairman, i'd like -- mr. speaker, i'd like to say that i have colorado river water association 2010 resolution, the western state water council, in support of this legislation. people looking for local and regional solutions just as we have been directing them to do. mr. speaker, i brought with me these resolutions so that we can understand that they have wide support, not only from the native american areas but also from their neighbors and their

friends within the area. each of these organizations support the settlement of indian reserve water rights by negotiation or agreement. they realize that in order for their future and their economy we need to provide certainty to a basic human right, water. these resolutions are consistent with the administration's views of supporting collaborative negotiations as an inherent responsibility as federal trustees to indian tribes and their members. most importantly, we cannot, we must not forget that we're talking about americans, native americans, human beings. these tribes and pueblos have done everything we asked of them and have taken the long walk to work with the federal government legal constraints and are now in sight securing for their people a basic human right, water. and after decades, these people have made huge efforts to play with the government rules to

reacquire a rightful access to water which came with the land they lived on. with the price -- the price of these people have been high, long and filled with many disappointments and many empty promises. i ask you support this legislation today. support it because these native americans have followed all the rules, procedures and hurdles our government has laid out. support the legislation because it's the right thing to do and because it is supported by all local communities and regional water managers. most importantly, because it is time to buy certainty to the people of new mexico and arizona that we can do right by them. at the end of the day for this one resource, precious water, we can sit down and appreciate doing the right thing for them. water, mr. speaker, of which you are drinking, is running short in the u.s. we need to preserve and we need to be able to take care of it.

and none other than our native americans love the earth and what mother nature gives us. help us pass this. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: it's once again my pleasure to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new mexico, the lead sponsor of this legislation, mr. ben ray lujan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i rise today in support of h.r. 3342, the aamodt litigation settlement act. i would like to thank my colleagues on the resource committee, chairman rahall, chairwoman napolitano, my colleague from new mexico, mr. heinrich, and ranking member mr. hastings. i would also like to thank david ortiz and well water association, the office of the state new mexico engineer, the city of santa fe, and all of our

tribal leaders from nambe, and pebos and others, thank you for your hard work to reach these settlements. the testimony of the settlement parties, tough negotiations, and debate has made the consideration of these bills possible today. the parties to this settlement have worked for a very long time to accomplish solution that is equitable and fair to all waters in the valley. including tribal and nontribal residents alike. our water resources are precious in new mexico. without a reliable water supply we cannot have human health, protect our cultures and traditions, or grow our economies. this settlement will he pro text water resources, advance the implementation of effective water management, and ensure future access to water resources for all residents encompassed by this settlement. that is what makes h.r. 3342, the aamodt litigation settlement act of 2009 so important. i would like to ask the chair if

i may submit for the record letters i received from the state of new mexico, the county of santa fe, the tesuque association and others to ask congress to take a serious look at the importance of approving these settlements as this piece of legislation is so vital to the prolonged existence of culture and agriculture in my district. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lujan: it has taken over 40 years and countless court proceedings, congressional hearings, and mediations before this bill arrived to this point. the people of the pojoaque valley have debated and negotiated this settlement since the 1960's. parties have informed me, mr. speaker, if legislative action does not move forward, the federal court is prepared to resume legal proceedings on the underlying lawsuit. this litigation would have dire effects upon all nonwater right holders in the basin, incur tremendous court costs and legal fees on american taxpayers.

the cost to the government of continued litigation would and probably will exceed the cost of the settlement itself. we heard today, mr. speaker, that we did hear from the attorney general's office saying they did refer this course of action to litigation. senator bingaman and udall bi congress -- 110th congress to conduct hearings on the house resources committee on the senate committee of indian affairs. in the hetcht congress new mexico senators and i reintroduced this bill with my colleague, martin heinrich of new mexico, with improved provisions that took the considerations into account and in doing so approved the settlement -- improved the settlement. hearings were held on this bill and this bill was supported in the natural resources committee by unanimous and bipartisan support. this settlement is with people and quality of life in small rural communities. the future of this community depends on the availability and

dependability of a water supply. this settlement ensures just that. rather than continue on a course of costly litigation that could tear a community apart, i ask my colleagues to join me in voting to enact these settlements. thank you again for the leadership to the members of the subcommittee on water and power and the members of the natural resources for their support. you know, mr. speaker, as we talk about water settlements going forward, i know that democrats and republicans from this side of the aisle, from the other side of the aisle that we all have the honor of representing constituencies that include native americans and tribal communities. in new mexico, there was a school project, mr. speaker, and they asked the kids to draw pictures of where they get their water from. most kids across school districts across new mexico drew pictures of water faucets or water bottles, things of that nigh ture, where that water when they turn it on it comes out.

