[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 392-399]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1017, the bill is considered read.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is 
adopted.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3254

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Taos 
     Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Pueblo rights.
Sec. 5. Pueblo water infrastructure and watershed enhancement.
Sec. 6. Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund.
Sec. 7. Marketing.
Sec. 8. Mutual-Benefit Projects.
Sec. 9. San Juan-Chama Project contracts.
Sec. 10. Authorizations, ratifications, confirmations, and conditions 
              precedent.
Sec. 11. Waivers and releases.
Sec. 12. Interpretation and enforcement.
Sec. 13. Disclaimer.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve, ratify, and confirm the Taos Pueblo Indian 
     Water Rights Settlement Agreement;
       (2) to authorize and direct the Secretary to execute the 
     Settlement Agreement and to perform all obligations of the 
     Secretary under the Settlement Agreement and this Act; and
       (3) to authorize all actions and appropriations necessary 
     for the United States to meet its obligations under the 
     Settlement Agreement and this Act.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Eligible non-pueblo entities.--The term ``Eligible Non-
     Pueblo Entities'' means the Town of Taos, El Prado Water and 
     Sanitation District (``EPWSD''), and the New Mexico 
     Department of Finance and Administration Local Government 
     Division on behalf of the Acequia Madre del Rio Lucero y del 
     Arroyo Seco, the Acequia Madre del Prado, the Acequia del 
     Monte, the Acequia Madre del Rio Chiquito, the Upper 
     Ranchitos Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association, the 
     Upper Arroyo Hondo Mutual Domestic Water Consumers 
     Association, and the Llano Quemado Mutual Domestic Water 
     Consumers Association.
       (2) Enforcement date.--The term ``Enforcement Date'' means 
     the date upon which the Secretary publishes the notice 
     required by section 10(f)(1).
       (3) Mutual-benefit projects.--The term ``Mutual-Benefit 
     Projects'' means the projects described and identified in 
     articles 6 and 10.1 of the Settlement Agreement.
       (4) Partial final decree.--The term ``Partial Final 
     Decree'' means the Decree entered in New Mexico v. Abeyta and 
     New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.) and 
     7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M) (consolidated), for the resolution of 
     the Pueblo's water right claims and which is substantially in 
     the form agreed to by the Parties and attached to the 
     Settlement Agreement as Attachment 5.
       (5) Parties.--The term ``Parties'' means the Parties to the 
     Settlement Agreement, as identified in article 1 of the 
     Settlement Agreement.
       (6) Pueblo.--The term ``Pueblo'' means the Taos Pueblo, a 
     sovereign Indian tribe duly recognized by the United States 
     of America.
       (7) Pueblo lands.--The term ``Pueblo lands'' means those 
     lands located within the Taos Valley to which the Pueblo, or 
     the United States in its capacity as trustee for the Pueblo, 
     holds title subject to Federal law limitations on alienation. 
     Such lands include Tracts A, B, and C, the Pueblo's land 
     grant, the Blue Lake Wilderness Area, and the Tenorio and 
     Karavas Tracts and are generally depicted in Attachment 2 to 
     the Settlement Agreement.
       (8) San juan-chama project.--The term ``San Juan-Chama 
     Project'' means the Project authorized by section 8 of the 
     Act of June 13, 1962 (76 Stat. 96, 97), and the Act of April 
     11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105).
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

[[Page 393]]

       (10) Settlement agreement.--The term ``Settlement 
     Agreement'' means the contract dated March 31, 2006, between 
     and among--
       (A) the United States, acting solely in its capacity as 
     trustee for Taos Pueblo;
       (B) the Taos Pueblo, on its own behalf;
       (C) the State of New Mexico;
       (D) the Taos Valley Acequia Association and its 55 member 
     ditches (``TVAA'');
       (E) the Town of Taos;
       (F) EPWSD; and
       (G) the 12 Taos area Mutual Domestic Water Consumers 
     Associations (``MDWCAs''), as amended to conform with this 
     Act.
       (11) State engineer.--The term ``State Engineer'' means the 
     New Mexico State Engineer.
       (12) Taos valley.--The term ``Taos Valley'' means the 
     geographic area depicted in Attachment 4 of the Settlement 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 4. PUEBLO RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Those rights to which the Pueblo is 
     entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall be held in 
     trust by the United States on behalf of the Pueblo and shall 
     not be subject to forfeiture, abandonment, or permanent 
     alienation.
       (b) Subsequent Act of Congress.--The Pueblo shall not be 
     denied all or any part of its rights held in trust absent its 
     consent unless such rights are explicitly abrogated by an Act 
     of Congress hereafter enacted.

     SEC. 5. PUEBLO WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHED 
                   ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide grants and 
     technical assistance to the Pueblo on a nonreimbursable basis 
     to--
       (1) plan, permit, design, engineer, construct, reconstruct, 
     replace, or rehabilitate water production, treatment, and 
     delivery infrastructure;
       (2) restore, preserve, and protect the environment 
     associated with the Buffalo Pasture area; and
       (3) protect and enhance watershed conditions.
       (b) Availability of Grants.--Upon the Enforcement Date, all 
     amounts appropriated pursuant to section 10(c)(1) or made 
     available from other authorized sources, shall be available 
     in grants to the Pueblo after the requirements of subsection 
     (c) have been met.
       (c) Plan.--The Secretary shall provide financial assistance 
     pursuant to subsection (a) upon the Pueblo's submittal of a 
     plan that identifies the projects to be implemented 
     consistent with the purposes of this section and describes 
     how such projects are consistent with the Settlement 
     Agreement.
       (d) Early Funds.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), 
     $10,000,000 of the monies authorized to be appropriated 
     pursuant to section 10(c)(1)--
       (1) shall be made available in grants to the Pueblo by the 
     Secretary upon appropriation or availability of the funds 
     from other authorized sources; and
       (2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on 
     receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice, 
     a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes under 
     subsection (a) for which the monies will be used, and a plan 
     under subsection (c) for this portion of the funding.