there were children from native american communities who drew pictures of their mothers and fathers or brothers and sisters carrying water jugs to get water into the home. they drew pictures of their fathers driving pickup trucks with large water containers like you would to provide water to animals out on the range. i hope we don't lose sight, mr. speaker, of the fact that water is a very precious resource. and there's still many people across this great nation of ours who don't have access to it. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the issue that we are debating here is not the settlement clamentse per se -- claims per se. i think we all in this house agree that if you can get agreement with parties involved in litigation and come to

agreement amongst them, that is good policy and that is very well been explained by my friends on the other side of the aisle. but what is at issue here is the third part and that is, would this -- is this claim going to be beneficial to the taxpayer by not costing the taxpayers more than if they went through litigation? that's what the issue is. very clear. the gentleman from new mexico just a moment ago said something to the effect that this would save the taxpayers money by not going through litigation. i would like to ask the gentleman, i yield to the gentleman if he can provide me documents as to that fact. i'll be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he can provide that to me. mr. lujan: i appreciate the ranking member of the natural resources yielding to me. mr. speaker, what we have here is clear language on the docket of the state of new mexico that has been expressed by many of

the parties which encourage them to go to litigation. that very much do hope that senior water right holders in the state of new mexico, which these tribal communities are, do hope senior water -- mr. hastings: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. the question i asked the gentleman was the statement he made that it would be more costly to go through litigation than to settlement and i asked the gentleman, mr. speaker, very specifically if he has documentation to that effect. so i hope that the gentleman would respond to me on that point because that is the difference in this debate on this bill and last bill. i would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he has that documentation. mr. lujan: as we are talking about the importance of how we can achieve cost savings to taxpayers across the country, it's important that we understand the laws. and the protections that are housed to those individuals who are senior water right individuals. which clearly is the reason why so many people could be

impacted. as litigation continues, the cost of litigation adds additional cost to the taxpayers of the country. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i want to -- mr. speaker, i want to interrupt -- do you have documentation to that point? because we asked the department of justice specifically on that point and they have not responded. if you have documentation on that point, because that's the issue. if this saves the taxpayer money, i am totally in favor of it. all we are asking is for that documentation. if the gentleman has it, please provide it. does the gentleman have it? mr. lujan: mr. speaker, it's -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington -- mr. hastings: i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: it's clear i don't have the response that my ranking member colleague may be looking for. but his counsel may inform him as well as our counsel has informed us that some of that documentation is not public record at this time. but with that, mr. speaker, i

apologize to the ranking member we are not able to provide the answer that the ranking member may be looking for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reclaims his time? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i just want to emphasize, this is the core point. the gentleman just said he doesn't have it and yet we are being asked here. members of the u.s. house, representing everybody in this country, taxpayers that may not be involved with this, to pass judgment and support this settlement agreement when we don't know if the cost is beneficial or not. that's the issue. and i would hope as i said in my closing remarks on the first bill that when we have future settlements coming forward, we can have this information full transparency, mr. speaker, in committee. so we don't have to go through this drill on the floor and go back and forth and then, unfortunately, have somebody say we don't have this documentation. mr. speaker, that's the issue here.

we are not arguing about the benefits of the claims. i am sure they are very good. it's been long negotiations. mr. speaker, with that could i inquire of my friend from -- the distinguished chairman from west virginia if he has any more speakers? mr. rahall: one more. mr. hastings: with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm happy once again to yield such time as he may consume to the co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. martin heinrich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from in in is recognized. mr. heinrich: thank you, mr. speaker. i am very pleased to stand in solidarity with my colleague, representative ben ray lujan, in bringing this very challenging chapter in new mexico history to a close. i also want to thank chairman rahall and chairwoman napolitano for their support of this settlement. the aamodt water rights litigation is literally the oldest active case in our

nation's federal court. literally older than myself and my colleagues. since 19666 thighs communities have waited for a resolution -- 1966 these communities have waited for a resolution to this case. the bill here before us represents the culmination of decades of hard work and difficult compromise by the affected stakeholders to negotiate an agreement that meets each community's long-term needs. during the committee hearings we heard from representatives of local, state, and pueblo government. and i want to commend each of them for their enduring efforts to achieve this settlement. the aamodt water settlement will enable the secretary of interior through the bureau of reclamation to create a long awaited regional water system. that system will be jointly operated by santa fe county along with the four northern new mexico pueblos and provide a great deal of certainty to all rio grande water users. 60% of its capacity will deliver