     SEC. 6. TAOS PUEBLO WATER DEVELOPMENT FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Taos Pueblo 
     Water Development Fund'' (hereinafter, ``Fund'') to be used 
     to pay or reimburse costs incurred by the Pueblo for--
       (1) acquiring water rights;
       (2) planning, permitting, designing, engineering, 
     constructing, reconstructing, replacing, rehabilitating, 
     operating, or repairing water production, treatment or 
     delivery infrastructure, on-farm improvements, or wastewater 
     infrastructure;
       (3) restoring, preserving and protecting the Buffalo 
     Pasture, including planning, permitting, designing, 
     engineering, constructing, operating, managing and replacing 
     the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project;
       (4) administering the Pueblo's water rights acquisition 
     program and water management and administration system; and
       (5) for watershed protection and enhancement, support of 
     agriculture, water-related Pueblo community welfare and 
     economic development, and costs related to the negotiation, 
     authorization, and implementation of the Settlement 
     Agreement.
       (b) Management of the Fund.--The Secretary shall manage the 
     Fund, invest amounts in the Fund, and make monies available 
     from the Fund for distribution to the Pueblo consistent with 
     the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 
     (25 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.) (hereinafter, ``Trust Fund Reform 
     Act''), this Act, and the Settlement Agreement.
       (c) Investment of the Fund.--Upon the Enforcement Date, the 
     Secretary shall invest amounts in the Fund in accordance 
     with--
       (1) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 70, ch. 41, 25 
     U.S.C. 161);
       (2) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (52 Stat. 
     1037, ch. 648, 25 U.S.C. 162a); and
       (3) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 
     1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
       (d) Availability of Amounts From the Fund.--Upon the 
     Enforcement Date, all monies deposited in the Fund pursuant 
     to section 10(c)(2) or made available from other authorized 
     sources shall be available to the Pueblo for expenditure or 
     withdrawal after the requirements of subsection (e) have been 
     met.
       (e) Expenditures and Withdrawal.--
       (1) Tribal management plan.--
       (A) In general.--The Pueblo may withdraw all or part of the 
     Fund on approval by the Secretary of a tribal management plan 
     as described in the Trust Fund Reform Act.
       (B) Requirements.--In addition to the requirements under 
     the Trust Fund Reform Act, the tribal management plan shall 
     require that the Pueblo spend any funds in accordance with 
     the purposes described in subsection (a).
       (2) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or 
     administrative action to enforce the requirement that monies 
     withdrawn from the Fund are used for the purposes specified 
     in subsection (a).
       (3) Liability.--If the Pueblo exercises the right to 
     withdraw monies from the Fund, neither the Secretary nor the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall retain any liability for the 
     expenditure or investment of the monies withdrawn.
       (4) Expenditure plan.--
       (A) In general.--The Pueblo shall submit to the Secretary 
     for approval an expenditure plan for any portions of the 
     funds made available under this Act that the Pueblo does not 
     withdraw under paragraph (1)(A).
       (B) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the 
     manner in which, and the purposes for which, amounts 
     remaining in the Fund will be used.
       (C) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the 
     Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and 
     consistent with this Act.
       (5) Annual report.--The Pueblo shall submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report that describes all expenditures 
     from the Fund during the year covered by the report.
       (f) Funds Available Upon Appropriation.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (d), $15,000,000 of the monies authorized to be 
     appropriated pursuant to section 10(c)(2)--
       (1) shall be available upon appropriation or made available 
     from other authorized sources for the Pueblo's acquisition of 
     water rights pursuant to Article 5.1.1.2.3 of the Settlement 
     Agreement, the Buffalo Pasture Recharge Project, 
     implementation of the Pueblo's water rights acquisition 
     program and water management and administration system, the 
     design, planning, and permitting of water or wastewater 
     infrastructure eligible for funding under sections 5 or 6, or 
     costs related to the negotiation, authorization, and 
     implementation of the Settlement Agreement; and
       (2) shall be distributed by the Secretary to the Pueblo on 
     receipt by the Secretary from the Pueblo of a written notice 
     and a Tribal Council resolution that describes the purposes 
     under paragraph (1) for which the monies will be used.
       (g) No Per Capita Distributions.--No part of the Fund shall 
     be distributed on a per capita basis to members of the 
     Pueblo.

     SEC. 7. MARKETING.

       (a) Pueblo Water Rights.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary in accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may 
     market water rights secured to it under the Settlement 
     Agreement and Partial Final Decree, provided that such 
     marketing is in accordance with this section.
       (b) Pueblo Contract Rights to San Juan-chama Project 
     Water.--Subject to the approval of the Secretary in 
     accordance with subsection (e), the Pueblo may subcontract 
     water made available to the Pueblo under the contract 
     authorized under section 9(b)(1)(A) to third parties to 
     supply water for use within or without the Taos Valley, 
     provided that the delivery obligations under such subcontract 
     are not inconsistent with the Secretary's existing San Juan-
     Chama Project obligations and such subcontract is in 
     accordance with this section.
       (c) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Diversion or use of water off Pueblo lands 
     pursuant to Pueblo water rights or Pueblo contract rights to 
     San Juan-Chama Project water shall be subject to and not 
     inconsistent with the same requirements and conditions of 
     State law, any applicable Federal law, and any applicable 
     interstate compact as apply to the exercise of water rights 
     or contract rights to San Juan-Chama Project water held by 
     non-Federal, non-Indian entities, including all applicable 
     State Engineer permitting and reporting requirements.
       (2) Effect on water rights.--Such diversion or use off 
     Pueblo lands under paragraph (1) shall not impair water 
     rights or increase surface water depletions within the Taos 
     Valley.
       (d) Maximum Term.--
       (1) In general.--The maximum term of any water use lease or 
     subcontract, including all renewals, shall not exceed 99 
     years in duration.
       (2) Alienation of rights.--The Pueblo shall not permanently 
     alienate any rights it has under the Settlement Agreement, 
     the Partial Final Decree, and this Act.
       (e) Approval of Secretary.--The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove any lease or subcontract submitted by the Pueblo 
     for approval not later than--
       (1) 180 days after submission; or
       (2) 60 days after compliance, if required, with section 
     102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), or any other requirement of Federal 
     law, whichever is later, provided that no Secretarial 
     approval shall be required for any water use lease with a 
     term of less than 7 years.
       (f) No Forfeiture or Abandonment.--The nonuse by a lessee 
     or subcontractor of the Pueblo of any right to which the 
     Pueblo is entitled under the Partial Final Decree shall in no 
     event result in a forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, or 
     other loss of all or any part of those rights.
       (g) No Preemption.--

[[Page 394]]

       (1) In general.--The approval authority of the Secretary 
     provided under subsection (e) shall not amend, construe, 
     supersede, or preempt any State or Federal law, interstate 
     compact, or international treaty that pertains to the 
     Colorado River, the Rio Grande, or any of their tributaries, 
     including the appropriation, use, development, storage, 
     regulation, allocation, conservation, exportation, or 
     quantity of those waters.
       (2) Applicable law.--The provisions of section 2116 of the 
     Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 177) shall not apply to any water 
     made available under the Settlement Agreement.
       (h) No Prejudice.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to establish, address, prejudice, or prevent any party from 
     litigating whether or to what extent any applicable State 
     law, Federal law, or interstate compact does or does not 
     permit, govern, or apply to the use of the Pueblo's water 
     outside of New Mexico.

     SEC. 8. MUTUAL-BENEFIT PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Upon the Enforcement Date, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall provide 
     financial assistance in the form of grants on a 
     nonreimbursable basis to Eligible Non-Pueblo Entities to 
     plan, permit, design, engineer, and construct the Mutual-
     Benefit Projects in accordance with the Settlement 
     Agreement--
       (1) to minimize adverse impacts on the Pueblo's water 
     resources by moving future non-Indian ground water pumping 
     away from the Pueblo's Buffalo Pasture; and
       (2) to implement the resolution of a dispute over the 
     allocation of certain surface water flows between the Pueblo 
     and non-Indian irrigation water right owners in the community 
     of Arroyo Seco Arriba.
       (b) Cost-sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of 
     planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual-Benefit 
     Projects authorized in subsection (a) shall be 75 percent and 
     shall be nonreimbursable.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the total 
     cost of planning, designing, and constructing the Mutual-
     Benefit Projects shall be 25 percent and may be in the form 
     of in-kind contributions, including the contribution of any 
     valuable asset or service that the Secretary determines would 
     substantially contribute to completing the Mutual-Benefit 
     Projects.

     SEC. 9. SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Contracts issued under this section shall 
     be in accordance with this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
       (b) Contracts for San Juan-chama Project Water.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into 3 repayment 
     contracts by not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, for the delivery of San Juan-Chama 
     Project water in the following amounts:
       (A) 2,215 acre-feet/annum to the Pueblo.
       (B) 366 acre-feet/annum to the Town of Taos.
       (C) 40 acre-feet/annum to EPWSD.
       (2) Requirements.--Each such contract shall provide that if 
     the conditions precedent set forth in section 10(f)(2) have 
     not been fulfilled by December 31, 2016, the contract shall 
     expire on that date.
       (3) Applicable law.--Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 97) 
     applies to the contracts entered into under paragraph (1) and 
     no preference shall be applied as a result of section 4(a) 
     with regard to the delivery or distribution of San Juan-Chama 
     Project water or the management or operation of the San Juan-
     Chama Project.
       (c) Waiver.--With respect to the contract authorized and 
     required by subsection (b)(1)(A) and notwithstanding the 
     provisions of Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 96) or any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the Secretary shall waive the entirety of the Pueblo's 
     share of the construction costs, both principal and the 
     interest, for the San Juan-Chama Project and pursuant to that 
     waiver, the Pueblo's share of all construction costs for the 
     San Juan-Chama Project, inclusive of both principal and 
     interest shall be nonreimbursable; and
       (2) the Secretary's waiver of the Pueblo's share of the 
     construction costs for the San Juan-Chama Project will not 
     result in an increase in the pro rata shares of other San 
     Juan-Chama Project water contractors, but such costs shall be 
     absorbed by the United States Treasury or otherwise 
     appropriated to the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATIONS, RATIFICATIONS, CONFIRMATIONS, AND 
                   CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