water to the pueblos, 40% will go to the county water utility. this legislation has been a generation or more in the making. and i look forward to its long awaited contribution to the well-being of the pueblos and the future of the entire state of new mexico. i would urge my colleagues' support and i yield back the remainder of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i have a great deal of respect for west virginia but i am from washington. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the idea of transparency. in this and in all things. i think some observers may not appreciate the issues that are before us when we're dealing with the indian rights, whether

it's settlement or something else because of the unique situation of americans -- native americans in the united states and the relationship we have with indian nation is the direct result of the constitution of the united states. and often it is good for us to remind ourselves of the first principles involved when we're dealing with these issues. and, therefore, mr. speaker, i'd like to also mention that today in a blow for freedom, in a tremendous action of a return to first principles under the constitution, the united states supreme court timely got it right. the united states supreme court -- finally got it right. the united states supreme court in the case of citizens united v. federal election commission finally focused on the first amendment and talked about the essence of the first amendment being political speech. we have been distracted so often in other decisions by the court that they have lost in

many times their focus on the fact that the first amendment is in essence a protection of our political speech. and today they overruled a previous case where they had wandered from that, and they said to us that congress cannot in fact make choices between preferred speakers and nonpreferred speakers. preferred organizations and nonpreferred organizations. and here is one of the -- one of the occurrence of truth contained in today's majority opinion. -- colonels of truth contained in today's majority opinion. so ingrained in this country's cultures that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws that oftentimes in this body we in the effort to try and cleanse the political system from the possibility of people that might take undo

advantage of it render political speech to the sidelines. and the court has said, the people are smarter than that. they can get around that, and, therefore, we ought to attempt to allow the full flowering of political speech. the court also said this, rapid changes to technology and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. this is a great day, mr. speaker. this is a great day. the court said, differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the first amendment, and there is no support for the view that the amendment's original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations' political speech.

mr. hastings: i give the gentleman one minute. mr. lungren: it said their previous decision in austin allows censorship that is vast in its reach, suppressing the speech of both for-profit and nonprofit, both small and large corporations. earlier this week, the people of massachusetts reminded us that here the people prevail, that the constitution starts with the words, we the people, that despite what the pundits say, despite what the special interests say, the people prevail. today, the supreme court said the people can speak. it is a great day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. i yield back -- i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, if i

understand the gentleman will be the last gentleman. i know my friend, mr. mcclintock, will not offer his amendment. i'll close and yield back the balance of my time -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: by simply saying, mr. speaker, that the issue here is not the benefits of these settlements. we think those settlements are good. the one element that we have a question on is what is the cost to the taxpayer. i think that's a very, very legitimate issue for us and need this house to consider. and so it's with that reason that, as i mentioned earlier, i have to reluctantly oppose all three of these bills. and i'd hope in the future at the committee level we can have this full transparency on future settlements that will inevitably have in this congress. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, just to conclude and reiterate what

i have already said, that 44 years of litigation is far too long, 40 years of litigation is far too long. we all know the tremendous costs involved in litigation to the federal taxpayer, the amount of salaries paid to judges, lawyers. we can go on and on about the costs that the taxpayer ends up bearing over some 44 years of litigation. longer time period than most have spent in the desert. so with that i'd say that this bill is certainly economical to the american taxpayers, and i'd urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for the debate on the bill has expired. the chair understands that the amendment will not be offered. pursuant to house resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and the third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior, acting through the commissioner of reclamation, to develop water infrastructure in the rio grande basin, and to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the pueblos of nambe, pojoaque, san ildefonso and tesuque. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. rahall: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1017, i call up h.r. 1065 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 228, h.r. 1065, a bill to resolve water rights claims of the white mountain apache tribe in the state of arizona, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1017, the bill is considered as read. the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part c of house report 111-399 is adopted. after one hour debate on this bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part d of house report 111-399 if offered by the gentleman from california or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, and the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert

extraneous material on h.r. 1065. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rahall: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i am pleased to bring before the house legislation that would adjudicate the water rights of the white mountain apache tribe and end years of litigation by ratfying the settlement agreement. this is a bipartisan -- radfying the settlement agreement. this is a bipartisan measure sponsored by the gentlelady from arizona, mrs. kirkpatrick. i applaud her in the manner which she has led the house on this issue, brought it before our attention and secured the co-sponsorship of the entire arizona house delegation. the waters of the white mountain pavep reservation leads to the salt river. it is part of phoenix, arizona, along with thousands of acres of agriculture land. coming to closure on water rights is imperative to protect the water supply for thousands