       (a) Ratification.--
       (1) In general.--Except to the extent that any provision of 
     the Settlement Agreement conflicts with any provision of this 
     Act, the Settlement Agreement is authorized, ratified, and 
     confirmed.
       (2) Amendments.--To the extent amendments are executed to 
     make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this Act, such 
     amendments are also authorized, ratified, and confirmed.
       (b) Execution of Settlement Agreement.--To the extent that 
     the Settlement Agreement does not conflict with this Act, the 
     Secretary shall execute the Settlement Agreement, including 
     all exhibits to the Settlement Agreement requiring the 
     signature of the Secretary and any amendments necessary to 
     make the Settlement Agreement consistent with this Act, after 
     the Pueblo has executed the Settlement Agreement and any such 
     amendments.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Taos pueblo infrastructure and watershed fund.--There 
     is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide 
     grants pursuant to section 5, $30,000,000, as adjusted under 
     paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2016.
       (2) Taos pueblo water development fund.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Taos Pueblo Water 
     Development Fund, established at section 6(a), $58,000,000, 
     as adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal 
     years 2010 through 2016.
       (3) Mutual-benefit projects funding.--There is further 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to provide 
     grants pursuant to section 8, a total of $33,000,000, as 
     adjusted under paragraph (4), for the period of fiscal years 
     2010 through 2016.
       (4) Adjustments to amounts authorized.--The amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) shall be adjusted by such amounts as may be required by 
     reason of changes since April 1, 2007, in construction costs, 
     as indicated by engineering cost indices applicable to the 
     types of construction or rehabilitation involved.
       (5) Deposit in fund.--Except for the funds to be provided 
     to the Pueblo pursuant to section 5(d), the Secretary shall 
     deposit the funds made available pursuant to paragraphs (1) 
     and (3) into a Taos Settlement Fund to be established within 
     the Treasury of the United States so that such funds may be 
     made available to the Pueblo and the Eligible Non-Pueblo 
     Entities upon the Enforcement Date as set forth in sections 
     5(b) and 8(a).
       (d) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to enter into such agreements and to take such 
     measures as the Secretary may deem necessary or appropriate 
     to fulfill the intent of the Settlement Agreement and this 
     Act.
       (e) Environmental Compliance.--
       (1) Effect of execution of settlement agreement.--The 
     Secretary's execution of the Settlement Agreement shall not 
     constitute a major Federal action under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (2) Compliance with environmental laws.--In carrying out 
     this Act, the Secretary shall comply with each law of the 
     Federal Government relating to the protection of the 
     environment, including--
       (A) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.).
       (f) Conditions Precedent and Secretarial Finding.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the fulfillment of the conditions 
     precedent described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a statement of finding that 
     the conditions have been fulfilled.
       (2) Conditions.--The conditions precedent referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) The President has signed into law the Taos Pueblo 
     Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
       (B) To the extent that the Settlement Agreement conflicts 
     with this Act, the Settlement Agreement has been revised to 
     conform with this Act.
       (C) The Settlement Agreement, so revised, including waivers 
     and releases pursuant to section 11, has been executed by the 
     Parties and the Secretary prior to the Parties' motion for 
     entry of the Partial Final Decree.
       (D) Congress has fully appropriated or the Secretary has 
     provided from other authorized sources all funds authorized 
     by paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (c) so that the 
     entire amounts so authorized have been previously provided to 
     the Pueblo pursuant to sections 5 and 6, or placed in the 
     Taos Pueblo Water Development Fund or the Taos Settlement 
     Fund as directed in subsection (c).
       (E) The Legislature of the State of New Mexico has fully 
     appropriated the funds for the State contributions as 
     specified in the Settlement Agreement, and those funds have 
     been deposited in appropriate accounts.
       (F) The State of New Mexico has enacted legislation that 
     amends NMSA 1978, section 72-6-3 to state that a water use 
     due under a water right secured to the Pueblo under the 
     Settlement Agreement or the Partial Final Decree may be 
     leased for a term, including all renewals, not to exceed 99 
     years, provided that this condition shall not be construed to 
     require that said amendment state that any State law based 
     water rights acquired by the Pueblo or by the United States 
     on behalf of the Pueblo may be leased for said term.
       (G) A Partial Final Decree that sets forth the water rights 
     and contract rights to water to which the Pueblo is entitled 
     under the Settlement Agreement and this Act and that 
     substantially conforms to the Settlement Agreement and 
     Attachment 5 thereto has been approved by the Court and has 
     become final and nonappealable.
       (g) Enforcement Date.--The Settlement Agreement shall 
     become enforceable, and the waivers and releases executed 
     pursuant to section 11 and the limited waiver of sovereign 
     immunity set forth in section 12(a) shall become effective, 
     as of the date that the Secretary publishes the notice 
     required by subsection (f)(1).
       (h) Expiration Date.--
       (1) In general.--If all of the conditions precedent 
     described in section (f)(2) have not been fulfilled by 
     December 31, 2016, the Settlement Agreement shall be null and 
     void, the waivers and releases executed pursuant to section 
     11 and the sovereign immunity waivers in section 12(a) shall 
     not become effective, and any unexpended Federal funds, 
     together with any income earned thereon, and title to any 
     property acquired or constructed with expended Federal

[[Page 395]]

     funds, shall be returned to the Federal Government, unless 
     otherwise agreed to by the Parties in writing and approved by 
     Congress.
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (h)(1) or any 
     other provision of law, any unexpended Federal funds, 
     together with any income earned thereon, made available under 
     sections 5(d) and 6(f) and title to any property acquired or 
     constructed with expended Federal funds made available under 
     sections 5(d) and 6(f) shall be retained by the Pueblo.
       (3) Right to set-off.--In the event the conditions 
     precedent set forth in subsection (f)(2) have not been 
     fulfilled by December 31, 2016, the United States shall be 
     entitled to set off any funds expended or withdrawn from the 
     amount appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (c) or made available from other authorized 
     sources, together with any interest accrued, against any 
     claims asserted by the Pueblo against the United States 
     relating to water rights in the Taos Valley.

     SEC. 11. WAIVERS AND RELEASES.

       (a) Claims by the Pueblo and the United States.--In return 
     for recognition of the Pueblo's water rights and other 
     benefits, including but not limited to the commitments by 
     non-Pueblo parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement 
     and this Act, the Pueblo, on behalf of itself and its 
     members, and the United States acting in its capacity as 
     trustee for the Pueblo are authorized to execute a waiver and 
     release of claims against the parties to New Mexico v. Abeyta 
     and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.) 
     and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated) from--
       (1) all claims for water rights in the Taos Valley that the 
     Pueblo, or the United States acting in its capacity as 
     trustee for the Pueblo, asserted, or could have asserted, in 
     any proceeding, including but not limited to in New Mexico v. 
     Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 
     D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated), up to and 
     including the Enforcement Date, except to the extent that 
     such rights are recognized in the Settlement Agreement or 
     this Act;
       (2) all claims for water rights, whether for consumptive or 
     nonconsumptive use, in the Rio Grande mainstream or its 
     tributaries that the Pueblo, or the United States acting in 
     its capacity as trustee for the Pueblo, asserted or could 
     assert in any water rights adjudication proceedings except 
     those claims based on Pueblo or United States ownership of 
     lands or water rights acquired after the Enforcement Date, 
     provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the 
     Pueblo or the United States from fully participating in the 
     inter se phase of any such water rights adjudication 
     proceedings;
       (3) all claims for damages, losses or injuries to water 
     rights or claims of interference with, diversion or taking of 
     water (including but not limited to claims for injury to 
     lands resulting from such damages, losses, injuries, 
     interference with, diversion, or taking) in the Rio Grande 
     mainstream or its tributaries or for lands within the Taos 
     Valley that accrued at any time up to and including the 
     Enforcement Date; and
       (4) all claims against the State of New Mexico, its 
     agencies, or employees relating to the negotiation or the 
     adoption of the Settlement Agreement.
       (b) Claims by the Pueblo Against the United States.--The 
     Pueblo, on behalf of itself and its members, is authorized to 
     execute a waiver and release of--
       (1) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or 
     employees relating to claims for water rights in or water of 
     the Taos Valley that the United States acting in its capacity 
     as trustee for the Pueblo asserted, or could have asserted, 
     in any proceeding, including but not limited to in New Mexico 
     v. Abeyta and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB 
     (U.S.6 D.N.M.) and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated);
       (2) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or 
     employees relating to damages, losses, or injuries to water, 
     water rights, land, or natural resources due to loss of water 
     or water rights (including but not limited to damages, losses 
     or injuries to hunting, fishing, gathering, or cultural 
     rights due to loss of water or water rights, claims relating 
     to interference with, diversion or taking of water or water 
     rights, or claims relating to failure to protect, acquire, 
     replace, or develop water, water rights or water 
     infrastructure) in the Rio Grande mainstream or its 
     tributaries or within the Taos Valley that first accrued at 
     any time up to and including the Enforcement Date;
       (3) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or 
     employees for an accounting of funds appropriated by the Act 
     of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1562), the Act of March 4, 1931 
     (46 Stat. 1552), the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1757), 
     the Act of August 9, 1937 (50 Stat. 564), and the Act of May 
     9, 1938 (52 Stat. 291), as authorized by the Pueblo Lands Act 
     of June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 636), and the Pueblo Lands Act of 
     May 31, 1933 (48 Stat. 108), and for breach of trust relating 
     to funds for water replacement appropriated by said Acts that 
     first accrued before the date of enactment of this Act;
       (4) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or 
     employees relating to the pending litigation of claims 
     relating to the Pueblo's water rights in New Mexico v. Abeyta 
     and New Mexico v. Arellano, Civil Nos. 7896-BB (U.S.6 D.N.M.) 
     and 7939-BB (U.S. D.N.M.) (consolidated); and
       (5) all claims against the United States, its agencies, or 
     employees relating to the negotiation, Execution or the 
     adoption of the Settlement Agreement, exhibits thereto, the 
     Final Decree, or this Act.
       (c) Reservation of Rights and Retention of Claims.--
     Notwithstanding the waivers and releases authorized in this 
     Act, the Pueblo on behalf of itself and its members and the 
     United States acting in its capacity as trustee for the 
     Pueblo retain--
       (1) all claims for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, 
     the Final Decree, including the Partial Final Decree, the San 
     Juan-Chama Project contract between the Pueblo and the United 
     States, or this Act;
       (2) all claims against persons other than the Parties to 
     the Settlement Agreement for damages, losses or injuries to 
     water rights or claims of interference with, diversion or 
     taking of water rights (including but not limited to claims 
     for injury to lands resulting from such damages, losses, 
     injuries, interference with, diversion, or taking of water 
     rights) within the Taos Valley arising out of activities 
     occurring outside the Taos Valley or the Taos Valley Stream 
     System;
       (3) all rights to use and protect water rights acquired 
     after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (4) all rights to use and protect water rights acquired 
     pursuant to State law, to the extent not inconsistent with 
     the Partial Final Decree and the Settlement Agreement 
     (including water rights for the land the Pueblo owns in 
     Questa, New Mexico);
       (5) all claims relating to activities affecting the quality 
     of water including but not limited to any claims the Pueblo 
     might have under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) (including but not limited to claims for damages to 
     natural resources), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300f et seq.), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the regulations implementing those 
     Acts;
       (6) all claims relating to damages, losses, or injuries to 
     land or natural resources not due to loss of water or water 
     rights (including but not limited to hunting, fishing, 
     gathering, or cultural rights); and
       (7) all rights, remedies, privileges, immunities, powers, 
     and claims not specifically waived and released pursuant to 
     this Act and the Settlement Agreement.
       (d) Effect of Section.--Nothing in the Settlement Agreement 
     or this Act--
       (1) affects the ability of the United States acting in its 
     sovereign capacity to take actions authorized by law, 
     including but not limited to any laws relating to health, 
     safety, or the environment, including but not limited to the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and the 
     regulations implementing such Acts;
       (2) affects the ability of the United States to take 
     actions acting in its capacity as trustee for any other 
     Indian tribe or allottee;
       (3) confers jurisdiction on any State court to--
       (A) interpret Federal law regarding health, safety, or the 
     environment or determine the duties of the United States or 
     other parties pursuant to such Federal law; or
       (B) conduct judicial review of Federal agency action; or
       (4) waives any claim of a member of the Pueblo in an 
     individual capacity that does not derive from a right of the 
     Pueblo.
       (e) Tolling of Claims.--
       (1) In general.--Each applicable period of limitation and 
     time-based equitable defense relating to a claim described in 
     this section shall be tolled for the period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and ending on the earlier of--
       (A) December 31, 2016; or
       (B) the Enforcement Date.
       (2) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection 
     revives any claim or tolls any period of limitation or time-
     based equitable defense that expired before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection precludes the 
     tolling of any period of limitations or any time-based 
     equitable defense under any other applicable law.