of people in arizona. equally important is the fulfillment of commitments made to the white mountain apache people to provide them clean and reliable water supply and to repair their irrigation system which has fallen into disrepair. in this settlement, all parties came together with a mutual desire for success. indeed, the parties to this settlement agree include the white mountain apache, the state of arizona, the cities of phoenix, scottsdale, tempe and various water users organizations and entities. as with the two bills we just considered, i want to again acknowledge the administration's position that for over 20 years the federal government has stated that negotiated indian water right settlements are prmble to pro tractive and -- preferble to pro tractive water rights

settlements. i thank the gentlelady from arizona, ann kirkpatrick, and her colleagues in the arizona delegation for their hard work in bringing this measure forward. i also again would recognize the tireless efforts of our subcommittee chairwoman, the gentlelady from california, mrs. grace napolitano, for her countless hours of meetings and staff meetings and other meetings with the affected parties. and i'd like to thank the white mountain apache people for their continued dedication to this settlement and legislation. access to water should not be a privilege but it is a basic fundamental right. these people have clearly earned our respect and support for this legislation. i urge the passage thereof and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, once again the -- this is a third of three settlement bills. the arguments that i made on

the first two bills are applicable to this one. i'll just add one other point. that is that these three bills have a cost to the taxpayer of half a billion dollars, $500 million. and there certainly is an unrest in this country as to what this congress has done in a fiscal manner. this is small. we are talking about millions when other programs we're talking about in this congress, unfortunately, total trillions. but if we need to get our house in order, this simply is something we need to have more information on before we pass judgment on. so with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. hayworth: mr. speaker, i'm happy to lead to the -- yield to the lead co-sponsor -- mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield to the lead

co-sponsor on this, mrs. kirkpatrick, such time as she may consume. mrs. kirkpatrick: i rise in support of h.r. 1065, the white mountain apache tribe water rights quantification act. in our district, farmers have to fight to keep their crops growing. firefighters are constantly challenged by raging wildfires, and local officials consider the drinking water supply in every discussion of the community's future. we know we need to make each drop count. that is why i'm proud to have worked with the white mountain apache and other stakeholders to introduce this bill. the white mountain apache water rights quantification act finalizes a settlement agreement that will end a long running water rights dispute in greater arizona and provides a path toward a reliable, long-term water supply for the

white mountain apache tribe and areas across the state. the agreement under consideration continues a long history of settlements of indian water rights disputes in our state. we have found time and again that these settlements, as opposed to litigation, helps the tribes and their neighbors achieve real certainty in their water supply. they are able to better plan for the years to come. the negotiating process also builds working relationships between the parties involved, allowing them to cooperate and more effectively manage their watersheds for the future. with this legislation, they will finally begin to see these benefits. along with approving the agreement, this bill authorizes construction of the miner flat dam and pipeline which will provide a 100-year municipal

drinking water supply to towns on the white mountain apache tribal land. that is critically important because our needs for drinking water is both immediate and serious. people in the area are being threatened with water shortages even now. in the winter of what was a great water year in the rest of the state. nearly 15,000 tribal members will be served by the project and it cannot come a moment too soon for them. . they are concurrent resolution economic drivers for the region yonl. fish hangry, irrigation projects, and infrastructure improvements to a local i ask -- local ski park. we will be able to create jobs and get folks back to work. i was born and raised on white mountain apache tribal land and

my hometown is one of those that would gain from this project. i have seen firsthand the challenges that these communities face and i'm confident that this legislation will make a real difference in addressing them. at this time i would like to address the cost issue that has been raised by my esteemed colleague from washington. when i was a kid, we had to boil our water and if we didn't, we got sick. we got real sick. that was over 50 years ago. we didn't have the convenience of purified water that comes delivered in big jugs that i have seen in most congressional offices here in washington. that situation where folks living in the united states today do not have access to running water that they can drink is not acceptable.

my confidence that this legislation will make a real difference in addressing those needs, those critical needs, is shared by many in arizona where the bill has earned widespread support. every single member of our state's delegation in the house is co-sponsoring h.r. 1065, and i want to point out that that includes my esteemed colleague, congressman jeff flake, who i think is the watchdog of the house on spending in congress. i have worked closely with senator kyl to move forward on this critical project in both chamebers. folks on -- chambers. folks on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of securing our water supply. they also recognize the care it has taken to get to this point. the settlement has taken 21 different stakeholder groups

years of negotiation and compromise to reach. it is carefully crafted to best fit the needs and demands of all those involved. it is time for folks in my district to get the water supply they have been working toward for so long. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california virginia tech. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we are told over and over that this is an agreement that has been painstakingly and meticulously worked out. that's the sort of agreement that we would have if i were to sue the federal government for $10 million, go to my next door neighbor and say, can't you agree that the federal government should send us at least $5 million?