     SEC. 12. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--Upon and after 
     the Enforcement Date, if any Party to the Settlement 
     Agreement brings an action in any court of competent 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter relating only and 
     directly to the interpretation or enforcement of the 
     Settlement Agreement or this Act, and names the United States 
     or the Pueblo as a party, then the United States, the Pueblo, 
     or both may be added as a party to any such action, and any 
     claim by the United States or the Pueblo to sovereign 
     immunity from the action is waived, but only for the limited 
     and sole purpose of such interpretation or enforcement, and 
     no waiver of sovereign immunity is made for any action 
     against the United States or the Pueblo that seeks money 
     damages.
       (b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction Not Affected.--Nothing in 
     this Act shall be deemed as conferring, restricting, 
     enlarging, or determining the subject matter jurisdiction of 
     any court, including the jurisdiction of the court that 
     enters the Partial Final Decree adjudicating the Pueblo's 
     water rights.
       (c) Regulatory Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall be deemed to determine or limit any authority of the 
     State or the Pueblo to regulate or administer waters or water 
     rights now or in the future.

     SEC. 13. DISCLAIMER.

       Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or this Act shall be 
     construed in any way to quantify

[[Page 396]]

     or otherwise adversely affect the land and water rights, 
     claims, or entitlements to water of any other Indian tribe.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part 
A of House Report 111-399 if offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) or his designee, which shall be considered 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 3254.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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, potable water 
in their homes. We turn on the taps in our kitchens, and we take it for 
granted that water will flow forth. But that, unfortunately, is not the 
case in all places.
  There is 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, potable water, as well as to be served by 
sanitary wastewater 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 to our attention, sponsored by the gentleman from New 
Mexico, Ben Ray Lujan, would adjudicate the water rights of the Pueblo 
of Taos and end 40 years of active litigation by ratifying a settlement 
agreement.
  Forty years, my colleagues, 40 years of litigation: that is what the 
pending legislation would end. And I cannot commend enough Mr. Lujan 
and Mr. Heinrich, the other gentleman from New Mexico and member of our 
Committee on Natural Resources, for their efforts in this matter.
  Similarly, I commend the chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Water and 
Power, the gentlewoman 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 associations, the town of Taos, El Prado Water and 
Sanitation District, and the 12 Taos-area Mutual Domestic Water 
Consumer Associations. Collectively, the parties to the agreement 
represent the majority of water users in the Taos Valley.
  Let me emphasize that point. This settlement provides water certainty 
to both tribal and non-tribal 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 to the pueblo and 
non-pueblo parties.
  I would note that the Taos Pueblo has settled for a water right that 
is far less than what the claims asserted in litigation by the United 
States and the pueblo. This potential value is much more than the 
amount that is authorized to be appropriated in H.R. 3254, a clear 
financial benefit to all taxpayers.
  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 the parties which finally came together to settle 40 years 
of litigation, I remind you, believe that this is a good settlement. 
The gentleman from New Mexico who represents these people in this body 
believes it is a good deal. The gentlewoman from California, Grace 
Napolitano, who held hearings on this bill and worked with all the 
concerned parties, believes it is a good settlement. And the Committee 
on Natural Resources, which approved a pending measure, thought it was 
a good enough settlement to send to the full House.
  Let me be clear: Both the Departments of the Interior and Justice 
were involved in this settlement agreement. Rather than engage in 
protracted litigation, both Republican and Democrat administrations for 
over the last 20 years believe that negotiated Indian water rights 
settlements are the preferred course of action.
  In testimony before the Water and Power Subcommittee, the 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation stated: ``Settlements improve 
water management by providing certainty not just as to the 
quantification of a tribe's water rights but also as to the rights of 
all water users.''
  He added further: ``Indian water rights settlements are consistent 
with the Federal trust responsibility to Native Americans and with a 
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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  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 non-
tribal communities. In general, Indian water rights settlements are 
instruments to reduce litigation and bring 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. The 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, on whether these settlements 
represent a fair resolution to the taxpayer.
  As I mentioned during committee consideration of these bills, it is 
appropriate that these agreements are largely worked out by the people 
at the local level, but taxpayers 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 statement, these do have to be paid for by the American 
taxpayers. So we must be able to answer this question: Is this the best 
deal that can be reached and is it in the interest of the parties to 
the settlement, as well as to the taxpayers of this country?
  The three bills that the House will consider today total over $500 
million in potential Federal expenditure. Before Congress spends over 
one-half billion dollars, we certainly should know whether the 
taxpayers are getting fair treatment.

[[Page 397]]



                              {time}  1045

  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 a trillion dollars, 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 bills, 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 Republican of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. 
McClintock of California, has been working to elicit such answers. 
Months ago, in September and October of last year, he wrote to the 
Attorney General asking direct questions. No response was received 
until 2 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. They finally replied at the 11th hour 
with ambiguity and generalities, but not with a 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 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.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
lead sponsor of this bill, whom I referenced in my opening remarks, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. I rise today in support of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo 
Water Rights Settlement Act. Before I begin, I would like to thank 
Chairman Rahall and Chairwoman Napolitano for the stewardship of all 
three settlement bills we are considering on the House floor today, 
which are such an important part in meeting the water needs of the 
people in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, it's taken nearly 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'd 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 necessities, and the 
committee reports, these bills are about the basic human 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 a 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 Abeyta 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 
Abeyta settlement began. It has taken until today for these 
negotiations to reach a point where it could be possible to enact this 
settlement into law to resolve the water allocation between tribal and 
nontribal community members in the Taos area.
  This legislation will bring to a 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 
water users of the town of Taos and many other non-Indian water users, 
including existing individual domestic wells. 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 passing 
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 we 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 to prevent costly and expensive 
litigation from moving forward, to do what is 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As has been pointed out, this and the two bills that follow ratify 
out-of-court settlements that arise from decades-old litigation filed 
by various Indian tribes against the United States Government. They 
apportion water rights, among the three of them, to over 110,000 acre 
feet of water, and they draw more than half a billion dollars from the 
taxpayers of the United States, mainly for the development of those 
water resources.
  From the outset, I believe that the controlling issue in approving 
any of these claims is simply this: Is it cheaper to settle out of 
court or to go to trial? To answer that question, we must turn to the 
Attorney General.
  The Attorney General is presumably involved in these negotiations. He 
commands the legal expertise to judge the soundness or weakness of the 
government's case, and he is the official of our government directly 
responsible for representing the people of the United States in this 
litigation. Yet, when these bills were brought to us last fall, the 
Attorney General's office was completely silent on that question. In 
fact, the administration expressed many reservations about the 
technical aspects of these bills, which leads me to believe that these 
are not settlements negotiated by the Attorney General with the tribes 
and then presented to Congress, but rather they're settlements written 
by Congress itself, which Congress is neither designed nor is competent 
to do.
  Most importantly, we were absolutely unable to get a straight answer 
to the most important question at issue, and that is: Do these 
settlements exceed the likely liability of the government if these 
claims went to trial? If we were a corporate board of directors making 
a decision on an out-of-

[[Page 398]]