we reach an agreement and present it to congress as a settlement of an outstanding claim. that's essentially what's going on here. let me read to you the testimony of michael carr, commissioner of the bureau of reclamation, to the subcommittee on water and power regarding this bill in july of this year. he said, while we are aware that the settling parties worked closely with the team in developing the parameters of this settlement, we have also been informed by the team that issues involving the cost of this settlement were not considered. we believe that these costs need to be discussed and negotiated and that the benefits of the settlement must justify the costs. those negotiations never took place between the federal government and the stakeholders. those negotiations took place among the stakeholders themselves. and they all agreed that the federal government should send them lots and lots of money.

the same commissioner of the bureau of reclamation sent a letter in november, november 10 of 2009, to the chairwoman of the subcommittee on water and power and warned about these things again. they said, other than the $4.95 million provided for rehabilitation of irrigation systems on the reservation, the administration does not believe the money authorized for the development fund is consideration for this settlement. i would also point out that under the terms of this measure, that again are questioned by the administration, the federal government is responsible for handing over that money and then the tribe in the provisions of the bill has the authority to withdraw those funds for purposes unrelated to water development. that's why those of us in the

minority, although we are very sympathetic to the history that has brought us to this point and seek an equitable settlement for all sides in this dispute, seriously question why a settlement between the united states government and the stakeholders involved would not -- were not fully negotiated by the united states government, and why this measure written by congress is being submitted to the administration when it is the administration's responsibility to be involved in the negotiations of all the details of the ultimate settlement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i understand that the gentleman is prepared to close. i i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i would just simply repeat that what i said at the outset.

i must reluctantly rise to oppose all three of these settlement bills based on the simple fact that we don't have all the information we need. while we applaud people on the local level settling tough disputes, especially water issues, and i'm especially sensitive to that, mr. speaker, because i am from the western part of the united states, it is in the best interest of all of the people in this country to know what the cost to them would be because they are all taxpayers. i think that's self-evident. so this debate at least from our side of the aisle didn't question the merits of those agreements. mainly because at least from this member's perspective, i don't know -- know how difficult it is when you have these disputes. our issue is simply the transparency of what the costs will be to the taxpayers of this country. we deserve to have that before

these settlement issues come to the floor of the house. we deserve to have this information so we can do due diligence in committee, in committee. and then make a adjustment if the settlement is in fact the best interest of the taxpayers. that's really all what this great has been about on these three bills. so it's with that, mr. speaker, just simply to say that we don't have transparency on this potential half a billion dollar assessment that's going to go to the taxpayer. we should have that. and we don't. so for that reason, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill and urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. before yielding to the gentleman from michigan to close on our side of the aisle, i would just

reiterate what has already been said by the gentlelady from arizona that she's joined in other co-sponsorship of this legislation by the gentleman considered the watchdog of fiscal spending in this body, mr. jeff flake, in co-sponsoring this bill. at this point i would yield to the co-chair of our native american caucus in the congress, and valued membered of our committee on natural resources, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dale kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i support strongly the passage of h.r. 1065, and the other two bills, h.r. 3342 and h.r. 3254. in the 33 years i have been in congress, i have worked hard with mr. rahall. he and i came to congress together. trying to work out these water

rights. try to make sure we have heard everybody. particularly fair to the native americans who have been deprived of their water rights in many instances and too many instances. mr. rahall has made this a priority to make sure that we get equity and justice here. water is extremely important all over the world. it's extremely important of course in the southwest. i just feel that the hard work that went into this bill and the sense of equity and sense of justice and fairness to all those involved has produced three very good bills. i strongly urge support of them. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all debate for -- all time for debate on the bill has expired.

the chair understands that the amendment will not be offered. pursuant to house resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. he those opposed, no. -- those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to resolve water rights claims on the white mountain apache tribe in the state of arizona, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. mr. rahall: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

by electronic device.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 254. the nays are 158. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 3342 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 227, h.r. 3342, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior acting through the commissioner of reclamation to develop water infrastructure in the rio grande basin and to approve the settlement, water rights claims of the pueblos of nambe, pojoaque, san ildefonso, and tesuque. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 249, the nays are 153, the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 1065 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 228, h.r. 1065, a bill to resolve water rights claims of the whoit mountain apache tribe in the state of arizona and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 262, the nays are 147. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee he, to suspend the rules and afree -- lee, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1021 on which the yeas and nays were odd ordered. the clerk will -- ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: resolution 1021, expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake of january -- earthquake of january 12, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 411. the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. clarke, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 730 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 730, an act to strengthen efforts in the

department of homeland security to develop nuclear forensic capabilities, to permit attribute of the source of nuclear material, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of