court settlement and we agreed to that settlement without consulting 
with our legal counsel, we'd be guilty of breaching our fiduciary 
responsibility to our stockholders. How can we do any less as the 
Congress of the United States?
  I'm new around here, but I spent 22 years in the California 
Legislature, many of them on the relevant committees that heard 
settlement bills. The central testimony in all of these settlements was 
from the attorney general's office as the State's legal counsel. They'd 
appear before us and they'd testify that in their professional legal 
judgment the settlements were justified under current law and that the 
State's liability and legal costs would likely exceed the settlement if 
the matter went to trial.
  I'm told that's the way it used to work around here. The Attorney 
General would negotiate the best possible settlement on behalf of the 
United States and then submit that settlement to Congress. Congress 
would then approve or reject it. Now it seems to be working in 
precisely the opposite manner. Congress now does the negotiating and 
then presents the bill to the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, that is 
not going to end well.
  I wrote to the Attorney General's office in September and again in 
October asking for their legal assessment of the cases involved. This 
is hardly unprecedented. For example, in 1994, the Department of 
Justice testified before Congress on a similar water settlement in the 
Colville case. There, Peter Steenland, a Clinton Justice Department 
official, testified, ``The Federal Government is not that well postured 
for a victory on this claim which has been pending for over 40 years. 
Absent the settlement, we could well litigate it for another 10 years 
and the outcome could easily be a significant cost to the taxpayers and 
the public.'' Well, if the Clinton administration could give Congress a 
straight answer on an Indian water settlement bill, then I felt there 
was no reason why the current one shouldn't also be straight with the 
Congress.
  There's a simple word for this. It's called ``transparency.'' We've 
been assured that's a guiding principle of this administration. We 
truly need some transparency in these cases if we're to do our job 
competently and to do justice to both sides in these claims, yet the 
administration remained completely untransparent on this issue. That's 
why I submitted a simple amendment to all three bills. The amendment 
would require that before the settlements take effect, the Department 
of Justice has to certify that settling out of court would be 
preferable to going to court.
  I'd like to thank the members of the Rules Committee who granted the 
rule allowing these amendments to be presented today. But as the 
gentleman from Washington has said, a funny thing happened after the 
Rules Committee voted that rule out on Tuesday night. Two hours after 
the Rules Committee, 7:45 in the evening, our office received a letter 
from the administration responding to my requests made way back in 
September and October of last year, and in it the Departments of 
Justice and Interior finally are prepared to state, although somewhat 
ambiguously and circuitously, that ``settlement would be preferable to 
litigation of these claims.''
  I certainly hope this is not going to be their pattern. We have many 
more Indian water settlements pending for substantial amounts of money, 
and the Congress should not have to wait for months to get a straight 
answer out of the administration for each settlement. The Congress 
should not be forced to choose a funding amount in the dark and without 
an informed legal opinion from our Attorney General at the outset. 
These matters should not have to wait until the eve of a congressional 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, since the administration has responded to the question 
raised by the amendments that I'm prepared to offer, I'm not going to 
introduce them to these bills today. But it is hard to square their 
assurances of this week with the Department of the Interior's letter to 
the subcommittee chairman of November 10 with respect to the White 
Mountain Apache settlement, that says: ``Given the benefits being 
obtained by the tribe under this settlement, the administration would 
consider the approximately $109 million of additional funding for a 
development fund authorized under this bill to be excessive if it were 
viewed as settlement consideration.''
  I'd also point to concerns raised by the administration--again, this 
is unique to the White Mountain Apache settlement upcoming in the same 
letter--objecting to language ``which waives the sovereign immunity of 
the United States.'' They warn, ``This provision will engender 
additional litigation--and likely in competing State and Federal 
forums--rather than resolving the water rights disputes underlying 
adjudication.''
  Obviously, this administration has a lot of work to do before future 
water settlements are considered. I believe Congress needs to demand 
that the administration be candid and forthcoming in all future water 
settlements and that Congress insist that before it begins deliberating 
on a settlement, that the Attorney General has conducted and completed 
the negotiations, has determined all of the details, has certified that 
the settlement is within the legal liability of the government, and 
only then submit that settlement for consideration and approval by the 
Congress.

                              {time}  1100

  We need to make this happen in committee, not the night before a bill 
is sent to the House floor. And I believe that a growing number of us 
will have a problem agreeing to the advancement of future water 
settlements without these reforms. Anything less is breaching the 
fiduciary responsibility that we hold to the people of the United 
States. And I want to dwell on that term for just a moment. Congress' 
fiduciary responsibility, that sounds laughable today, but to the 
Framers of our Constitution, the term ``Congress' fiduciary 
responsibility'' wasn't a punch line. It was a bedrock principle. It's 
high time we restored and respected that principle.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to now yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico, Martin Heinrich, another 
cosponsor of this legislation and a valued member of our Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act is 
critically important to the Taos Pueblo and all of northern New Mexico. 
I want to thank my colleague 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 during the committee process.
  This bill is the result of many, many long years of negotiation among 
the parties to find a fair and equitable resolution to this conflict. 
Like the other longstanding 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 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 has 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 their water resources while providing certainty to both Indian 
and non-Indian water users in the Taos Valley. This settlement also 
protects one of the pueblo's most sacred sites, 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 and 
acequia associations in the Taos Valley. But this settlement still 
needs

[[Page 399]]

ratification and approval by the United States Government, and that's 
what this bill will do. This settlement 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 
communities. Whether you live in downtown Albuquerque, on a ranch, or 
at a pueblo, every New Mexican depends on their community's right to 
clean, reliable water. This settlement is a historic step in ensuring 
that New Mexico communities have clear and reliable water rights to the 
water that they need.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend, 
the distinguished chairman, if he has any more speakers on this bill?
  Mr. RAHALL. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If that's the case then, Mr. Speaker, I 
know that Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So with 
that, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 it is 
better for those to be worked out at the local level, rather than 
resorting to expensive lawyer fees and years of fighting. And these 
bills have had a long time of years of fighting, we know that.
  Yet we, as Representatives, owe it to our constituents to make 
certain that settlements are not being made that overly compensate or 
benefit one community or locality while ultimately being paid out of 
the pockets of the taxpayers. Settlements must be fair to claimants, 
the effected 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 settlements are in the interest of taxpayers, 
they responded, unfortunately, at the very last minute with a short and 
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 Resources 
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 types of bills should not be advanced to the 
House floor, as these three bills were advanced to the House floor.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me conclude by noting that in a letter dated January 19 from the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, they noted, 
``Both rancor and uncertainty can have substantial economic 
consequences. The existence of unquantified water rights claims casts a 
shadow over all water users in a water basin, as no other water user in 
the basin can ever be certain when these rights may be used and how 
this will impact other users.'' The pending bill solves this problem. 
It provides badly needed certainty.
  And before finally concluding, I would note to my colleagues, and I 
did not really want to do this for fear of scaring off support from my 
side of the aisle, but I will note that a third of these bills have a 
cosponsorship 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 trepidation of scaring off support from my side 
of the aisle for the pending measure. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by 
asking all Members to support this measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________